4 Responses to “If that Sea Dragon thing was so good, how come it hasn't been proposed recently?”

1. admin says:

   September 3 at 12:42 am

   On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 04:27:54 GMT, in a place far, far away, Clueless
   newbie <cluel…@newbie.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
   such a way as to indicate that:
   

   >I keep seeing nothing but good comments about it.  What is bad about it?

   There’s no obvious need for it.

   –
   simberg.interglobal.org  * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)  
   interglobal space lines  * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

   "Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets…"
   Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.  
   Here’s my email address for autospammers: postmas…@fbi.gov
2. admin says:

   September 3 at 12:42 am

   Rand Simberg wrote:
   > On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 04:27:54 GMT, in a place far, far away, Clueless
   > newbie <cluel…@newbie.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
   > such a way as to indicate that:

   >>I keep seeing nothing but good comments about it.  What is bad about it?

   > There’s no obvious need for it.

   That and it is too cheap.  Defense contractors made a boatload of money
   on the Shuttle.  "reuseable" and all that nonsense, despite a higher cost
   per launch.
3. admin says:

   September 3 at 12:42 am

   simberg.interglo…@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote in message <news:3fbd85e9.93841036@news.west.earthlink.net>…
   > On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 04:27:54 GMT, in a place far, far away, Clueless
   > newbie <cluel…@newbie.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
   > such a way as to indicate that:
   > >I keep seeing nothing but good comments about it.  What is bad about it?
   > There’s no obvious need for it.

   Let’s be a bit more specific:

   1) Sea Dragon is TOO BIG.  The initial design was for the million pounds
      to LEO market, which never materialized. If you try to scale it down
      to match current payloads, the cost per pound rises until it is about
      the same as a Proton launch.

   2) Some of the design features have not been proven to scale up.

   3) The reliability of the design is a complete unknown.

   4) Truax was unable to get either NASA or the US Air Force to get behind
      the low-cost BDB idea, probably because neither of these organizations
      actually benefit from lower costs.  Private investment was also very
      hard to get, because investors were concerned that the Big Players,
      (NASA, Russia, Europe, plus the US contractors) would squash the
      uppity newcomer, and US regulations could shut the project down at
      any time.

   5) The tendency to try to improve the 40 year old design with newer tech.
      Many people can’t help but try to make the design more efficient.
      That is completely the wrong idea.  Rather than boosting payload by
      lightening the structure or improving the ISP, BDB philosophy says
      just scale up the booster until it fits your payload.

   –Charlie
4. admin says:

   September 3 at 12:42 am

   Charlie <notarealu…@wireless.co.il> wrote:
   > simberg.interglo…@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote in message <news:3fbd85e9.93841036@news.west.earthlink.net>…
   >> On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 04:27:54 GMT, in a place far, far away, Clueless
   >> newbie <cluel…@newbie.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
   >> such a way as to indicate that:
   >> >I keep seeing nothing but good comments about it.  What is bad about it?
   >> There’s no obvious need for it.

   > Let’s be a bit more specific:
   <snip>
   > 2) Some of the design features have not been proven to scale up.

   Could you elaborate?
   Engines?