In the late 60s and 70s I thought for sure we would’ve been on the moon and mars with human habitats set up by the 90s. What a long time to wait I’ll be lucky if I live long enough to see someone at least put their feet on Mars. We really dropped the ball on this one.

@richardloewen7177

Жыл бұрын

I watched the 1st moon landing as a 12 year old, having a newspaper-route-funded telescope in the backyard, and a constructed Saturn V model in the basement. Yup, same dreams. Same frustration.

@jerrystern10marissanikki62

Жыл бұрын

@@richardloewen7177 at least it looks like Eli musk is going in the right direction cross our fingers and see what happens.👍

@cooper1507

Жыл бұрын

Fun fact based on the NASA investment from Apollo they expected to get to mars by 1987. But the Vietnam war and other economic crisis made us stop investing. Probably one of the worst decisions we’ve ever made.

@jerrystern10marissanikki62

Жыл бұрын

@@cooper1507 I knew about some of that. I think you’re absolutely right. The only thing that’s probably going to help the astronauts of today is. We had a lot of experience in zero gravity . With bone loss and muscle loss Hopefully they’ll be able to do something about that. So our astronauts will not be practically cripple by the time they get there. I always said I’d like to go to Mars myself. Not that I could. But 3 year round-trip is a long time. And that’s not counting the time you stayed on the planet.

@charleskavoukjian3441

Жыл бұрын

You wont be waiting long, nasa drags its feet being a gov funded organization, SpaceX is the future of off planet travel. Im excited for 2024 when we go back to the moon. This time in 4k 😂😂. I can’t imagine the emotion going through you while watching the first ever moon landing. What a feat to be apart of

I love how they put in for all mankind

@pjmoseley243

Жыл бұрын

Very few people will be able to travel to space, people will have to be selected on a needs must basis, no free rides i'm afraid.

@maxantile8873

Жыл бұрын

@@pjmoseley243 for all mankind is a tv show they made a sea dragon rocket in the show

@maxantile8873

Жыл бұрын

The clip of the sea dragon in the video is from the tv show

@user-kl8uq1iz6n

5 күн бұрын

Putin lol

Curious what the sea dragon would have done to aquatic wild life. The sound shockwave would be even louder and more intense underwater. Probably make whales goes deaf

@mortimerschnerd3846

Жыл бұрын

What's next walkers for aging whales?!

@gerardanderson9665

Жыл бұрын

That's why we are Launching it on The Ocean because Water Reduces the Sound

@epikmanthe3rd

Жыл бұрын

​@@gerardanderson9665 Reduces sound in the atmosphere. Sound propagates much further in water, part of why sonar is so effective.

@silentblackhole

11 ай бұрын

@@mortimerschnerd3846 we're introducing the thing into the ocean and sound travels further underwater. Also we rely on the oceans to live. Asking questions like this is a smart thing to do. Don't just throw your hands up in the air and complain about hippies.

@silentblackhole

11 ай бұрын

@@gerardanderson9665 The sound travels further through water than air. Just because your head isn't submerged in water, doesn't mean we shouldn't investigate what that extreme vibration would do to the environment.

FYI people don't realize that current launches dump water into the rocket exhaust otherwise the launch pad would melt

@norlockv

Жыл бұрын

Not so much melt, more like shake itself to pieces.

@allangibson8494

Жыл бұрын

The water also damps acoustic energy as well as thermal energy…

@Frost_Gh0st

3 ай бұрын

The sound alone could render the launchpad unrepairable. That is for some large rockets not all though

@MrGeforcerFX

9 күн бұрын

It actually helps protect the rocket from it's sound waves as well as the concrete and steel of the pads as well.

Fascinating stuff. I had no idea that such a concept existed. Thanks for sharing this. Well done indeed.

@thomasjulian6976

Жыл бұрын

Watch for all Mankind!

@infernaldaedra

Жыл бұрын

Concept? It's based on ICBM launch tubes

@jcoghill2

Жыл бұрын

Most people don't. Truax was the original top gun maverick. His big mouth would get him in trouble a time or two in his life. Truax knew like Musk did that it would take a stupidly simple rocket to lift huge loads and that we had to lift huge loads if we were to ever get off this planet permanently.

Amazing Sea Dragon presentation. This concept should be reevaluated with modern technology and compared to state of the art...

@jessepollard7132

Жыл бұрын

still not usable too expensive. too easily damaged by the environment and the environmental damage too great.

@gerardanderson9665

Жыл бұрын

​@@jessepollard7132 What Environmental Damage though?

@matthewmartinez3774

Жыл бұрын

​@gerardanderson9665 seriously?

@jessepollard7132

Жыл бұрын

@@gerardanderson9665 sound pollution, and from fuel leaks.

@horse._

11 ай бұрын

@@gerardanderson9665uh… all the fucking sea life?

For All Mankind is a great show for helping us visualize what’s actually possible if we invested in ourselves instead of foreign wars and occupation. Imagine if we had the NASA from the show it would be a Renaissance for Americans. Instead, we’re left fighting over dwindling Insulin supplies and overpriced food and gas. Tell me we’re not in the dark timeline 😢

@CMVBrielman

Жыл бұрын

NASA got the funding it did because rockets are extremely useful for militaries.

@lucasharvey8990

Жыл бұрын

Imagine what the USA, Canada, Japan, South Korea, all of the European Union and Britain could achieve if our space agencies effectively united into a single agency.

@jhmcd2

Жыл бұрын

@@lucasharvey8990 They're trying, but they are all still chronically underfunded.

@jhmcd2

Жыл бұрын

We aren't. First, the only reason NASA existed was to test ballistic missile technology, and to show that tech off for the entire world. That's why the Fed tends to panic when China puts an object on the moon, it means that the navigation and guidance systems are good enough to seek out targets on Earth. Add to that, if the US hadn't gotten involved in some of those conflicts, things would actually be far worse. Like it or not, US intervention has actually kept many of our enemies at bay, and kept many countries from falling apart. Hard to believe, considering, but its true. Prior to the US intervening in WWII, there has been a major war in Europe every 20-40 years, going back 2,000 years. It didn't stop because the Soviets though that defeating the Nazi's was enough, it stopped because the US opted to stay in Europe and galvanize the European counties together to form a massive united front. Its the same reason why Putin doesn't march into Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, or Latvia. He's already stated that he wants to, the only thing stopping him is US weapons erasing his army in Ukraine. That being said...the US military could accomplish the same with a lot less. Their budget mainly goes to waist. If NASA had even a $100 billion budget, we would be on Mars. Also to note, Insulin is due to corporate greed. Food is due to gas, and gas is expensive because the US doesn't set the price, OPEC+ does.

@pauletxeberri9685

Жыл бұрын

I completely agree! Instead of investing in science and technology with NASA leading the way our military industrial complex prioritizes death and destruction. That revolving door between Washington DC and Wall St. needs to be closed for good.

i love how Astra's rocket 3 was the thumbnail

@atkihitotsukushididnothingwro

5 ай бұрын

i was looking for this comment 😂

For All Mankind bought me here.

What if solid rocket boosters (SRBs) were strapped to the sides of that Sea Dragon? I'm sure those SRBs themselves would be massive in size, but they could help this gigantic rocket just make it to that 50 mile threshold for first stage separation.

@jessepollard7132

Жыл бұрын

even more problems with seawater damaging the SRBs and the fuel they would contatin.

@limbeboy7

Жыл бұрын

or they could use the ram jet engine from the SR-71 to keep both tanks pressurized at high altitude.

@mileshsu2278

Ай бұрын

@limbeboy7 one problem. Oxygen.

Wow! thank you for the history lesson

I remember reading somewhere that the Sea Dragon would be able to construct the International Space Station in just two launches as opposed to the 30 something (I can’t remember the exact number leave me alone) launches with the Space Shuttle.

I just looked for that big thing up. Thanks for the vid.

What if the first stage was a solid propellant rocket?

@gerardanderson9665

Жыл бұрын

Environmental Damage.

@thesilentpearl8575

10 ай бұрын

Not environmental damage it alr is but because it will erode with the saltwater

That is definitely insane! 👍🚀

Love how you pictured Astra's rocket in the ocean🤣

The second stage could be reused in someway in space, like modify it to be taken apart and used as part of a station

The thing of it is, the potential for craft like this is that it is still something that may be built and used. Methods to mitigate some, if not all, of the damage that this Monster could unleash could be researched and implemented using modern techniques.The Starship 2.0 will be close, but still no where near this Beast.

@jessepollard7132

Жыл бұрын

but far far cheaper to operate. The other problem the sea dragaon has is the destruction of the ocean due to acoustic overload.

@randybentley2633

Жыл бұрын

I wonder if that could be mitigated by building an enclosure for the rocket to launch from. It could be built, reinforced to the Nth degree, in a Matryoshka style, with baffles ready to lessen the resonance when the Mother of all Bass waves hits it.

@jessepollard7132

Жыл бұрын

@@randybentley2633 it would end up requiring more construction than using a land based launch.

@IanValentine147

Жыл бұрын

​@@jessepollard7132 just build a big dedicated pond. Only has to be 200m deep.!

@jessepollard7132

Жыл бұрын

@@IanValentine147 still won't contain the sonic shock waves.

nice show. new subscriber. super epic, nice ksp renders

I love your videos!

That is one of the universe in the great show " For All Mankind "

loved this one

The unsolved problem with the Sea Dragon concept is combustion instability. On a much smaller scale this almost destroyed the Saturn V F-1 first stage engines. Rocket engines simply don’t scale up very well. Combustion processes occur at a fixed reaction time and a relatively low velocity - which limits the reaction chamber size in a chemical rocket. Too big and you get acoustic resonance.

@BuffMyRadius

7 ай бұрын

NASA NTRS report no. LRS 297 went into detail about possible combustion instability and they ruled the engine was at low risk because the pressure fed engine meant combustion was at much lower pressure than the F-1, the injectior area was a larger size relative to the combustion chamber, and the nozzles' throat had a different geometry because of the lower pressure, all of which reduced the risk of developing a resonance. I've also heard a theory that the engine would have been so large that any potential resonance would have been such a long wavelength they could simply let it happen, but I couldn't find anything to substansiate that claim.

@allangibson8494

7 ай бұрын

@@BuffMyRadius The fix for the F-1 was combustion chamber baffles to prevent longitudinal propagation of combustion oscillations and thus raise the frequency above structural resonance points.

@allangibson8494

7 ай бұрын

@@nathanielbugg7355 Pogo oscillation is the result where combustion instability leads to resonance in the reactant feed lines leading to the fuel and oxidiser bouncing in the worst case. Organic pipe resonance is a similar effect that occurs in gas fired equipment.

A multi ballute system would likely be the best recovery solution for the second stage.

On an presure fed rocket engine, if you put a bulk head half way down the tank with a 1 way valve ( Not allow fuel up) then when the fuel is below the bulkhead level you could switch to pressurising the second (lower part of the tank?.

I am thinking the new concept of make materials on the plant or moon would do away with mass to space. If we sent up autonomous lite equipment to build housing, bases, then the big stuff could be produced on site and not packed there. I like your previous video on the electrolysis system to create 3d printed building material on the moon

Wow

There was another big advantage to using sea dragon, because you launched from out to sea, you could keep spectators away and conduct your missions in secret, I wonder if the military thought of that.???

The intro is basically the premise of the show For all Mankind. Give it a watch it’s pretty cool

_"A space launch vehicle so powerful that the ground we stand on would not withstand it's force."_ Oh, that reminds me of something... Something called... *"STARSHIP ITF1!"*

A truly amazing concept. Should have done it. Use sound to clear the sea life.

@jessepollard7132

Жыл бұрын

That sound would also kill most of the sea life.

@jem5159

Жыл бұрын

@@jessepollard7132 I'm sure there would have been some type of way thought up to create a barrier for the most of them some kind of way. Besides we've killed and are killing them off anyway and recovering or receiving no knowledge no benefits.

@jem5159

Жыл бұрын

@@jessepollard7132 You've got to break a few eggs to make a omelette.

@jessepollard7132

Жыл бұрын

@@jem5159 true, but it isn't good to drop the entire dozen of eggs without getting anything but a mess.

@jem5159

Жыл бұрын

@@jessepollard7132 I don't believe it would have required the whole dozen. It wouldn't have taken the use of the entire ocean. Just the proposed lagoon spoke of. Moreover while we're worrying about the aquatic life with is necessary and our responsibility as caretakers of the planet. What about the human beings and the land habits that are destroyed every day of every year. It would have been a much smaller infraction than the one's back then and definitely now a days. There's also a strong possibility that we have created other opportunities and acquired other knowledge that would have helped to solve many of earths problems.

An inflatable drag sheet would be a good idea because it could slow the rocket down possibly to the point where it would save ware and tare on the heat shield of the craft.

Are you familiar with the Fritz Lang film Woman on The Moon in that film the rocket is launched from the water.

The second stage probably could have used the Vernier thrusters to deorbit and, if there's enough fuel left, slow down to a safe speed for parachutes or another large inflatable drag chute (or both, it _is_ quite large after all) to deploy in order to land softly, most likely in the ocean.

Space lovers , Like😎💯🔥✨

Actually, this could easily be built today. You could 3D print the entire structure, that would save tons of weight and complexity. And now, you could hybridize the pressure fed system, basically using the pressure tank to initially start the flow of fuel, then switch to a passive pump system similar to that used in aircraft and yes, the fuel pumps in aircraft engines are passive with an electric backup. The electric motors are used to star fuel flow, but then once the engines are sped up, that act of suction from the engines is enough to pull the fuel from the system. From that point, fuel flow is managed by valves. The electric pumps are turned on and off in critical phases of flight, but overall, no longer needed and are off for most of the flight. Also, recovery wouldn't be impossible for both the first and second states. The first stage would probably land about a hundred miles out. A special retro rocket system similar to dragon could fire a few hundred feet above the ocean, but a system similar to that of that inflatable drag shoot could be used initially, but you would need to be careful about that adding too much weight to the craft. The second stage's only problem would be were it would touch down. You may have to aim it for the Indian ocean, but as long as it could survive entry, then it could use similar techniques to slow itself down for touchdown. All in all, I say this is more than doable.

@typtypien4205

Жыл бұрын

How is a Turbofan or Turbojet supposed to suck fuel from a tank when the pressure in the Combustion Chamber is a dozen Bar at nearly all times? Aircraft engines do have fuel pumps. Driven over gearboxes get their power from the rotorshaft. There is no electric backup either. Pneumatic starters getting fed from a small auxiliary power unit to spin up to ~50% max RPM until there is enough pressure in the combustion chamber for stable combustion. All you wrote is just dumb. The engine is gonna need tons of fuel per second and moving that much mass so quickly needs a huge amount of energy. Look up Electrons electrical powerhead and the kWs needed from electric motors for their pumps.

@jhmcd2

Жыл бұрын

@Typ Typien You know what. People who call other people dumb show their lack of intelligence. The E175, B1900, Dash-8 and even the Cessna 172 all have electric booster pumps. But my zero minded fella, since I happen to have my old B1900 training manuel handy, let me give you a quote "In addition to serving as a backup unit in the event of an engine driven boost pump malfunction, the ELECTRIC STANDBY PUMP provides the additional pressure required for cross-transfer of fuel from one side of the aircraft to the other." So...how would you get one to work with the pressure of this rocket? YOU WOULD ENGINEER IT YOU MORON! So next time, watch your language and admit that other may know more than you.

CONTENT REQUEST: Can you dod a video about the dual stage 4 grid ion drive technology?

This is one of those ambitious cool ideas that would’ve never actually worked in reality

We're gonna need a really big boat dock.

The second stage could use parachutes to slow down and then a sort of air bag

Getting the upper stage back down might not have been as challenging as it seems. With most of the fuel used up and the payload detached, it would mass a fraction of what it did at launch. Orient it side-on to the incoming air, like SpaceX plans to do with Starship, and it would probably slow down pretty quickly - quite possibly even quickly enough that the heat pulse wouldn't melt it. Then you just have to figure out how to slow it down enough that it doesn't turn into a giant metal pancake when it hits the ground. I suspect gigantic parachutes would be involved.

ways to make this work. - section off a part of the ocean with 35 mile radius to reduce the impact on wildlife. - Use a Ram jet engine at high altitude to keep the tanks pressurized into orbit.

How dare you make me regret my current timeline immediately into the video XD

This is definitely a genius idea。

Main issue is combustion instability in this one humongous engine... But the idea itself is amazing. And there is no need to think about reusability. You can use the hull as a space station. Or as material for space industry. With 500 tons of cargo capacity you can bring materials and tools to rebuild the fuel tank into something else. Fly it unmanned and use the "ferrari" aka SpaceX for crew related stuff only.

AMAZING intro

4:46 KSP!!!!!

Sounds to ideal, something would likely not work or takes years to find a fix for

What about using plasma as propellant? It would narrow the size without jeopardizing the cargo.

When initially fueling the SpaceX Starship, both stages had thick coatings of frost. fueling the Sea Dragon will take much more time and with it being submerged, how are they planning on dealing with the tons of ice that will be clinging to the rocket?

@HNedel

Жыл бұрын

Could use double walled tanks, to better insulate from the water outside

@RichardHall3

Жыл бұрын

Wouldn’t it shake off like it does on most rockets? They all have ice that forms on the outside of the tank and the sheer force of the sound alone would shake it loose.

@dakraken9242

Жыл бұрын

I was thinking that it would be field on land like how the rest of it was all built on land

love it. Fill it with helium on the way down and it turns into a zeppelin. It can come down and not even touch ground, just hover. Someone needs to do the math on this. I've tried the math with Starship's specs but it's not voluminous enough. This one might work. I don't recommend hydrogen instead of helium but hot air like a hot air balloon would at least lighten the landing impact and give the thing more rigidity for strength so it doesn't collapse. There's plenty of heat from reentry. This thing would be good for getting tons of methane up to refuel Starship in orbit. Other than that, research Roton.

@iondrive3d

Жыл бұрын

Well I guess the thing uses Nitrogen to pressurize it's tanks so hot Nitrogen would count as it's version of hot air if that's the best route. ... checking... Molecular weight of N2 is 28. Molecular weight of H2O is 18 so fill it with steam? Helium would be best (molecular weight 4) but maybe setup a way to recover the He once the ship is down. OR deploy balloons instead of parachutes? That's too crazy, right?

In size by far, SpaceX Starship is the largest in the Prime timeline.

The second stage is mostly empty tank mass which is really light compared to the propellant load so it would be relatively "light" so it's reentry thermal protection needs are less as well. Truax simply planned to deploy another inflatable aerodynamic decelerator with possibly some solid propellant retro-rockets to cushion the final impact. In context it would have been as "rapidly reusable" as Starship is supposed to be with far less effort and funding (in relation) needed to make it happen. Starship suffers from being tasked with doing multiple things which Sea Dragon was very much not. You make the mistake of saying it could land people on Mars which is false it was only and specifically designed to get large payloads into orbit and those payloads were specifically and directly ONLY inanimate cargo. What most people miss in the videos made for the concept that little "bump" at the top is a full sized Apollo Command and Service Module with a full sized (actually would be larger and more brutal due to the Sea Dragon flight profile) launch escape tower with the only three "people" the vehicle could carry. The other downside was the needed payload requirements that were required for Sea Dragon to make any economical or operational sense and those were clearly shown to be very few and very far between even with a massive space program. It turns out that making a smaller vehicle that flies more often is both more cost effective and a better fit to an expanding transportation system than a few larger but less usable vehicles. Musk likely knows this but as Starship is not designed around an actual requirement but a self-imposed "need" for landing 100 metric tons on Mars it is very out of touch with the actual likely or foreseen payload requirements.

One of the great "What If's", right up there with earth launched Orion drive space craft with crews in the tens of thousands.

@vicroc4

11 ай бұрын

Even better, combine the two. Have a Sea Dragon loft an Orion spacecraft.

@jamesstepp1925

11 ай бұрын

Actually it would have to be the opposite. The Sea Dragon would have to be launched by the Orion spaceship. An Orion spacecraft would dwarf the Sea Dragon in size, weight and thrust. An Orion could use Sea Dragons the way a fighter jet uses anti aircraft missiles.

@vicroc4

11 ай бұрын

@jamesstepp1925 You must be thinking of a different Orion. I'm talking about the proposal that could be lofted by a Saturn V first stage. Put it on a Sea Dragon and you could make it a bit larger, yes, but not like you're talking about.

@jamesstepp1925

11 ай бұрын

Oh ok, I must just be really old and misinterpreting new and old projects with the same name. The Orion I was referring to launched from earth using nuclear explosions as propulsion. It could have a quarter million crew or more, the bigger you built it the more stable its flight would be. Old project from the 60's, before we had electrictronics that would be destroyed by EMP. Fascinating concept, and born out by proof of concept work. Largest potential spacecraft concept we have that could take off from the earth's surface.

@vicroc4

11 ай бұрын

@jamesstepp1925 Yeah, I'm thinking of a later iteration of the same design study. They realized that detonating a nuke on the ground would generally be a Bad Thing(tm) so they planned to loft a smaller version above the atmosphere using a Saturn S-IC stage. A Sea Dragon would allow it to be bigger and carry more payload.

I wished the sea dragon really did came true and flew

I am concerned for the local sea life. . . and any living thing within the range of those bad vibrations. . .

@vitekkozov3980

Жыл бұрын

Yes. Sound propagates way better underwater.

@andremaranhao1556

Жыл бұрын

I was just thinking the same thing.

@ScreamingEagle228

Жыл бұрын

WHO CARES. Like you hippies will rather us live like cavemen instead of making some dumb sea creature move

@fabescolmsinc1200

Жыл бұрын

Then concern no more! - they’d all be dead lol

@Dreamgeist

Жыл бұрын

They‘d need to launch it at a big dead ocean without any sealife

😮😮😮😮😮 this is thing would look small 😮

*"...Useful stuff to space..."* _-Elon Musk, the Tesla Roaster guy_

We should be building space ships IN SPACE by now.

it would be expensive, but you could line one side with inflatable ablative heat shield. whether it would be worth it would depend on the cost of the system vs the cost of building a whole new second stage. likely the most reasonable course would be to plan for it to never return to Earth, and instead use it as a source of materials for future projects.

The Sea Dragon is an excellent idea but I would worry about the effect it would have on the environment.

Aerospace engineer : hi sorry what about the corrosion from seawater....?

This looks like something Dr Evil would be using...

id make this just to put up space stations and ease the time to set up colonies

While I am concerned for the sea life, im not fully certain why the sea dragon HAD to launch from the sea, couldnt you use take an existing hole in the ground, fill it with water, and build it there? Like a quarry with no previously existing ecosystems? Plus you could launch from freshwater which would help against corrosion

@andrethib

Жыл бұрын

eardrum-shredding noise and huge shockwave for many miles around

@seanegli7118

Жыл бұрын

most of the ocean is empty, its not like we are gonna fire it over a coral reef

@undiecover3939

Жыл бұрын

@@seanegli7118 sound travels much further in water than on land, whales already make noises loud enough to cross the ocean. I think the necessary “dead radius” you need is probably more than is reasonable

@chaosenforcerdhm969

9 ай бұрын

@@undiecover3939incorrect sound travels the furthest though land and least though air

@chefmarcos

6 ай бұрын

Seawater provides more buoyancy than fresh.

It honestly makes more sense to launch something like that from the Moon rather than Earth.

Why didn’t they make rockets with the thrust at the top?

When I watch 'For All Mankind', i know watching a 'What If?' show, but to think we could've at least gotten to Mars by our current time.... We thought winning the Space Race was winning for good, but it should've been a jumping off point instead.

Sounds like an atmosphere killer to me

We must have "MASS QUANTITIES"! 😱😁😝🤪🤣👍👍🇺🇲

The third country to launch a satellite was France. It used a pressure-fed rocket to do so.

You would probably need an environment impact study before it was launched.

@AndrewP-fj8rn

Жыл бұрын

Ya think?

Oh ok, I must just be really old and misinterpreting new and old projects with the same name. The Orion I was referring to launched from earth using nuclear explosions as propulsion. It could have a quarter million crew or more, the bigger you built it the more stable its flight would be. Old project from the 60's, before we had electrictronics that would be destroyed by EMP. Fascinating concept, and born out by proof of concept work. Largest potential spacecraft concept we have that could take off from the earth's surface.

To my understanding seawater is extremely detrimental to making rockets reusable. With some companies going so far as to even attempt to prevent fairing sections from coming in to contact with the ocean, and those pieces are largely only structural and not mechanical.

@favorites673

Жыл бұрын

Thick coats of paint. Just like ships. With the pressure fed engines, there are no turbines or pumps to take damage. The valves are the weak point, but those can be protected against the corrosive seawater.

Seems like a better idea thsn blowing the pad to bits, Elon. Although I'd use freshwater, not saltwater for the corrosion problems.

That engine in sea dragon is simply too crazy to be done in real life as even the f-1 blew up multiple times and it’s not like they can make an engine plate that can stand THAT. Not to mention that the chambers would explode anyways considering the cooling methods back then were not as sophisticated. You said that it can literally destroy steel towers so how can the engines survive?

wouldn't it be possible to leave the rocket in orbit at a space station. and not send them down. could be used for making rockets in space or bigger space station. dismantling the rocket up there would give alot of resources?

4:47 and 3:34 its ksp

I think the diagram at 2:00 is a little exaggerated... not too much tho sea dragon is pretty epic.

Sea Dragon Was The Future Of Space And Spaceflight - It Could Have Been Used To build Space Stations And Even Pre Artemis Habitats On The Moon ! So Why Was It Deemed Useless Because There Was No Use For It At The Time ?

@gerardanderson9665

Жыл бұрын

Because The Space Race Ended and the Federal Government cut NASA's Funding

Fikcja fikcja nakręcona w studiu filmowym

Spooky

They can't even go to the moon or launch a shuttle but you can build a giant underwater rocket b.s !

No this was one launch. 550 ton of LEO cargo is a little more than the ISS.

When is Starship taking off?

Bro edited the Astra rocket 3 into the water lol

Sea Dragon was originally a British design.

Why can't we build one today?

This video is now out of date since Starship did launch and it beats the N1 as most powerful rocket ever launched.

Great video but this is the plot of Apple's TV show called "For All Humankind"

2:03 why are they looking at a v6 engine???

@Jhunter2007

Жыл бұрын

Just an animation

10:58 nice voicecrack bro

Are you taking about "For All Mankind"?

So make it now.

If not the open ocean, why not an enclosed bay?

hi

alternate timeline, that's FOR ALL MANKIND for ya.

The empty stage would be extremely lightweight and voluminous. This makes for a gentle re-entry.

@jessepollard7132

Жыл бұрын

it would also make it collapse either during reentry or impact in the ocean.

You need to wake up. Fantasy.

Incredible idea, but how much marine life would it kill during launch, and how badly would it's exhaust contaminate the ocean?

@gerardanderson9665

Жыл бұрын

The Propellant is RP-1 which is Less Toxic and Pollute Less than Other Rocket Propellants