Well if this proved true with a SIC stage then as mentioned at least
recover the F-1's.
This all said, Sea Dragon was a pressure fed design so the propellant tanks
were a magnitude higher pressure so kind of apples and oranges.
We, as Truax Engineer circa 1980's, successfully conducted drop tests of
pressurized tanks at terminal velocity (190ft/sec) into the ocean,i.e.
Monterrey Bay, from a helicopter using Balloutes as drag devices. Also the
front portion of the tank approx. was a 60 degree included angle cone made
of 250 grade maraging steel, TS 243 KSI.
Perhaps a pump fed tank may fair better with a different geometry but this
is moot and only a thought exercise as SpaceX,and the rest of us, have
accepted the delta V penalty with propulsive recovery.
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 10:40 AM William Claybaugh <wclaybaugh2@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Ken:
SpaceX tried putting a pressurized tank liquid stage into the ocean and it
failed on every attempt (Falcon 1).
There’s always room for new engineering approach’s but they chose to move
on to powered landing.
Just sayin’....
Bill
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 11:21 AM roxanna Mason <rocketmaster.ken@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
The Shuttle was an abomination any way it's diced and/or sliced. At $1B
per mission, +/- a quarter $B, reuse of any part or component was pretty
much moot. Would be been better to keep flying the Saturn 5 at $1/4B per
vehicle. I saw an artist conception of the SIC stage parachuting into the
ocean in a McNally Encyclopedia of Space in my local(Auburn) Library in the
early 70's. Chutes were stowed in the 4 aft fairings where the BSM are
housed. and keep the tanks pressurized for impact resilience as per Sea
Dragon study. At least get the F-1's back. And NO, not 20/20 hind sight,
it's politics superseding engineering edict.
Trillions wasted (plus 14 lives) over 30 years that could of been used to
robotically explore the solar system and colonize the moon etc.
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
<#m_-57863744213770530_m_172500737990954771_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 9:28 AM Henry Spencer <hspencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Mon, 23 Mar 2020, Uwe Klein wrote:
lookWonderful demonstration of engine-out fault tolerance, but it does
like the rocket is showing some wear and tear after 5 flights...
Is the same set of refurbished hardware flown repeatedly
or
is it a flow of various parts refurbished, stored and then
assembled into a "reused" booster?
It's hard to be sure from the outside.
That said, the latter approach is unlikely to produce significant cost
savings -- certainly it didn't for the shuttle SRBs. NASA had an
ulterior
motive for touting "reuse" of the SRBs even if it didn't save money, but
no such motive is evident for SpaceX. Odds are that it's pretty much
the
same set of hardware flying repeatedly.
Henry