When will NASA decide to stop being pussies and start using

>>60246911
when ur mom stops masturbating with it

>>60246911
When Congress cares enough to donate an aircraft carrier and fund the development of the world's largest rocket engine that also somehow works perfectly after saltwater immersion.

When NASA lives next to it's own oil field

>>60246963
the sea dragon is way more simple to service than the engines NASA is currently using

>>60246999
>is

You mean "would be". It was never built, so you can't really compare. For SLS, they're currently using SSMEs, which were designed to be simple to service but ended up being a complete bitch to turnaround because they needed to run above design thrust every launch.

Of course SLS just dumps them in the ocean so it doesn't matter.

File: 1493371461835.jpg (25KB, 480x336px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 480x336px

>>60246932
Kek

>>60246998
its

File: perfection.jpg (95KB, 750x481px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 750x481px

>>60246911
It's very cool, Anon. But that's nothing.

File: 11118471_10205225719697041_6940660417225472612_n.jpg (32KB, 561x561px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 561x561px

Never, because NASA will continue being cuck slaves of shitbrained bureaucrats. At this point if you want a deluxe heavy lift rocket, your best bet is the SpaceX ILS.

>>60246998
Iirc these burn aluminium.

>>60248027
Sea Dragon was designed to burn hydrogen. It would be towed behind an aircraft carrier that would use its reactor power to make fuel via electrolysis.

All of which is kind of dumb because kerosene is super-cheap while nuclear carriers are incredibly expensive to operate. I'm not sure what else Sea Dragon gets you compared to just making a land-launched Big Fucking Rocket, aside from perhaps not needing to build new launchpads.

>>60248118
>I'm not sure what else Sea Dragon gets you

it's reusable, and can tow a fuck ton into orbit

>>60248141
Both of which can be true of a similar sized rocket fueled conventionally and launched from land.

Why sea launch? Why carrier refueling?
I suspect it seemed more appealing to dump the depleted rocket in the ocean back before the Shuttle program demonstrated how many compromises you have to make for reusability in that situation.

>>60248190
>Why sea launch?
Sea launching provides more stability than land launches at the moment of launch

>>60246911
Get raped and kill yourself, you retarded fucking faggot sack of nigger shit with down syndrome.

>>60248118
I see
Sounds kind of stupid to make large quantities of hydrogen trough electrolysis.
I work at a chemical plant where we produce it through a reforming process. Essentially cracking methane and water into hydrogen and co2.

>>60248230
>>Stability

You have never been in the ocean have you.