*koff*In the 1990's there were lots of new rocket concepts including aero-spikes. The only concept that was not proposed then, but survives until now is Space-X's Falcon 9 that uses rocket landing for first stage.
If jet engine designers can create variable area nozzles for fighter planes, why not for rocket nozzles?
Adjustable leaves expanding or contracting to maximize efficiency of the exhaust plume.
Temperature and combustion products. Some of the combustion products are highly corrosive and would likely destroy the mechanism very quickly.If jet engine designers can create variable area nozzles for fighter planes, why not for rocket nozzles?
Adjustable leaves expanding or contracting to maximize efficiency of the exhaust plume.
I wish someone would build and fly an aerospike. Especially a linear aerospike. His analogy to rotary gasoline engines is good. There are specific applications where rotary engines are superior to piston engines. Maybe aerospikes have similar niches we’ll discover when more of our time is spent on things besides getting from ground to LEO.
I only meant that the vertical landing w/ fast reuse, while being a staple of old sci fi, was seriously investigated and successfully executed in the early 90's.Sure, McDonnell and DC-X were in the running, but it pooped out.
I only meant that the vertical landing w/ fast reuse, while being a staple of old sci fi, was seriously investigated and successfully executed in the early 90's.
We are still waiting for some kind of operational aero-spike.
Two questions: 1) how does one get the igniter in? 2) After the initial production run and testing, do you anticipate these nozzles making their way onto any certified motors?
I would think that heat transfer for such a long duration burn would pose unique problems for a an aero-spike nozzle (...)
That said, yes, rockets should not be the method of choice for lifting stuff from Earth's surface to space.
Personally I'm hoping that somebody out there is experimenting with, or at the very least trying to develop, the technology that will replace rockets altogether.
As much as they are fun to play around with, they are the technological equivalent of the
View attachment 483686
In fact, not even that.
Ah, indeed, there's the rub. I don't have a good answer. Things like space elevators and orbiting cables and others that have been discussed in gross concept all have major technical hurdles in front of them, some of which may well be impossible to overcome. And I don't know which. I maintain that there must be something better than burning tons and tons of fuel in a vehicle that is many time more likely to blow up* than contemporary ground, air, and sea vehicles can't be the best way to get to space in the long term. And, like boomtube-mk2, "I'm hoping that somebody out there is experimenting with, or at the very least trying to develop, the technology that will replace rockets altogether", even though I can't say what that will be.Then what method do you suggest?
I believe the reason that no one has colonized the galaxy is that there is no more reason to think FTL travel is possible than that anti-gravity it. Probably less.It makes me wonder if this is the real reason why some civilization hasn't already colinized the Galaxy; getting out of the home-world's gravity well is prohibitively costly in both energy and economic terms.
Tesla Model S is not technologically equivalent to the Model T,
Enter your email address to join: