![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Via slashdot: A joint academic/industry team managed to launch a rocket powered by a liquid-fuelled annular aerospike rocket. It wasn't a total success, but the worst failure in-flight was nothing to do with the engine, and they got airborne - which appears to be more than anyone else has ever managed with an aerospike, despite development work and ground firings going all the way back to the 1960s.
More on the engine over here.
So why all the fuss? The efficiency of a traditional "bell" rocket nozzle is very dependent on the air pressure outside the rocket. As a result, when you fly a rocket from sea level all the way up to orbit (like the space shuttle main engines, for example) you have to make some major design compromises. The engine is either going to hit peak efficency at sea level, and be horrible in the upper atmosphere towards the end of the launch burn, or the other way around, or (more likely) somewhere in between.
An aerospike engine, in return for a small drop in peak efficiency, is theoretically much less vulnerable to changes in ambient air pressure. For example, compared to a bell rocket optimised to sea level, an aerospike should be MUCH better at high altitude.
Therefore, aerospike rockets are well worth looking at in any situation where a vehicle has to fly to orbit from low in the atmosphere - they were proposed for NASA's ill-fated X-33 technology demonstrator.
More on the engine over here.
So why all the fuss? The efficiency of a traditional "bell" rocket nozzle is very dependent on the air pressure outside the rocket. As a result, when you fly a rocket from sea level all the way up to orbit (like the space shuttle main engines, for example) you have to make some major design compromises. The engine is either going to hit peak efficency at sea level, and be horrible in the upper atmosphere towards the end of the launch burn, or the other way around, or (more likely) somewhere in between.
An aerospike engine, in return for a small drop in peak efficiency, is theoretically much less vulnerable to changes in ambient air pressure. For example, compared to a bell rocket optimised to sea level, an aerospike should be MUCH better at high altitude.
Therefore, aerospike rockets are well worth looking at in any situation where a vehicle has to fly to orbit from low in the atmosphere - they were proposed for NASA's ill-fated X-33 technology demonstrator.
no subject
X-33's linear aerospike was apparently doing quite well, but unfortunately seems to have been rather thrown out with the bathwater when the rest of the project fell apart.
MC
no subject
no subject