Adrian Tymes wrote:
> <shrugs> The reasons to do it are as I listed. You'd engineer it
> around the failure modes (failure -> abort, not failure -> crash). But,
> if the problems this addresses can be solved by "short & squatty with a
> long spike nose", then that's probably a better solution. So long as
> the spike nose itself doesn't break off, creating the shock wave ahead
> of the main vehicle body like it does.
>
> ...though, come to think of it, would it make sense for said spike nose
> to contain some kind of deployable heat shield, for use during re-entry?
What spike? Why put a spike on something and worry about all this when
there's no demonstrated need. We're spending a lot of energy fixing a
problem that doesn't exist.
The problems we need to solve are things like how to get POGO flying,
how to get the cermet catalyst tested, how to build and test an
aerospike engine, etc.
Michael
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Wallis KF6SPF (408) 396-9037 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Michael Wallis:
"The difference between theory and practice is much greater in practice
than in theory."
_______________________________________________
ERPS-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
