On Fri, 2003-08-08 at 09:53, Ian Woollard wrote: > So just what is the advantage of aerospikes? So far as I can tell, > extensible nozzles have better thermals, are simpler to design,
I'm not so sure about simpler to design. There appear to be some fairly simple and elegant ways to do aerospikes that are not inherently more difficult to design and build than a traditional multiple engine, multiple bell design. > and can give as good or better ISP. But with more weight to carry. Nor am I so sure of the as good or better ISP, maybe for specific points of a flight, but not for an entire lifting trajectory. > So why are ERPS planning to test aerospikes? > What am I missing? Moving parts? You are talking about the idea of adding to the physical bell at some point during flight, right? The attraction of aeropikes is that you can design the nozzle such that you only provide a nozzle for a fraction of the expansion and depend on fluid dynamics to translate the remaining expansion to efficient thrust. This can (theoretically) mean a much better thrust to weight ratio. Dave -- David Masten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
