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, and can
> give as good or better ISP. So why are ERPS planning to test aerospikes?
> What am I missing? This isn't a leading question, not being a
> transfinite intellect, I'm always missing something.
Extensible nozzles extend the range that an engine is optimized for,
but they don't optimize for all altitudes. I'm not convinced they are
simpler to design and I'm reasonably sure they're not easily FOR US to
build. Remember, we're mostly self-taught aerospace engineers working
full-time in other fields. On a very low budget, it looks to us like
aerospike engines would provide the best altitude compensation and the
lowest price and with the simplest fabrication process.
Besides, no one has ever FLOWN an aerospike engine to verify any of
the simulated or computed results. That certainly can not be said for
extensible engines.
Michael
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Wallis KF6SPF (408) 396-9037 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"As for me, I labour always to prepare a way for those willing to
follow". - Samuel de Champlain, 1615
_______________________________________________
ERPS-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
