|
Authored by: red floyd on Tuesday, January 15 2013 @ 04:19 PM EST |
Are you referring to the Aerospike or the F-1?
There's an F-1 on display outside the UT P&W Rocketdyne site in Canoga Park,
CA.
---
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a *CITIZEN* of the United
States of America.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 16 2013 @ 02:21 AM EST |
The basic design of the aerospike engine was don't in
the 60's - the original papers on the subject are
available in pdf if you wanting an interesting, if dry,
read.
The main reason, beyond issues with composite tanks
cracking, is traction. The engines on the shuttle are
a,refinement of those that went before and most of
the issues have been ironed out.
While the aerospike engine does boast impressive
specs the actual weight is similar to a normal bell
nozzle. Weight is saved by not having gimbals, etc. but
is fractional compared to the overall RSV.
I too would like to see aerospike move beyond
hobbyist and academia but can understand why, when
lives and millions of dollars are at stake; tried, tested
and refined win out every time.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|