XRS-2200 Linear Aerospike Engine Test fire at NASA Stennis Space Center (SSC)
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 10. 2012
- This engine was designed to be modular so if necessary, it could be stacked end to end. It was originally designed to power the long since cancelled X-33 Venture Star.
I knew I had seen a video of this before but I couldn't find it anywhere. By pure chance I found it through a dead hotlink to a Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) news release. I believe this is 80% of max thrust. - Věda a technologie
Aerospike was less about weight savings and more about having a more efficient engine over the entire flight span. With a bell you have to tune the size and shape of the bell to provide maximum thrust at a certain altitude. With an aerospike the "bell" is actually formed by a combination of the spike and a gas jet with external air pressure which allows it to change shape to suit the atmosphere on ascent. Disclaimer: I'm not a rocket surgeon.
Weight and heat
Which means you need less fuel to move the same payload into orbit, or the same fuel for a heavier payload
With some clever cowling inlets above and below fuselage of the aircraft. Compressing and directing the air on to the the top of the plane of the aerospike bell nozzle. Then the combustors inject mix fuel into the airstream. Using the aerospike nozzle as a scram jet engine once the rocket plane is traveling fast enough for the scramjet to work. I think they need to be combined to get the versatility that its going to need, I think
Bernoulli would be impressed
Jason Brady scram jets are very different beasts entirely... this is a rocket motor not a jet engine...
finally something that looks sci-fi
I'd rather have performance over looks.
while it actually belongs to the past
@@alloneword7427 function over fashion
So what does the space shuttle look like then....natural?
@@kadeweber7001 lol rs25 will always be my personal favorite
Despite its flaws, I crave to see a new aerospike engine in development!
Well you're in luck at last- Look up the Pangea Aerospace aerospike engine!
also check out rotation detonation engine, which will be using aerospike engine design
Just recently
POLARIS Awarded Bundeswehr Contract for Linear Aerospike Rocket Engine Design
Bundeswehr = german army
When I die, I want to be cremated by the XRS-2200 Linear Aerospike Engine! Awesome!
DAMN!! you beat me to it.
You don't ask for much do you.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha
@indrid Man you still can find people who acknoledge you the way you are maybe its time to change your surroundings.
It might be hard to recover your ashes though
Here before Everyday Astronaut's video, which will probably come out sometime in 2022.
he is faster than you thought...
czcams.com/video/D4SaofKCYwo/video.html
Well this comment didn't age well
He right after watching it
@Movegas1 why
Actual footage of a PS4 cooling while playing a game...
hahahahahaha
I was obsessed with VentureStar and the Linear Areospike engin when I was graduating high school and going into college in 99-2000
I was in my early 30's and my commute took me right past Lockheed Missiles & Space. I was following the X-33 faithfully when it was cancelled. Seemed like we couldn't get anything built after the Shuttle fleet was completed. X-33, X-34, X-38, etc., all stillborn.
The syfy film Interstellar have a hybrid plasma areospike engine on the ranger 1 on the planet Miller 😅
im surprised the damm building didn't take off
+TheDct88 It's called CONCRETE AND STEEL. The weight of the Engine Test Structure easily weighs more than the total thrust output of the engine being tested.
Often a concrete slab building is just sitting on top of the ground. There isn't any kind of tie downs or "attachment" to the ground except in the rare case you might have some pilons penetrating the ground. The slab as a base is literally just a big flat brick resting on the ground. So yes, it is the weight of the building that keeps it in place.
Aaron Shumaker
Of course it's anchored into the ground, not just some "big slab of concrete sitting on the ground"
Jeeze, some people.
It's made of adamantium
I think he was joking boys
Ok guys, hurry up fixing my engine and put it back on the Millennium Falcon. We need to get out of here before the Imperial fleet arrives.
Are u done?
6 years later, i think not
Trust us, we fixed it.
Well, i wasn't able to fix it...
Ach!, ye canna change the laws of physics captain; it’ll take me four hours at least...
I’ll give you two, Scottie, and I know it’ll be done in one.
I remember watching this at work online back in the late 90's when we were all hoping that the X33/Venturestar would eventually replace the shuttle. Showed a bunch of colleagues the design and one of the websites that was around at the time, stunned by the fact none of them had heard of it. Lockheed Martin got paid so much to develop it and just dropped it when the funding was eventually pulled, rather than continuing to develop it themselves, which is sad considering the massive progress they made. I wonder if the design could ever be resurrected?
@Steve Acho bad idea
@Steve Acho SLS is very expensive. However it can carry a lot to leo to
@@sebastianh8829 so can star ship for a 1000th the cost
@@rileymannion5301 czcams.com/video/c37QfxHzC18/video.html
Starship has already surpassed it
"5, 4, 3, ignition, 1, - and liftoff! of the Nasa engine test facility - wait what?!"
You stole my comment.
Burnt Toast commented on a video on CZcams.
Shared publicly - 28 Apr 2016
"Ignition and lift OOFFFFF of the NASA test platform! Paving a way..... wait what!?! SHHHIIITTTT!!"
Burnt Toast ye I did, sry :P Just wanted sum likes :3
Karolcreepers Original comments get likes bud. ;)
Burnt Toast tru!
I want this one in KSP instead of the round one
hopefully its being added
Nicholas Boehning *Linear Aerospike
I wanna build a venturestar in ksp so I’ll install that mod
Near future propulsion has your back
Get the mk33 mod
Always amazed at how smooth these engines run.
Seeing X-33 project cancelled is probably the saddest moment of some engineers' life.
Love that at the end "WOOOOOOHOO!"
Lovely noise
WHAT? I CAN'T HEAR YOU! THERE IS A LOVELY NOISE HAPPENING!
7 years later... agreed
Guga: "I know this steak doesn't look that good right now, but watch this!"
Thank you for rediscovering and sharing this. people couldn't understand what I was talking about and this was a rare find.
I love the look and the colors of this thing. I so wish to see it in operation.
Weber Grill test facility
JOHNNY ROD KNOCK lmao
JOHNNY ROD KNOCK hahaaaaahahaaa
Anyone hear the "wooo hoo!' at the end?
This wasn't exactly new technology when they did this. Aerospike engines, including those using linear aerospikes, were first developed at Rocketdyne back in the 1960s.
Thiis looks like roketdyne's segmented aerospike to me.
I was there for this test, worked for Lockheed Martin at the time and worked very closely with the engine guys at Rocketdyne. The engines were the most innovative part of the X-33, and I wanted to see these fly more than anything.
Someone above gave a brilliant explanation of the aerospike concept and its advantages at altitude. The only thing I’ll add is that when the vehicle is out of the atmosphere, the plume expansion on the central ramp provides extra thrust in a manner similar to grabbing a watermelon seed with your fingers. Imagine grabbing the end of the seed with your fingertips; it squirts out forward, due only to the normal (perpendicular) forces applied by your fingertips. And as the X-33 left the atmosphere, the plume expands outwards and there is a greater normal force on the ramps. Squirt! 😅 More thrust for the vehicle.
OK, my apologies, that is the first time I’ve been embarrassed while explaining how those things work, but hopefully everyone gets the idea. I really miss working on this, and I think if we had tried not to build the hydrogen tanks out of composite material but aluminum lithium alloy, we would be flying Venturestar today.
Cheers from New Orleans! 🥃
Thank you for posting this. I know you probably get comments all the time, but this is the stuff dreams are made of. Thanks to your sleuthing efforts we all get to see this.
I literally cannot believe the x-33 was cancelled...
Sadly, vertical launched SSTO's aren't really good, as with a two stage rocket you can get more payload to space with a much lower cost.
However, it is yet to be seen if Horizontally launched SSTO's could work, once they can use the power o f more efficient Jet engines
YES. This concept should not be lost. The main reason I became so interested in the X33.
I'm not sure why, but I love the initial startup best. It's so powerful you hear an instant plasma tearing roar. But it is thoroughly planned and engineered such that the intense heat was adequately displaced and instead of engine parts glowing red hot the huge chassis it was mounted in appeared to glow.
Looking at some of the comments in this thread it's no wonder the world is the way it is with hate, violence and war. Guys, it's a video about a rocket engine. I suggest a cold shower or maybe log off the Internet for a while if you can't keep from insulting people on CZcams. It doesn't make things better you know...
+langhammars you need a rockjet up ur arse lol
Oh yeah, all the comments about how this helps global warming is great. Like, this is an American liquid fueled rocket, which therefore means it's probably combining oxygen and hydrogen. It's a freaking steam generator for crying out loud.
langhammars = Yeah, you are correct. Its sad isn't it ?
its highly possible many just aren't getting 'their end away'.
langhammars
what do think is the real reason behind rockets mr ???
if not war or little dick mental syndrome
it certainly is not to take the slaves for a joy ride around the absurd concept-reality of "space"
>This video is property of NASA so if they request it to be removed I will do so.
No, because it's a production of the US government, it's in the public domain.
The Venture Star was a Skunk Works project and I would NOT be surprised if it actually went black and is actually in operation somewhere...
Perhaps used on the rumored "Aurora", or similar hypersonic aircraft ...
1987greenman You state that in the future tense, but Aurora was rumored to have been flying over ten years ago, leaving characteristic "donuts on a rope" contrails and producing sonic booms over southern California as it came in over the coast from the Pacific Ocean. The alleged Aurora craft has also been postulated to have been the reason why the SR-71 fleet was retired.
*****
Those contrails are a result of crow instabilities, not PDE engines...
Sarge Rho Possibly so, but crow instabilities generally don't look like the contrails that were described, except for relatively brief transients lasting a minute or two.
*****
and crow would be what?
That’s an impressive piece of hardware.
That was long overdue, I have trouble understanding what took then so long. Such an engine is key for SSTO spaceflight.
If it wasnt for the tons of problems that come with them
@@CardZed Would you mind listing them?
I think the main problem of an Aerospike is cooling, with a bell nozzle you have less area to cool, but the Aerospike insides are tight and needs lots of cooling
80% thrust , that looks cool!
Take her to Max thrust Scotty !👍🇺🇸
I cannae do'it Cap'in, we dinnae have enoof dilithium crystals!
Ah, the aerospike, making my wildest dreams in KSP come true.
It always was true.
This is just the cooler -Daniel- aerospike.
A verry inpressive piece of hardware, thanks for posting
That flame output is absolutely gorgeous. Those greens? We really are living in the future. Now we just need strange curved space ship with these things mounted on them
It cranks out at sea level 204,402 Lbf. And they even tried to squeeze one into a blackbird SR71 but apparently the progect was scraped in about 1999. It was designed to power nasa's Venturestar but that was scrapped too. Atleast this is what they tell the public.
It flew on an sr71 to do cold flow testing. That research in the late 90s combined with Rocketdyne research for the Apollo program led to this engine design. They had the option to fire it but never did. Look up LASRE project. Probably the last flights of any SR-71a and b other than for donation or storage.
Thanks for the info. Do you have a background with this type of tech?? Do you think that the B2 bomber had any antigrav capabilities? My research is leaning in that direction.
Raoul Duke The B2 doesn't need any kind of anti-grav tech. It's a wing with 4 engines and a bomb bay.
Raoul Duke the B2 bomber flies like an airplane and its aerodynamic shape allowed it to 1) be stealth and 2) fly better.... it was abl to fly faster as well because it released gas along the wings where high voltage and other things to ionize the air as it reaches the wings that way there is less friction and less drag on the aircraft so it can move through the air with barely any particles bombarding the wings
Sweet. Thanks for the info hassan:)
get the hot dogs!
heck naw 1000 x sec.
or some Marshmellows
heck naw ....and the marshmallows!
marshallows? nah , it would melt.
steaks are better.
It's a hydro-lox, that's gonna be one soggy, burned hotdog!
Very impressive piece of machinery.
GEZZZZZ Beautiful! Job well done mates. Please take a bow engineers. I would love to see this live, sorry, what I mean to say is I would love to experience this. Thank you.
It's such a shame this never got to fly. It's such a brilliant engine for an SSTO reusable craft.
I remember seeing pictures of this test run in a science book when I was young, it said that this type of rocket engine would revolutionize space travel....
It will be. It is like the scram jets: Right now materials are a problem, because it is very difficult to cool the engine while operating. It is 35% more efficient on high altitudes then normal rocket engines with a bell. Its also lighter, its less likely to explode when something goes wrong, also you dont need (complicated) mechanical gimbals.
Theory is good and a few companies and unversities are working on it.
@@Gentleman...Driver I hope it gets perfected, weight and cooling are the real problem. This thing is so cool
@@itstimetomakelol6650 Yeh, thing is all the larger spacecraft which were intended to get the aerospike engine were cancelled. And commercial space companies dont care too much, because its an unproven technology and they would spend probably too much money for developing this. NASA will not build anything like this in the next decades, because they are focussing on lunar spacegate and landings.
That is so amazing man!
the flame color looks amazing
Anybody got some sticks and marshmallows?
Sir.Budman fasted roasted marshmallow in the world
Some LONG sticks.
It looks to me like a very novel concept. Does anyone know what the pros and cons were of this type of nozzle design?
It has a higher fuel efficiency than most rocket engines, but weighs more and has slightly less thrust. Since you'd have to use staged rockets anyway, to get a meaningful amount of cargo into orbit, conventional rocket nozzles are just as useful currently, and therefore aerospike development hasn't been prioritized.
This is a very interesting topic. Can you tell me how you know about this or give me some sources so that I can research it myself ? Thank you.
Maxwell Goodacre I've been playing the game Kerbal Space Program for some time and have been active in thaht community. That teaches you a lot about space and space exploration. You can also look at the wikipedia article about aerospike engines. The only "easy" way that I know of that can teach you stuff about space is actually KSP. I'm only 16 years old (I've always been quite nerdy), but that game made it easy-ish to understand orbital mechanics, the Rocket Equation, and with the help of the community, concepts like Delta-V, why rockets are staged, and different types of engines including NTRs and ion engines.
If they are better at higher elevations and speeds, a second or third stage would make a great fit, but I do see the eight being a drawback. Do you know an equivalent comparison between the linear and non-linear engine performance to weight ratios by chance?
Okay. Thanks anyway.
1/2 million lbs of thrust baby! So awesome! The only concern I have is if you watch the Gimbal test of this engine you can see eddy currents and burbles on the down angle side of the engine. Don’t know if this has been addressed but it could be Loss of thrust or efficiency.
what part of NASA goes to space or moon? and what part is special effect video ?
good damn. That would look so cool in my living room.
" aw shit, nothing can heat up this potato "
Pretty cool!! Thanks for sharing!!
Awesome find and vid!
You probably forgot about this video and comment. Or your dead. Could be either...
I think I heard one advantage was better thrust at a ranger of atmosphere pressures
Yes, that's the main reason for developing the linear aerospike. A single stage to orbit cargo vehicle carrying all of it's oxidizer needs maximum efficiency engines to even be reasonably feasible. Even then the X-33 structure had to be super lightweight. They ran into big problems with micro-fracturing trying to make cryogenic tanks out of carbon composites. Not entirely what killed the project, but a contributing factor.
That Skylon space plane under development by a British corp will pull oxygen from the atmosphere for a large portion of it's ascent so the engines don't have to be at near unattainable efficiencies through all altitudes.
Given that the exhaust velocity makes a lot a difference with how much fuel is required to lift a given mass to orbit, and modern combustion rocket engines are already near their maximum efficiency in that area, sometimes I ponder what the potential is of utilizing the basic principle behind ion thruster tech in order to 'turbocharge' the exhaust velocity of a chemical combustion rocket. It would require a substantial power source to be worth it. I'm thinking more along the lines of some kind of 'super capacitor' that would hold some hundreds of megawatts of electrical charge that steadily discharges it all in the few minutes it takes to ascend to orbit. Any form of nuclear power source would probably be too heavy and dangerous to add any benefit. If the magnetic field is itself part of the engine bell or aerospike, one would think it should also help keep the exhaust far enough away from the surface of it to mitigate those cooling issues. If this were eventually possible, then the space planes could be made SR-71 sleek instead of looking like a triangular air blimp such as the X-33. lol
Would have been neat to see NASA stick with it, maybe even develope a SSTO space plane from this research. I want my sci-fi space plane.
Went to the direction of private space companies and conventional rockets instead.
Thanks for posting!
A beautiful (and hot) example of laminar flow...
gotta get one of these for my car! lol
Dare you to walk through that curtain of flame!
After all, whats the worst that could happen?
Haha... Ummm maybe instant incineration?
clmco36 You suffer a lot.
Come out looking like obama
Corhen "Burnt Ends" would fly out the exhaust.
This is Excalibur mixed with the tide pod challenge. Only the chosen will survive, until they die from the aftermath. #LivestreamIRL
A long time ago I read an article that was published in the late 1950's or early 1960's that Rolls Royce was looking at an advanced aircraft that would fly literally on the edge of space using a technique called "Edge Burning". The aft end of the proposed aircraft looked akin to the Aerospike rocket engine. I think the article was published in a long defunct magazine published by Shell Oil.
Igualmente sabia que habia visto un corto video del que muestras , y boala. GRACIAS
KSP 2 looks good
*_Stennis_* Space Center
Can't believe it took so long for someone to say something. Oops LOL.
You're awesome. Thanks for fixing!
What did it say before
Evan Finch I
the center of it looked to have less fuel/power , im an idiot but could you make the center slightly narrower than the sides? or wider now thinking about it?
CZcams: Wanna see a video from 8 years ago about an engine that would’ve powered the X-33?
Me: Sure.
That‘s my personal beefer - makes a perfect steak in 0.0034 secs
If a perfect steak is charred on the outside and raw on the inside then yes
Job Ngumeta 😂👍
Paul Paulsen actually it would be more likely that the steak would instantly be disintegrated lol
NASA: Let Space X do their thing. We have other goals in mind.
Yeah except this was cancelled a very long time ago. IIRC Venture Star was even cancelled _before_ SpaceX started.
@@TheNefastor maybe it's not a rocket used for exiting the atmosphere.
@@kwayneg7 the only rockets that don't exist the atmosphere are missiles and JATO rockets, none of which are in the purview of NASA.
Man, it just looks so much more....fluid. Less turbulence, less friction.
I would like them to start developing this project again.
how do i strap that to my mustang?
i guess mustang would need a rocket engine to be fast
lol
***** true story
The best thing you could do with a Mustang is park it underneath this thing.
Well Mustangs are probably better than the shit boxes you guys are driving so I wouldn't talk shit haters
I helped pay for it....when do I get mine?
Never. The engine was developed as part of the X-33 program that has been cancelled in 2001.
Spike engine is linear?
I live in gulfport Mississippi and these bad boys shake houses for 20 miles around... We love it!!
Morning after late night trip to Taco Bell.
It is a real shame that N.A.S.A. has been unable so far to find a vehicle to exploit this technology.
+mrzoperxplex Lockheed Martin kinda found one
If you were to fly a plane with this, the g-forces would eventually kill you. Drones are unreliable at times. Too many risks.
RandomSpaceManInSpace You can still build smaller engines or throttle the big ones
+ RandomSpaceManInSpace No sweat, I'll just duck tape my helmet to the neck support on my captains chair. That'll fix it.
Why did you say that? this engine was going to be used by the cancelled VentureStar, a replacement of the Space Shuttle.
Cool will it come with the right mounts to put on a Mitsubishi? Mine needs a little more pep
The aerospike engine is a type of rocket engine that maintains its aerodynamic efficiency across a wide range of altitudes. It is a member of the class of altitude compensating nozzle engines. A vehicle with an aerospike engine uses 25-30% less fuel at low altitudes, where most missions have the greatest need for thrust. Aerospike engines have been studied for a number of years and are the baseline engines for many single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) designs and were also a strong contender for the Space Shuttle Main Engine.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerospike_engine
*and as the engine belched it's flames, Gordon watched as the tentacles wreath in pain and are incinerated with little left but stumps at the base of the monster*
hyperj20 yasssss
HL 3 confirmed
Writhe. . . I like it and would read more if you had it.
Captain Ballistic ..Flash..?
Let's unscrap it and strap it...to my couch😊💣
and strap a whole bunch of fireworks and take off on the 4th of july!
Holy freaking cow! THAT'S DEFINITELY NEXT LEVEL STUFF!!! 👍🏻🇺🇲
We've got a test facility close by. You can feel the power from 10 miles away
time to do away with combustion-power and break out the new technologies.
+likmahchoda Combustion power is the best right now because it's the only propulsion technology we have that's capable of delivering enough power to lift the engine's own weight against gravity, not even considering the fact that it also has to lift the entire payload, fuel, and structure mass as well. The runner up, nuclear thermal rocket technology, is twice as efficient but very heavy and much lower thrust, to the point that a NTR could not lift off even if it was carrying no structure payload or fuel above it. Ion engines are even worse, they get their power from electricity generators, usually solar panels, and produce millinewtons of thrust, or about the amount of push you feel from a piece of paper on your hand. They are many times more efficient per kilogram of fuel than either chemical or NTR engines, however, so they are very useful in space.
Until we discover miracle physics that lets us power fusion engines with thrust to weight ratios of >100 and are entirely self sufficient in terms of power supply, it's best that we stick to chemical propulsion at least for orbital launches, and focus more on recovery and reusability of chemical rockets to bring down the cost of space travel.
+Rothpol X I've witnessed numerous electro-gravitic craft, which produced no heat signature or smoke, aloft and completely stationary in a horseshoe orientation over the Atlantic back in 1993. These craft did not give the impression of alien vehicles, they appeared man-made. Whatever these craft are using for propulsion must be exotic, but, considering how they were just grouped together for what seemed like a 'sky-meeting', I can't imagine their fuel being too expensive... sure looked to be a lot safer than ^ this age-old method.
likmahchoda I doubt it.
Rothpol X
I really don't give a fuck about what you doubt you silly little piece of shit. Now run along and learn more about archaic internal combustion engines.
Sounds like you do give a fuck :^)
Highly arousing for some reason.
They look super effective
What if and this is just a thought not knowing how the building is designed. But what if the platform beneath melted? Testing site lift off?
"This video is property of NASA ..."
Not to put too fine a point on it, his video is property of the People of the United States. We paid for it.
the last time i checked the usa is still not a socialist state
spinnenente That's right. In socialist states everything belongs to the government, even the people.
Corperation own the country, there is no "people of the united states".
Well I saved the video and will seed it
as a government agency, it's not allowed to own copyrights or patents, so... they -can't- complain, and if someone does, you can easily challenge them.
1:34 for the explosion.
You're welcome...
The area where they were trying (and needed) to get the big weight savings was in development of a non-metallic fuel tank system. They kept running into cracking/bursting problems when the tanks were charged with the liquified gas fuel components. The project ran too far over costs with no solutions on the near horizon so the X-33 program was scrapped.
Such a distinct roar.
Clearly not the most efficient engine but hey I love fireworks. When are we going to start building propulsion systems that don't rely on having unlimited fuel? Seems obvious a multi rotor aircraft could do the lifting to the upper atmosphere and then engage rocket engines to boost it the rest of the way out... Am I the only one who see's this?
Nope, it exists. It's just not very good. You see, getting into orbit isn't a "getting out of the atmosphere" problem, it's a "getting out of the atmosphere, then getting up to 8 km/s speed sideways" problem. The air launch only helps you with the first part, which is only really a tiny problem compared to the second part.
I'm not referring to the existing target of the upper atmosphere where satellites orbit but to the point where a ships mass reaches break away from gravity. Speed being 0.
Couple problems. First, there is no speed = 0 distance where an object has broken away from Earth's gravity, instead there is escape velocity, which is about 11km/s. So again, if you want to leave Earth's gravity well entirely, you have even more of a "go really fast" problem, not a "get up high" problem. Also, once out there, you will absolutely not be sitting still, because now you're moving through the solar system in some other orbit, probably around the sun. Second, while you could say technically the atmosphere does not ever fully end, you can't really be in orbit unless you're above the atmosphere.
Going to space is just not a "go really high" problem, it's a "go really fast" problem. That is, unless you're going suborbital, which means you will not be staying in space for longer than a few minutes, you're just following a parabolic arc whose peak is above the 100km Karman line for where space starts, kind of like a glorified mortar. Suborbital flights have absolutely not broken free of Earth's gravity and they only stay up there for a few minutes, so that actually is a "get up high" problem, which is why suborbital space planes like the X-15 and SpaceShip1 launched from aircraft.
There is an orbital rocket that is launched from a plane, called Pegasus. But it's not a very big rocket, can only launch small satellites, and there's a lot of argument about whether launching from an aircraft is worth the effort for them.
Very interesting and thank you for the information. Blessings friend!
if you want high impulse and power to weight ratio there's no place to go but nuclear engines. Chemical propulsion is stone age tech.
bring back the venture star...this orion crap is embarassing
Orion is intended to take us to the moon and beyond. Venture Star can only go to low earth orbit. NASA is tired of being stuck in low earth orbit since Apollo.
NOVA From what I remember the X-33 was going to be used to launch cargo, the idea was to have single stage to orbit capability, resuable space plane and increased cycles. This would allowed teh construction of space stations and longer range space craft to occur at a faster pace. the orion is merely a command module reall, if they are using it to go to the moom they will need a habitaion and propulsion module and for mar something even bigger.
You dont think that little module will go to the moon or mars on its own?
Its basically a re-hash of the apollo system, yes the command capsule is bigger but the principle is the same.
The X-33/Ventre Star offered the opportunity to completely change the way we access space.
+CockpumpVideo What killed the VentureStar was the simple fact that they could not build propellant & oxidizer tanks in the manner specified with the technology available back then - the test articles build simply failed under vibration & stress tests. Today, it could be easily done.
ScottKin Yep, i think actually they solved the cracking fuel tank problem only 3 or 4 years after cancellation, the company kept funding the research themselves.
+ScottKin I hesitate to say easily, but yes, I do agree that with today's fabrication technology and experience with carbon fiber composites, we are either very close to, or currently have, the technological capability to make something like the Venture Star a reality.
The difficulty with the X-33's composite tanks was twofold; the tanks cracked during propellant loading, and they couldn't figure out how to join the pieces without using composite support structures that increased the weight to the point that almost not improvement over a metal structure was being made. It's the second problem that would cause us the most trouble today, making large complex shapes in composite materials that would be light enough for big enough improvements over metal ones is no easy task.
Looks good. I wonder how much thrust it was generating?
That is so freakin cool. Why are we not using these now!!!
Great vid, any configuration will work with the right computer system
Man that's an incredible amount of heat and energy. I don't know how the pad handled it without exploding.
Yeah these linear aerospike engines are more efficient out in the vacuum of space than standard Bell shape engines, you can get more bang for your fuel, but they are difficult to cool, you have to cool the combustion nozzles and the blast cone internally really well which proved to be very tricky when they first started developing them, and I don't think anyone's built one yet that can start and stop and prove to be reliable.
According to Wikipedia: "The XRS-2200 produces 204,420 lbf (909,300 N) thrust with an Isp of 339 seconds at sea level, and 266,230 lbf (1,184,300 N) thrust with an Isp of 436.5 seconds in a vacuum." It also goes on to say the RS-2200 (the real deal flight hardware, had it been produced) was to have multiple stacked RS-2200s producing a planned 542,000 lbs of thrust each.
Astounding that a design that was proven to be more efficient, reliable and powerful was cast aside for cheaper "bell" type engines which require staging to reach orbit. Seems that Nasa took the cheaper and proven route rather than to work on this amazing design. A missed opportunity!
AWESOMENESS IN VISUAL FORMAT!!!!!!
Always wondered why NASA would give up on such a impressive engine. It never made any sense. There’s a Romanian company called ARCA currently working on developing a Aerospike engine and the Americans were not happy at all about it. They used to conduct all their tests in New Mexico until they got kicked out of the country for no good reason. Now they’re doing it in Europe and I’m glad they did not give up on it. Follow their progress at Flight of the Aerospike if interested
A thing of beauty