RC Rocketry - Ready to Fly to Orbit

On Saturday, January 24, 2015 at 4:30:49 PM UTC-5, William Mook wrote:
On Saturday, January 24, 2015 at 11:16:27 AM UTC-5, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

William Mook wrote:


A careful review of capabilities and publications indicate that aerospace vendors since about the 1970s have had the ability to achieve 2% structure fraction with LOX/LH2 propellant combination and have also had the ability to create advanced aerospike engines that seamlessly operate as a rocket at subsonic speeds and as an external combustion ramjet and scramjet at higher speeds.


Cite? You truly don't understand the point of an aerospike engine, do
you?

snip remaining Mookspew unread

He's not only missed the point entirely, he's confused the very basic
operation of a rocket engine with those of air breathing engines. :-(

The aerospike is an altitude compensating engine that changes its expansion ratio with altitude as air pressure changes. Anyone who thinks the aerospike operates totally and completely independently of the atmosphere has failed to understand the advantages of the aerospike operation.

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 are the baseline engines for many single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) designs and were also a strong contender for the Space Shuttle Main Engine.

Now, the aerospike is easily converted to an air-augmented rocket. Air-augmented rockets use the supersonic exhaust of the aerospike rocket engine to compress air collected by ram effect during flight to use as additional working mass, leading to greater effective thrust for any given amount of fuel than either the rocket or a ramjet alone.

Air-augmented rockets are a hybrid class of rocket/ramjet engines, similar to a ramjet, but able to give useful thrust from zero speed, and is also able to operate outside the atmosphere, with fuel efficiency not worse than both a comparable ramjet or rocket at every point.

Running the exhaust oxygen rich (which is true for the case of a LH2/LOX combination running at 5.5:1 O/F ratio (fuel rich compared to stoichiometric) leads us to consider additional combustion of fuel in the air surrounding the engine to gain additional thrust.

This is the scramjet engine. Scramjet engines operate on the same principles as ramjets, but do not decelerate the flow to subsonic velocities in order to burn fuel using incoming oxygen. Rather, a scramjet combustor is supersonic.

Now the simplest approach is not to slow the air AT ALL. This reduces drag and heating to a minimum. What one does is eject fuel into the EXTERNAL air flow so that the fuel is at rest relative to the air, and the REMOTELY DETONATE the air fuel mixture over an EXTERNAL THRUST STRUCTURE.

To do this efficiently requires structuring the detonation of air/fuel as a SHAPED CHARGE to create PROPULSIVE DETONATION WAVES against the aerospike thrust structure.

In this way, the modest aerospike gives far more than 25% improvement in performance.


Mook completely and absolutely missed the mark on this one.

No, as per usual, you have completely missed the mark, and are too proud to admit it, so project your shortcomings on to me and denigrate me for your stupidity.

Time to grow up dude.


Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

The RLSK 3D laser welding head is ideally suited as a spark plug to create a shaped detonation around the aerospike tail of a fuel rich exhaust whose exhaust speed is equal to flight speed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d18f8VYFU_k

A ring of these devices around an otherwise conventional aerospike engine, that has the ability to run very hydrogen rich, provides all you need to create an external combustion scramjet/aerospike combination.

Running an equivalent of 39.06 km/sec exhaust speed, up to Mach 15 (5.10 km/sec) and using a lifting body shape for horizontal take off and landing, with an L/D of 7 to reduce gravity drag loss from 1.4 km/sec to 0.2 km/sec - then the vehicle only need attain 8.10 km/sec delta vee (as opposed to 9.3 km/sec delta vee for Vertical Take off and Landing). And its hydrogen rich, for the first 5.10 km/sec with equivalent Ve of 39.06 km/sec - and the final 3.00 km/sec is 4.34 km/sec.

So, for the first part the propellant fraction is;

u = 1 - 1/exp(5.10/39.06) = 0.1224 = 12.24%

And for the second part, the propellant fraction is;

u = 1 - 1/exp(3.00/4.34) = 0.4991 = 49.91%

A total propellant fraction of 62.15%. With a 7.85% structure fraction this leaves a 30.00% payload fraction.

Using the external tank as a reference, we have 734 metric tons of propellant. Dividing by 0.6215 obtains a take off weight of 1,181 metric tons and a payload of 354.3 metric tons and an inert structure of 92.7 metric tons. Since we're taking off horizontally, and our L/D is 7/1 we only need 200 metric tons of thrust to lift off horizontally and this rises to 700 metric tons at MaxQ.

Compare this 354.3 metric ton payload for a single External Tank load of propellant, to the 24.4 metric tons carried by the Space Shuttle, and you can see how this approach pays huge dividends!

The logistic simplicity and ease of operation also is a benefit.

This launcher combined with a 32 GW laser powering a 32 GW ion rocket with a 54 km/sec exhaust speed is capable of producing 120 metric tons of force. This is capable of landing significant payloads on the moon. A 5.3% propellant fraction is needed to carry a spacecraft from LEO to Lunar Injection.. Then another 4.2% to land on the Moon. 9.3% of the mass in LEO must be expelled to land on the moon. Refuel on the moon and we can see that 33 metric tons of propellant are sufficient to boost the 354.3 metric ton total to the moon. With an 8.7% structure fraction this leaves 82% payload - or 290.5 tons payload.

If we set up a moon base and an orbiting station, and transfer payload and fuel to a lunar ship in Earth orbit, we end up with a pair of ships similar to those portrayed in the movie 2001:A Space Odyssey. Of course they're propelled differently than imagined in the movie, but their performance is similar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05-Spvs7wPo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNiGoz4wlJY

On Saturday, January 24, 2015 at 9:23:27 PM UTC-5, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Saturday, January 24, 2015 at 11:16:27 AM UTC-5, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

William Mook wrote:


A careful review of capabilities and publications indicate that aerospace vendors since about the 1970s have had the ability to achieve 2% structure fraction with LOX/LH2 propellant combination and have also had the ability to create advanced aerospike engines that seamlessly operate as a rocket at subsonic speeds and as an external combustion ramjet and scramjet at higher speeds.


Cite? You truly don't understand the point of an aerospike engine, do
you?

snip remaining Mookspew unread

He's not only missed the point entirely, he's confused the very basic
operation of a rocket engine with those of air breathing engines. :-(

The aerospike is an altitude compensating engine that changes its expansion ratio with altitude as air pressure changes.


Ah, he finally looked it up! Must have been my hint. He's pasting
word for word from Wikipedia! With no understanding, of course...


The aerospike engine changes its expansion ratio with altitude at air pressure changes.


Anyone who thinks the aerospike operates totally and completely independently of the
atmosphere has failed to understand the advantages of the aerospike operation.


Since I haven't seen anyone assert any such thing, Mookie is
apparently either failing to read (again) or stuffing strawmen
(again).

Since the aerospike responds to the atmosphere by changing its expansion ratio it obviously is not operating independently of the atmosphere, so is easily adapted to the other designs.


A vehicle with an aerospike engine uses 25-30% less fuel at low altitudes, where
most missions have the greatest need for thrust.


They use "25-30% less fuel at low altitudes" THAN WHAT, Mookie?

Than conventional bell nozzles.

Which
altitude band and which system?

During the first stage operation most typically. I pointed earlier to a chart detailing the particulars from a Japanese researcher in 1997.

Your statement above is meaningless.

Its perfectly reasonable.

Why do you think we're not flying aerospikes now?

Who says we're not? USAPS have likely been flying them since the 1970s, which is why everything went dark and propagandists like yourself are bending over backwards to disabuse anyone interested in the topic that there's any rationale to be interested. Your comments can be summed up in the phrase, 'nothing to see here folks, move along!'

Hell, we don't even
bother with variable expansion ratio nozzles.

USAPS likely do, and that's the point. If you would actually attempt to understand what I've been saying this whole thread got side-tracked when someone said Lockheed tried to fool NASA or some such regarding the X-33. Fact was, engineers, experienced engineers, who had deep experience in various USAPS knew as a matter of fact that aerospike in combination with composite structures and advanced TPS would make SSTO-RLV a reality for NASA. Because they were flying them already! So, within the constraints of what they could talk about, they pushed forward on the X-33. This attracted negative attention of the intelligence community, and that is the most rational explanation of events surrounding the X-33 program.


Why not?

Because they're flying in USAPS and the folks flying them have pulled the plug on ever letting them out.

Hint: Think 'staging'.

Staging is immaterial for a SSTO-RLV.


Aerospike engines are the baseline engines for many single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) designs ...


True, but you still don't seem to understand the point.

I understand the point very much. A 30% improvement in the first stage due to aerospike operation radically reduces the size, the complexity and the cost of a space launch vehicle. The ability to run a common core booster from the surface to orbit efficiently, especially when combined with cross-feeding, means that aerospike engines have lots to recommend them.


... and were also a strong contender for the Space Shuttle Main Engine.


Just read the first paragraph to see what Mookie plagiarized.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerospike_engine

Note that he 'cleverly' left out the last sentence, which reads:

"However, no such engine is in commercial production, although some
large-scale aerospikes are in testing phases."

I quoted what I wanted to quote, I suggest you read that rather than rant cluelessly.


Now, the aerospike is easily converted to an air-augmented rocket.


No, it isn't.

Yes it is.

You cannot use the exhaust of an aerospike to compress
anything.

Your understanding of air augmentation is as shallow and meaningless as your understanding of aerospike technology. The fact that they work well together given the geometry of the aerospike is well understood by real aerospace engineers like myself.

You are also unfamiliar with the LASRE combined cycle rocket that incorporated a linear aerospike with a duct to permit air augmented operation.

http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct...4349003,d..dGc

You would realize this if you actually looked at how
aerospike engines work.

You're the one who is unfamiliar with the relevant details, not I.

If you put a duct on an aerospike engine to
turn it into a ducted rocket,

Its called a combined cycle engine. Which is what I'm talking about.

you are no long talking about an
aerospike engine

So?

and you lose all that nice altitude compensation that
you wanted the aerospike for in the first place.

Nonsense. Absolutely false. As in all things, what happens when you combine features depends on the details. Those details are important in getting efficient operations in going from the surface to orbit in a single stage.


Air-augmented rockets use the supersonic exhaust of the aerospike rocket
engine to compress air collected by ram effect during flight to use as
additional working mass, leading to greater effective thrust for any given
amount of fuel than either the rocket or a ramjet alone.


Mookie is plagiarizing Wikipedia again,

No, I'm quoting relevant passages to make a point.

but he has inserted the word
'aerospike'

That's right, to make a point. Its also why I didn't say it was from Wikipedia, because I made that change. Quoting relevant passages and inserting words to communicate a specific meaning is called conversation. You ought to try it rather than cluelessly ranting and calling names.

and mad the Wiki statement incorrect.

Nonsense. The success of the LASRE using a ducted linear aerospike reflects that accuracy of MY statement.

The original
statement was:

"Air-augmented rockets (also known as rocket-ejector, ramrocket,
ducted rocket, integral rocket/ramjets, or ejector ramjets) use the
supersonic exhaust of some kind of rocket engine to further compress
air collected by ram effect during flight to use as additional working
mass, leading to greater effective thrust for any given amount of fuel
than either the rocket or a ramjet alone."

I quoted the relevant portion I felt was accurate and modified it to communicate what I wanted to communicate.

Haha - you can't have it both ways. If I plagiarized then I wrote precisely what someone else said and claim it as my own. If I modified it, changing its meaning, then its not plagiarism.

The fact is, I took seriously enough what I was to say to read relevant sources on the subject before saying WHAT I WANTED TO SAY. The aerospike engine is an inside out sort of engine that responds to the atmosphere around it. This makes it ideally suited for air augmented and ram rocket design features, which is the bases if of Linear Aerospike SR-71 Experiment quoted above. Any aerospace engineer worth their salt is familiar with this experiment and others like it, and knows that the aerospike design has a lot to recommend it as the starting point for any combined cycle engine.

Mookie replaced "some kind of" with "aerospike".

I said what I wanted to say. How can someone plagiarize something that doesn't appear in the material he supposedly plagiarized? lol.

But beyond that foolishness, you are making baldly false statements about the aerospike engine and its use as the heart of various combined cycle designs. You are the one who is confused. What I'm saying is straightforward and accurate.

But aerospike is one
type of rocket engine this cannot

It is the most suitable type of engine for combined cycle operation according to aerospace engineers at Dryden who actually flew these type of engines in a range of experiments.

be done with, since when you add the
duct it isn't an aerospike anymore.

Its called a combined cycle engine and how such engines behave depend on the details of their design. Discussing such details with you is a waste of time since you obviously don't have a clear understanding of the basics.


Air-augmented rockets are a hybrid class of rocket/ramjet engines, similar
to a ramjet, but able to give useful thrust from zero speed, and is also able
to operate outside the atmosphere, with fuel efficiency not worse than both a
comparable ramjet or rocket at every point.


Straight from Wikipedia.

Quoted straight from wikipedia so you won't be able to say its wrong! lol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-augmented_rocket

But, as in everything MookieMathed, Mook apparently doesn't read far
enough to note the difficulties of this "easily converted" design.

Nonsense.

From the Wiki article he's plagiarizing:

"It might be envisaged that such an increase in performance would be
widely deployed, but various issues frequently preclude this. The
intakes of high-speed engines are difficult to design, and they can't
simply be located anywhere on the airframe whilst getting reasonable
performance - in general the entire airframe needs to be built around
the intake design. Another problem is that the air eventually runs
out, so the amount of additional thrust is limited by how fast the
rocket climbs. Finally, the air ducting weighs about 5× to 10× more
than an equivalent rocket that gives the same thrust. This slows the
vehicle quite a bit towards the end of the burn."

Wikipedia has many shortcomings as well as strengths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critici...and_harassment

And because of that I tend to be careful in quoting wiki in what I say. If what I read in wiki agrees with what I learned at school, and is in the literature and textbooks, then I tend to quote it where appropriate. If what I read in wiki is obviously the product of an edit war, I tend to bypass it. Obviously the commentary repeated above makes a lot of conclusions, but doesn't provide one reference to support it. Such far reaching conclusions ought to point to some sort of reference to justify them. They do not. The fact is, many AIAA articles and textbooks can be found to say precisely the opposite on many points. So, I chose not to quote this obviously politically motivated point about aerospike engines.

The question then arises, why should there be any politics around a piece of hardware? Obviously, like atom bombs and plastic explosives, aerospike has been found by the pervasive military industrial complex, to be something that is of interest and thus, something whose knowledge is controlled. Likely because its part and parcel of many USAPs flying today.

And this is why NO space launchers do this.

No ACKNOWLEDGED launchers.

You need compensating
intakes,

Depends on the details.

just like you need a compensating nozzle (heavy and difficult
to design)

Nonsense.

and it adds a lot of parasitic structure weight.

Again, it depends on the details.

snip remaining Mookspew - tired of correcting him ... AGAIN

You didn't get the basics right, so your 'corrections' were idiocy as usual..



Mook completely and absolutely missed the mark on this one.


No, as per usual, you have completely missed the mark, and are too proud to
admit it, so project your shortcomings on to me and denigrate me for your stupidity.


No, Mookie,

Yes.

you missed it

Not really. The LASRE shows you up for the fool you are.

and you made it worse with your exposition
of unfact, above.

You didn't feel comfortable arguing with what I quoted from wikipedia, and its accessible enough that people can see that. Had I quoted the Dryden experiments and others most people couldn't sort through that, so you would rant cluelessly pretending to know things you obviously don't. So, I got you to say something that's pretty obviously wrong - aerospike cannot be used for augmented rocket design - thank you for that. Then, I could point to the LASRE to show you up for the blow hard you are.

You shouldn't plagiarize without giving credit,

Nonsense. As you pointed out, I quoted what I thought relevant and changed the meaning to communicate what I wanted to communicate. This got you to say outrageously wrong things, and then I could bring in the hard data to show you up for the fool you are. Thank you.

but
if you're going to do so try not to change words that make the stolen
statement incorrect.

If a statement is quoted and changed to change its meaning, so as to communicate something else entirely - something you wrongly claimed cannot be done - then it isn't plagiarism - and its correct.


Time to grow up dude.


Great advice. You should take it.

No, you should.



Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer



So far Henry is still correct.

Not really.

See the bit of the article that Mook
plagiarized that I quoted, above, about how the intakes add too much
weight and drag for them to be useful on a space vehicle.

Yeah, the part in Wikipedia that flies in the face of experimental results from Dryden, which is why I didn't quote it in my rebuttal of this poster's stupid remarks.


But people
still try, like the NASA GTX effort.

A careful review of peer reviewed literature, and of the proposals given to NASA by the major aerospace firms, especially a close look at their tooling, indicates that there is very likely unacknowledged programs flying today that use composite airframes, advanced TPS, and combined cycle engines with aerospike hearts - that are already flying reliably to orbit as well as doing a host of single stage missions that are quite remarkable. A ballistic delivery and extraction of agents to and from the other side of the world, during a long lunch break for example. Its quite clear that those in the know would desperately love to take open aspects of these unacknowledged programs into an open program and rebuild the civilian space program. Its equally obvious there are a number of black hats out there that would like to keep this under wraps.

The current poster is likely a useful idiot in support of the latter goal.


There is theoretically a huge
gain to be had with a ducted rocket, but reality always seems to
intrude.

An external combustion engine with a 'shaped charge' detonation cycle has no ducts. Even so, experiments with ducts show them to be quite well worth the effort in many combined cycle designs, especially if they are made of advanced materials with advanced thermal protection.

Sort of the difference between 'MookieMath' and actual
design.

Math is math. Its part and parcel of analysis. If there's an error I am certain if you can find it, you will report it. If there are no errors, I am equally certain you will attack me on a personal level. After all, that seems to be what you are paid to do. lol.

Perhaps you will lose your job and retire from your current post at Guth ball did, when you reveal yourself to be so clueless that all you say will be ignored. lol.

Until then, we'll have to suffer through the toxic environment you continue to stir up.


Ducted rockets are used in some missile systems, but they stay in air.

So?

The line between 'rocket', 'ducted rocket', and 'ramjet' is pretty
fuzzy in the air-to-air missile world.

True. However, your contention that air to air missions are the only useful application is wrong. Its easy to compute the ideal ascent trajectory to orbit for a given combined cycle performance.

From the same Wiki article cited above:

"Many modern solid fueled 'ramjet' powered missiles, such as the MBDA
meteor, may in fact be air augmented rockets, and the distinction
between a ramjet and an air augmented missile is rather blurred. Many
solid fueled ramjet missiles seem to be solid fueled ramrockets in all
but name."

Yet this has nothing at all to do with the use of aerospike as a key component in a combined cycle engine used in space launch or used in a SSTO-RLV. WHICH IS WHY I DIDN'T QUOTE IT! lol.

Its sort of like quoting Wiki on tire treads when you're talking about tire trades, and then having some clueless idiot rant on about wheel bolt patterns! lol. I wasn't talking about wheel bolt patterns!

If you'd actually read what *I* have written, you'd look a lot less foolish..

So once again Mookie winds up looking like, well, a mook.

So, you don't like men with black skins? Is that your problem?

From Mirriam-Webster

"Definition of MOOK

slang
a foolish, insignificant, or contemptible person"

So, you don't like men with black skins. Got it.

Or, if you prefer the Urban Dictionary...

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mook

I think we're done here...

I certainly hope so. Every time I talk with you I feel I must take a shower and go to the steam room! lol.

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

You're an utterly clueless person.

On Saturday, January 24, 2015 at 8:34:10 PM UTC-5, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:


Math is also known as analysis.


No, it isn't,

Yes it is.

any more than a saw is also known as cabinetmaking.

Nonsense. You're confabulating terms. Haha - do you want me to quote Wikipedia or Britannica? I know how folks of low intelligence love big books.

The
fact that you think it is merely displays your ignorance on the
subject of actual design.

Its impossible for someone to do any sort of engineering who does not use mathematical analysis to determine the nature of the thing he's working with..

The fundamental relations in the operation of rockets and movement through gravity fields, etc., is fairly straightforward and easily computed in an accessible way. I do that when I can to illustrate my points.

Why that irritates you and causes you to say unfortunate things, is a mystery, but who cares what you think? lol. You're an idiot.



--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

I wonder what Jefferson would say about those who purvey errors in the name of national defense? My thought is he would do what Union generals urged Lincoln to do to those who tried to interfere with the election. Namely, strap all those in the intelligence community, and all those who are part of the illegal standing army, to the muzzle of a cannon and shoot them through the windows of the capitol building and fertilizer the capitol lawns with their remains.

I find I would concur with that action if it came to a vote in the Senate.

In article ,
says...

William Mook wrote:

Math is also known as analysis.


No, it isn't, any more than a saw is also known as cabinetmaking. The
fact that you think it is merely displays your ignorance on the
subject of actual design.

"A man's gotta know his limitations". When the guy in charge doesn't
know his, he can dictate all of the decisions he wants, but it won't
make the program successful. Great program managers succeed because
they surround themselves with the best engineers in their field and then
delegate technical decisions to them.

I've worked for a boss that thought he knew everything and dictated
technical solutions to every little problem. It wasn't fun.
Thankfully, that program is long dead and buried so I don't have to
support it anymore.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In article ,
says...
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer



So far Henry is still correct. See the bit of the article that Mook
plagiarized that I quoted, above, about how the intakes add too much
weight and drag for them to be useful on a space vehicle. But people
still try, like the NASA GTX effort. There is theoretically a huge
gain to be had with a ducted rocket, but reality always seems to
intrude. Sort of the difference between 'MookieMath' and actual
design.



The biggest factor Mook math misses is cost. You can't discern the gory
details of why something costs what it does from Wikipedia. For that
you need an entire engineering team, not one guy with Google and a
calculator.

Aerospike engines might make sense on an SSTO, but no one has ever flown
an aerospike engine to LEO, so we don't know for sure what the cost
would be for such a design. As much as I would like to see an aerospike
engine actually fly to LEO, they're still a research topic not an off
the shelf technology.

TSTO is easier because you can optimize the nozzle on the first stage
engines for flight in the atmosphere and optimize the nozzle on the
second stage engine for vacuum. No new tech required.

The next logical step is reuse of the first stage because it also
requires little to no new technology. It's been a long time coming
since DC-X first proved VTVL was a quite viable mode of operation for a
rocket powered vehicle.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In article ,
says...
The next logical step is reuse of the first stage because it also
requires little to no new technology. It's been a long time coming
since DC-X first proved VTVL was a quite viable mode of operation for a
rocket powered vehicle.

I miss DC-X. It was the last exciting thing to happen in space launch
technology.

Agreed. Unfortunately, in the excitement which followed DC-X, Lockheed
Martin with X-33 and Orbital Sciences with X-34 did a fine job of
convincing (soome within) NASA that reusable launch vehicles were beyond
(then) current tech:

Art Stephenson, director of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center said (of
canceling X-33 and X-34), "We have gained a tremendous amount of
knowledge from these X-programs, but one of the things we have learned
is that our technology has not yet advanced to the point that we can
successfully develop a new reusable launch vehicle that substantially
improves safety, reliability and affordability," he said.

So, it's back to the past for NASA with Orion/SLS, repeating the
mistakes of Apollo/Saturn half a century later. :-P

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 11:22:07 PM UTC-5, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...
The next logical step is reuse of the first stage because it also
requires little to no new technology. It's been a long time coming
since DC-X first proved VTVL was a quite viable mode of operation for a
rocket powered vehicle.

I miss DC-X. It was the last exciting thing to happen in space launch
technology.

Agreed. Unfortunately, in the excitement which followed DC-X, Lockheed
Martin with X-33 and Orbital Sciences with X-34 did a fine job of
convincing (soome within) NASA that reusable launch vehicles were beyond
(then) current tech:

Art Stephenson, director of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center said (of
canceling X-33 and X-34), "We have gained a tremendous amount of
knowledge from these X-programs, but one of the things we have learned
is that our technology has not yet advanced to the point that we can
successfully develop a new reusable launch vehicle that substantially
improves safety, reliability and affordability," he said.

So, it's back to the past for NASA with Orion/SLS, repeating the
mistakes of Apollo/Saturn half a century later. :-P

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

nasa is a jobs program, science etc has nothing to do with nasas mission. reusable vehicles for and by nasa would cut into the jobs they want to create. like everything government releated, efficency, saving money, etc etc is not a goal, the only goal is dispensing cash to the politically connected

In article ,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote:
So, it's back to the past for NASA with Orion/SLS, repeating the
mistakes of Apollo/Saturn half a century later. :-P

I wish they were doing that. But NASA seems obsessed with continuing
to stick people on big segmented solid boosters. Something they
didn't do back then.

True, but the Air Force was certainly heading down that path with X-20
and MOL. NASA was also looking into several different upgrades to the
Saturn launch vehicles which would also involve large segmented solids.
NASA was also testing very large diameter solids in south Florida.
Unfortunately, when the space shuttle ran into budget issues during the
concept and early development phase, large segmented solids were chosen
to reduce development costs.

So yes, that final decision to use large segmented solids to launch
people is most firmly attached to the space shuttle program, so their
use on SLS can be attributed to that (political and institutional)
inertia.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 2:42:49 AM UTC-5, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Saturday, January 24, 2015 at 9:23:27 PM UTC-5, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Saturday, January 24, 2015 at 11:16:27 AM UTC-5, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

William Mook wrote:


A careful review of capabilities and publications indicate that aerospace vendors since about the 1970s have had the ability to achieve 2% structure fraction with LOX/LH2 propellant combination and have also had the ability to create advanced aerospike engines that seamlessly operate as a rocket at subsonic speeds and as an external combustion ramjet and scramjet at higher speeds.


Cite? You truly don't understand the point of an aerospike engine, do
you?

snip remaining Mookspew unread

He's not only missed the point entirely, he's confused the very basic
operation of a rocket engine with those of air breathing engines. :-(

The aerospike is an altitude compensating engine that changes its expansion ratio with altitude as air pressure changes.


Ah, he finally looked it up! Must have been my hint. He's pasting
word for word from Wikipedia! With no understanding, of course...


The aerospike engine changes its expansion ratio with altitude at air pressure changes.


Yes, it does indeed do that. So do other variable expansion nozzles.
You can look up a definition, paste it, but that hardly means you
understand it.


Anyone who thinks the aerospike operates totally and completely independently of the
atmosphere has failed to understand the advantages of the aerospike operation.


Since I haven't seen anyone assert any such thing, Mookie is
apparently either failing to read (again) or stuffing strawmen
(again).

Since the aerospike responds to the atmosphere by changing its expansion ratio
it obviously is not operating independently of the atmosphere, so is easily adapted
to the other designs.


Wrong.


You are wrong. The aerospike engine in a sort of 'inside-out' version of a bell nozzle. As such, it easily interacts with the surrounding air. So, its easy to put a duct around it, change the location of the duct, and run the engine at various Oxygen/Fuel mix ratio to obtain a flexible combined cycle engine. One that operates as an aerospike, as an air augmented rocket, or as a supersonic combustion ram jet. Depending on the the engine settings.

For example, you can't turn it into a ducted rocket because
then you've lost what makes it an aerospike engine (and the nice
adjustment to expansion ratio you used to get).

You are dead wrong. All combined cycle engines start with an aerospike since that's the easiest to work with since the exhaust interacts with the air while it is still interacting with the thrust structure. Your 'analysis' is naive and based on a fundamental misapprehension of what is going on.

I would urge a reader with zero technical knowledge to scan through the peer reviewed papers published by respected aerospace engineers on this subject. They would see that you are full of it, and what I say is quite accurate.

Since you go beserk when I quote online materials, let me refer you to;

17th AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference 11-14 April 2011, San Francisco, California AIAA-2011-2229

and a paper entitled;

A Technology Pathway for Airbreathing, Combined-Cycle, Horizontal Space Launch Through SR-71 Based Trajectory Modeling

by

Kurt J. Kloesel, Nalin A. Ratnayake, and Casie M. Clark

from

NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards AFB, California, 93523

This is enough for anyone interested to pull up relevant materials.






A vehicle with an aerospike engine uses 25-30% less fuel at low altitudes, where
most missions have the greatest need for thrust.


They use "25-30% less fuel at low altitudes" THAN WHAT, Mookie?


Than conventional bell nozzles.


Wrong.

You don't know what you're talking about. I do.

http://air-attack.com/SPACE/lasre/enginecomp2.gif


A conventional bell nozzle optimized for a low altitude will
perform better than an aerospike at that altitude.

In the graph above, where does the bell nozzle curve cross the aerospike nozzle curve? If a conventional nozzle were better than an aerospike nozzle at ANY altitude, the conventional nozzle would cross over the aerospike nozzle wouldn't it?

Which
altitude band and which system?

During the first stage operation most typically. I pointed earlier to a chart detailing the particulars from a Japanese researcher in 1997.


The first stage operation OF WHAT SYSTEM, Mookie?

Jesus dude, calm down! We're talking about space launch, and putting objects in orbit with SSTO or common core booster designs, both launch systems operate over a range of atmospheric pressures. So, anyone who has any sense whatever would know exactly what I'm talking about, particularly after they read the references I provide. You on the other hand, don't exhibit much sense, so you are continually confused. Likely a reflection of low intelligence.

The bloody details
matter to everyone but nincompoops and mooks.

You're the one omitting details and blaming everyone else for it you freaking racist *******.

Your statement above is meaningless.

Its perfectly reasonable.

Why do you think we're not flying aerospikes now?

Who says we're not?


Pretty much everyone.


USAPS have likely been flying them since the 1970s, ...


So we're just supposed to buy your fantasies on no evidence at all?

I call bull****, Mookie.

You're the one full of bull****, and you're projecting again!

The reason you suffer in such profound ignorance is that in your world USAPS don't exist and the only data you think is real is the what the CIA controlled talking heads tell you on CNN! lol. This marks you off as ****ing idiot. A ****ing damnable idiot!

That and a bad temper and foul language, make you ideally suited for the role you play here as propagandist. Creating a toxic environment in online channels that discuss aerospace. Like Lee Harvey Oswald, you were likely homosexually recruited for your role!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJ-X93LpK68

But this isn't about you, as much as you'd like that to be the case, this is about the truth of the matter. So, let's talk FACTS!

Fact is, USAPS do exist.

Fact is, if you're a member of AIAA and get all their journals as I do, and actually read them, as I do (check out my library dude, in this video I prepared for a talk I was invited to give in Beijing);

http://vimeo.com/52213948

and read the annual reports of the aerospace firms, as I do, and look at what Lockheed and Boeing submitted to NASA for the X-33 and the GTX RFQs, as I do, and have 30 years of experience in building factories, as I do,

and it would be pretty damned clear the majors have a deep extensive and rich experience in the area of a) combined cycle rocket engines, b) composite structures and c) advanced thermal protection.

Now, if you advised the White House as I have done over three administrations, and the Pentagon as I have done, and Congress as I have done, all on aerospace, energy and nuclear matters, as I do, you would know the major aerospace companies didn't get this experience, tool sets and hardware fooling around in their labs. They got it by building airframes and flying them.

So, on this basis, anyone really involved in the industry, as I am, anyone with real technical knowledge, as I have, would inevitably come to the conclusion that SSTO-RLV using the technologies cited, have been flying since the retirement of the SR-71, as I have done.



... which is why everything went dark and propagandists like yourself are
bending over backwards to disabuse anyone interested in the topic that there's
any rationale to be interested.


Wrong.

Then why do you care to respond within MINUTES of every freaking thing I and others write? Its obvious you don't have any OTHER job than responding to stuff on line.

Why are you so consistently wrong about everything you write? Its obvious you have an AGENDA to spread as much bull**** about combined cycle engines as possible.

Why are you so nasty? Its obvious you are following tried and true methods of propagandists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39kbLq9jVPg

I'd love to see someone develop and fly an aerospike engine.

shrug Bad mouthing capable people and falling for the bull**** of those who don't want aerospike to fly is a recipe for failure.


But it won't be a mook like you.

You don't know the basics, you don't know the history, you don't know the people, you don't know the programs, how the hell can you know who and who will not do something operating from such a profound and controlled ignorance.


Your comments can be summed up in the phrase, 'nothing to see here folks, move along!'


Wrong.

That's exactly what you're saying. You would have us believe there are no composites flying. You would have us believe there are no commercial uses for composite cryogenic tanks. You would have us believe that supporters of composite tanks for the X-33 were clueless and tried to fool NASA. You would have everyone alienated from the capacities NASA needs to achieve greatness with technology that was solved 30 years ago.

My comments can be summed up in the phrase, "I'm calling
bull**** on Mook ... AGAIN."

Most likely only because you're a propagandist tasked with the responsibility to shut me down or shut me up.

Hell, we don't even
bother with variable expansion ratio nozzles.

USAPS likely do, and that's the point. If you would actually attempt to understand
what I've been saying this whole thread got side-tracked when someone said Lockheed
tried to fool NASA or some such regarding the X-33. Fact was, engineers, experienced
engineers, who had deep experience in various USAPS knew as a matter of fact that aerospike
in combination with composite structures and advanced TPS would make SSTO-RLV a reality for NASA.
Because they were flying them already! So, within the constraints of what they could talk about,
they pushed forward on the X-33. This attracted negative attention of the intelligence community,
and that is the most rational explanation of events surrounding the X-33 program.


Mookie, I understand EXACTLY what you've been saying.

If so, then you are a propagandist and should be ignored on that basis.

It amounts to
"I know it exists.

I can't really talk about what I know. I can talk about what is out there in the public domain. I can point to a pattern of information that any knowledgeable person can see indicates pretty powerfully USAPS are flying.

But it's all secret.

Its not all secret. Otherwise there'd be a stony silence. The fact that some things remain open has inspired people in the industry who know to move forward with composites, to move forward with advanced TPS, to move forward with combined cycle engines - to create launch vehicles of superb performance.

The fact that I can't point
to any and you've never heard of any is PROOF it exists."

Nonsense. I didn't say that at all. On the contrary I give detailed analysis and references for all I say. You on the other hand can only verbally abuse people and call names.

Typical conspiracy theorist lunacy.

You're the lunatic, and you're projecting your fears and anger on to innocents who do not share your lunacy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bO0-u900OG4


Why not?

Because they're flying in USAPS and the folks flying them have pulled the plug on ever letting them out.


Bull****.

Do you really think that's convincing? Telling everyone there are no unackowledged special access programs flying hardware that's superior to the SR-71? lol.

Fact is, USAPS superior to the SR-71 DO exist. Now, what do those USAPS look like? What is most likely? Some sort of combined cycle engine attached to a composite airframe using advanced thermal protection.

Where's your evidence for your claim.

Here are two counter-examples;

In late August 1989, while working as an engineer on the jack-up barge GSF Galveston Key in the North Sea, Chris Gibson and another witness saw an unfamiliar isosceles triangle-shaped delta aircraft, apparently refueling from a Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker and accompanied by a pair of F-111 fighter-bombers. Gibson, who had been in the Royal Observer Corps' trophy-winning international aircraft recognition team since 1980, was unable to identify the aircraft.

On 23 March 1992, near Amarillo, Texas, Steven Douglass photographed the "donuts on a rope" contrail and linked this sighting to distinctive sounds. He described the engine noise as: "strange, loud pulsating roar... unique... a deep pulsating rumble that vibrated the house and made the windows shake.... similar to rocket engine noise, but deeper, with evenly timed pulses."

taken from;

https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/t...craft%29..html


Hint: Think 'staging'.

Staging is immaterial for a SSTO-RLV.


Well, yes, it is, by definition. But so what?

Because that's what' we're talking about! lol. We're talking about combined cycle engines that efficiently take LOX/LH2 propelled SSTO-RLV to orbit.

Nobody is flying one
of those.

Its clear that the replacement for the SR-71 involves a) combined cycle engine, b) advanced composite cryogenic tanks, c) advanced thermal protection, was flying in the 1980s.



Aerospike engines are the baseline engines for many single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) designs ...


True, but you still don't seem to understand the point.

I understand the point very much. A 30% improvement in the first stage ....


Uh, an SSTO only has one stage.

That flies from sea level pressure to zero pressure. Yep.

Or are you now talking about
something else?

Well in addition to stages of flight, there is also the fact that a common core booster, made of common flight elements also benefit from combined cycle operation.


due to aerospike operation radically reduces the size, the complexity and the cost of a space launch
vehicle.


Yes, it would. Yet you don't see any. Why do you think that is?

Others have reported sightings and in combination with the other data in the literature and in the actual open program responses, its quite clear to any knowledgeable person these systems were flying in the 1980s.


MookFantasy elided

shrug A great advance! Now if I can only get you to ignore me totally, that' would be great. If you are unable to exert that level of self control, perhaps some responsible person can be asked to stop you from your racist abuse, and your incessant efforts to urge people to do violence to those you don't agree with and basically have you locked up far away from access to usenet for the kook you are!



... and were also a strong contender for the Space Shuttle Main Engine.


Just read the first paragraph to see what Mookie plagiarized.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerospike_engine

Note that he 'cleverly' left out the last sentence, which reads:

"However, no such engine is in commercial production, although some
large-scale aerospikes are in testing phases."

I quoted what I wanted to quote, I suggest you read that rather than rant cluelessly.


Now, the aerospike is easily converted to an air-augmented rocket.


No, it isn't.

Yes it is.


You're an idiot.

No I'm not. You're projecting again. Whenever your idiocy is clearly demonstrated, you get angry and start with the verbal abuse. I bet you don't have a girlfriend, and if you did, she probably complained about you hitting her, didn't she?

Go build one.

Combined cycle engines have been built and flown and written about in AIAA journals. I have cited a relevant article above. I urge you to go to a good library and avail yourself of these journals in propulsion physics.

Do you not understand that you CANNOT
put a shroud on an aerospike engine and still have it behave as an
aerospike? BY DEFINITION OF WHAT AN AEROSPIKE ENGINE IS.

A shroud is not a duct, though they are similar.

Details count! Combined cycle engines have been built and they start with an aerospike nozzle because the aerospike nozzle interacts already with the surrounding air! They do that because its easy to create an air augmented rocket from an aerospike. Its easy to create a scramjet from a ducted aerospike nozzle by running fuel rich. Read the freaking literature! Talk to someone who's done it! Its easy to switch from one mode to another by moving the nozzle relative to the duct!

The performance is so good, its classified!



You cannot use the exhaust of an aerospike to compress
anything.

Your understanding of air augmentation is as shallow and meaningless as your understanding of aerospike
technology. The fact that they work well together given the geometry of the aerospike is well understood
by real aerospace engineers like myself.


You're an idiot engaging in masturbation in public. Please stop.

You're projecting again! You can stop any time you realize that. Good luck!



You are also unfamiliar with the LASRE combined cycle rocket that incorporated a linear aerospike with a duct to permit air augmented operation.

http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct...84349003,d.dGc


Uh, no. LASRE was a linear aerospike engine. No duct.

This is why I don't rely too heavily on Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't report it. It does appear in the technical literature.

Look up the paper "A Technology Pathway for Airbreathing, Combined-Cycle, Horizontal Space Launch Through SR-71 Based Trajectory Modeling" by Kloesel, Ratnayake and Clark. They show BASED ON THE EXPERIMENTS THEY DID at Dryden in the late 1990s with LASRE, just how the aerospike can be turned into a combined cycle engine that includes air augmentation and scramjet operation.



You would realize this if you actually looked at how
aerospike engines work.

You're the one who is unfamiliar with the relevant details, not I.


Nya, nya, nya.

Wait a minute, I'm the one citing peer reviewed literature. I'm the one being called by the Pentagon, the White House and Congress. I'm the one invited as speakers to conferences and by major media outlets.

This pretty much proves that you're the loud mouthed fool in this conversation.

I'm calling bull****, Mookie ... AGAIN.

Its just a reflection of you abject lack of understanding and your eager willingness to be fooled by those who are out to fool you on this subject.

If you put a duct on an aerospike engine to
turn it into a ducted rocket,

Its called a combined cycle engine. Which is what I'm talking about.


Different name, same thing, you ignorant ****.

At last you finally got it! So, what are you arguing about?

Please explain to everyone just where you can inject compressed air
into an aerospike engine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWf4iOMSPNc

There are several advantages of the aerospike engine. You are confused in believing altitude compensation is the only advantage. Even so, a properly designed air augmented engine and scramjet using an aerospike core, can maintain this feature as well.

As you can see from the video above, the aerospike is an inside out engine. The expansion nozzle is in intimate contact with the surrounding air throughout the expansion process. This makes it ideally suited for air augmentation and scramjet designs. This is achieved most easily by putting a duct around a portion of the spike. Where the duct ends relative to the spike, determines the expansion ratio of the air augmented engine. Moving the duct relative to the spike provides a means to change that expansion ratio as needed.

By running the air augmented engine fuel rich, and providing enough oxidizer to cause the exhaust speed of the fuel rich exhaust to match the incoming air speed, the air fuel mixture can be detonated to produce additional thrust effects. The structure of the detonation wave formed can be made to interact with the aerospike to efficiently produce thrust in this mode too.

So, these are the thrust cycles available to the combined cycle engine.




you are no long talking about an
aerospike engine

So?


So it's not a bloody aerospike engine with a duct, you ****.

Nonsense. You just said that combined cycle engine and aerospike are interchangable terms. I told you you finally got it. I guess you didn't get it..


and you lose all that nice altitude compensation that
you wanted the aerospike for in the first place.

Nonsense. Absolutely false. As in all things, what happens when you combine features
depends on the details. Those details are important in getting efficient operations in
going from the surface to orbit in a single stage.


Handwavium and ignorance. Mookie's stocks in trade.

No, you're projecting again! Don't get made at me, look in the mirror and vow to do better next time!

(reading a book or two, and a few journal articles, might not hurt either)


Air-augmented rockets use the supersonic exhaust of the aerospike rocket
engine to compress air collected by ram effect during flight to use as
additional working mass, leading to greater effective thrust for any given
amount of fuel than either the rocket or a ramjet alone.


Mookie is plagiarizing Wikipedia again,

No, I'm quoting relevant passages to make a point.


You're quoting with no quotation marks and no citation.

Yeah, that's why you were fooled NOT! lol. You quote a citation when you don't change it dude. lol.

That's called
'plagiarizing'.

Not really. You said yourself I changed it. lol. Which is it?

but he has inserted the word
'aerospike'

That's right, to make a point. Its also why I didn't say it was from Wikipedia,
because I made that change. Quoting relevant passages and inserting words to
communicate a specific meaning is called conversation. You ought to try it rather
than cluelessly ranting and calling names.


Except when the word makes the quotation wrong.

You haven't grokked yet that YOU are the one who is wrong.

Then it's called
STUPID.

Then a reasonable response by you would be that the statement was wrong and stupid. lol. You didn't say that. You said I plagiarized it. But how can that be if I said something totally different? lol.

You're really not making much sense here.

I think you should calm down and realize you're projecting again.


and mad the Wiki statement incorrect.

Nonsense. The success of the LASRE using a ducted linear aerospike reflects that accuracy of MY statement.


LASRE wasn't a ducted aerospike. It was a linear aerospike. No duct.

Look are you going to believe Wikipedia, which is subject to CIA manipulation, or are you going to believe a peer reviewed article by the folks who actually did the experiment?


The original
statement was:

"Air-augmented rockets (also known as rocket-ejector, ramrocket,
ducted rocket, integral rocket/ramjets, or ejector ramjets) use the
supersonic exhaust of some kind of rocket engine to further compress
air collected by ram effect during flight to use as additional working
mass, leading to greater effective thrust for any given amount of fuel
than either the rocket or a ramjet alone."

I quoted the relevant portion I felt was accurate and modified it to communicate what I wanted to communicate.


And what you communicated was that you were an ignorant ****.

No, you're projecting again. Your ignorance is likely derived from the fact that you refuse to read relevant articles, and rely instead on popularizations that are prone to manipulation. If you actually read articles and talked with the folks who did the work, you'd see.


Haha - you can't have it both ways. If I plagiarized then I wrote precisely what
someone else said and claim it as my own. If I modified it, changing its meaning,
then its not plagiarism.


Changing one word doesn't make it not plagiarism.

Not if you start with 7 words! lol.

It just means
you're really bad at it and don't understand what it said.

Nonsense. You're being irrational.


The fact is, I took seriously enough what I was to say to read relevant sources on the
subject before saying WHAT I WANTED TO SAY. The aerospike engine is an inside out sort
of engine that responds to the atmosphere around it.


Yes and no.

You don't know what you're talking about and no amount of twisting will change that.


This makes it ideally suited for air augmented and ram rocket design features,


Wrong.

Its precisely why the linear aersospike is the heart of a combined cycle engines and the LASRE is the pathway to efficient space engines as the folks who did the experiment say.

You don't understand the atmospheric 'interaction' that goes
on.

You're projecting again!


... which is the bases if of Linear Aerospike SR-71 Experiment quoted above.


You mean the one without air augmentation?

I mean the experiments spoken of in the literature, not the kiddie stuff on Wikipedia.


Any aerospace engineer worth their salt is familiar with this experiment and others
like it, and knows that the aerospike design has a lot to recommend it as the starting
point for any combined cycle engine.


Poppycock.

You're projecting.


Mookie replaced "some kind of" with "aerospike".

I said what I wanted to say. How can someone plagiarize something that doesn't appear in
the material he supposedly plagiarized? lol.


Yes, you changed one word in the material you plagiarized and made it
INCORRECT.

You're incorrect dude. Totally. The sooner you realize that, the happier you'll be.



But beyond that foolishness, you are making baldly false statements about the aerospike engine
and its use as the heart of various combined cycle designs. You are the one who is confused.
What I'm saying is straightforward and accurate.


So build one and prove me wrong, Mook. Or point to one someone else
has built. You can't because there isn't one. LASRE was not a
combined cycle engine.

Wait a minute, I thought you said you understood they were the same thing? hmm...

It was pure linear aerospike. They SIMULATED
the behavior of a combined cycle engine by mounting it on an SR-71.

That's right because the spike is the starting point for a combined cycle operation like I said.


But aerospike is one
type of rocket engine this cannot

It is the most suitable type of engine for combined cycle operation according to
aerospace engineers at Dryden who actually flew these type of engines in a range of experiments.


Cite? LASRE was not a combined cycle engine.

Dude, go to a library and look it up. I've given you enough data to do that.

On Monday, January 26, 2015 at 11:01:23 PM UTC-5, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Bull****, mook.

Not at all.


And I'm still waiting for ANY straight answers

You're the one twisting in the wind, not me.

from you that don't
amount to "it's secret, so I know it's real".

You're confusing and confabulating what I've written. Perhaps you should stop drinking for a few days before replying with such idiotic emotion.

William Mook wrote:

On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 2:42:49 AM UTC-5, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Saturday, January 24, 2015 at 9:23:27 PM UTC-5, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Saturday, January 24, 2015 at 11:16:27 AM UTC-5, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

William Mook wrote:


A careful review of capabilities and publications indicate that aerospace vendors since about the 1970s have had the ability to achieve 2% structure fraction with LOX/LH2 propellant combination and have also had the ability to create advanced aerospike engines that seamlessly operate as a rocket at subsonic speeds and as an external combustion ramjet and scramjet at higher speeds.


Cite? You truly don't understand the point of an aerospike engine, do
you?

snip remaining Mookspew unread

He's not only missed the point entirely, he's confused the very basic
operation of a rocket engine with those of air breathing engines.. :-(

The aerospike is an altitude compensating engine that changes its expansion ratio with altitude as air pressure changes.


Ah, he finally looked it up! Must have been my hint. He's pasting
word for word from Wikipedia! With no understanding, of course...


The aerospike engine changes its expansion ratio with altitude at air pressure changes.


Yes, it does indeed do that. So do other variable expansion nozzles.
You can look up a definition, paste it, but that hardly means you
understand it.


Anyone who thinks the aerospike operates totally and completely independently of the
atmosphere has failed to understand the advantages of the aerospike operation.


Since I haven't seen anyone assert any such thing, Mookie is
apparently either failing to read (again) or stuffing strawmen
(again).

Since the aerospike responds to the atmosphere by changing its expansion ratio
it obviously is not operating independently of the atmosphere, so is easily adapted
to the other designs.


Wrong.


You are wrong. The aerospike engine in a sort of 'inside-out' version of a bell nozzle. As such, it easily interacts with the surrounding air. So, its easy to put a duct around it, change the location of the duct, and run the engine at various Oxygen/Fuel mix ratio to obtain a flexible combined cycle engine. One that operates as an aerospike, as an air augmented rocket, or as a supersonic combustion ram jet. Depending on the the engine settings.

For example, you can't turn it into a ducted rocket because
then you've lost what makes it an aerospike engine (and the nice
adjustment to expansion ratio you used to get).

You are dead wrong. All combined cycle engines start with an aerospike since that's the easiest to work with since the exhaust interacts with the air while it is still interacting with the thrust structure. Your 'analysis' is naive and based on a fundamental misapprehension of what is going on.

I would urge a reader with zero technical knowledge to scan through the peer reviewed papers published by respected aerospace engineers on this subject. They would see that you are full of it, and what I say is quite accurate.

Since you go beserk when I quote online materials, let me refer you to;

17th AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference 11-14 April 2011, San Francisco, California AIAA-2011-2229

and a paper entitled;

A Technology Pathway for Airbreathing, Combined-Cycle, Horizontal Space Launch Through SR-71 Based Trajectory Modeling

by

Kurt J. Kloesel, Nalin A. Ratnayake, and Casie M. Clark

from

NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards AFB, California, 93523

This is enough for anyone interested to pull up relevant materials.






A vehicle with an aerospike engine uses 25-30% less fuel at low altitudes, where
most missions have the greatest need for thrust.


They use "25-30% less fuel at low altitudes" THAN WHAT, Mookie?


Than conventional bell nozzles.


Wrong.

You don't know what you're talking about. I do.

http://air-attack.com/SPACE/lasre/enginecomp2.gif


A conventional bell nozzle optimized for a low altitude will
perform better than an aerospike at that altitude.

In the graph above, where does the bell nozzle curve cross the aerospike nozzle curve? If a conventional nozzle were better than an aerospike nozzle at ANY altitude, the conventional nozzle would cross over the aerospike nozzle wouldn't it?

Which
altitude band and which system?

During the first stage operation most typically. I pointed earlier to a chart detailing the particulars from a Japanese researcher in 1997.


The first stage operation OF WHAT SYSTEM, Mookie?

Jesus dude, calm down! We're talking about space launch, and putting objects in orbit with SSTO or common core booster designs, both launch systems operate over a range of atmospheric pressures. So, anyone who has any sense whatever would know exactly what I'm talking about, particularly after they read the references I provide. You on the other hand, don't exhibit much sense, so you are continually confused. Likely a reflection of low intelligence.

The bloody details
matter to everyone but nincompoops and mooks.

You're the one omitting details and blaming everyone else for it you freaking racist *******.

Your statement above is meaningless.

Its perfectly reasonable.

Why do you think we're not flying aerospikes now?

Who says we're not?


Pretty much everyone.


USAPS have likely been flying them since the 1970s, ...


So we're just supposed to buy your fantasies on no evidence at all?

I call bull****, Mookie.

You're the one full of bull****, and you're projecting again!

The reason you suffer in such profound ignorance is that in your world USAPS don't exist and the only data you think is real is the what the CIA controlled talking heads tell you on CNN! lol. This marks you off as ****ing idiot. A ****ing damnable idiot!

That and a bad temper and foul language, make you ideally suited for the role you play here as propagandist. Creating a toxic environment in online channels that discuss aerospace. Like Lee Harvey Oswald, you were likely homosexually recruited for your role!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJ-X93LpK68

But this isn't about you, as much as you'd like that to be the case, this is about the truth of the matter. So, let's talk FACTS!

Fact is, USAPS do exist.

Fact is, if you're a member of AIAA and get all their journals as I do, and actually read them, as I do (check out my library dude, in this video I prepared for a talk I was invited to give in Beijing);

http://vimeo.com/52213948

and read the annual reports of the aerospace firms, as I do, and look at what Lockheed and Boeing submitted to NASA for the X-33 and the GTX RFQs, as I do, and have 30 years of experience in building factories, as I do,

and it would be pretty damned clear the majors have a deep extensive and rich experience in the area of a) combined cycle rocket engines, b) composite structures and c) advanced thermal protection.

Now, if you advised the White House as I have done over three administrations, and the Pentagon as I have done, and Congress as I have done, all on aerospace, energy and nuclear matters, as I do, you would know the major aerospace companies didn't get this experience, tool sets and hardware fooling around in their labs. They got it by building airframes and flying them..

So, on this basis, anyone really involved in the industry, as I am, anyone with real technical knowledge, as I have, would inevitably come to the conclusion that SSTO-RLV using the technologies cited, have been flying since the retirement of the SR-71, as I have done.



... which is why everything went dark and propagandists like yourself are
bending over backwards to disabuse anyone interested in the topic that there's
any rationale to be interested.


Wrong.

Then why do you care to respond within MINUTES of every freaking thing I and others write? Its obvious you don't have any OTHER job than responding to stuff on line.

Why are you so consistently wrong about everything you write? Its obvious you have an AGENDA to spread as much bull**** about combined cycle engines as possible.

Why are you so nasty? Its obvious you are following tried and true methods of propagandists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39kbLq9jVPg

I'd love to see someone develop and fly an aerospike engine.

shrug Bad mouthing capable people and falling for the bull**** of those who don't want aerospike to fly is a recipe for failure.


But it won't be a mook like you.

You don't know the basics, you don't know the history, you don't know the people, you don't know the programs, how the hell can you know who and who will not do something operating from such a profound and controlled ignorance.


Your comments can be summed up in the phrase, 'nothing to see here folks, move along!'


Wrong.

That's exactly what you're saying. You would have us believe there are no composites flying. You would have us believe there are no commercial uses for composite cryogenic tanks. You would have us believe that supporters of composite tanks for the X-33 were clueless and tried to fool NASA. You would have everyone alienated from the capacities NASA needs to achieve greatness with technology that was solved 30 years ago.

My comments can be summed up in the phrase, "I'm calling
bull**** on Mook ... AGAIN."

Most likely only because you're a propagandist tasked with the responsibility to shut me down or shut me up.

Hell, we don't even
bother with variable expansion ratio nozzles.

USAPS likely do, and that's the point. If you would actually attempt to understand
what I've been saying this whole thread got side-tracked when someone said Lockheed
tried to fool NASA or some such regarding the X-33. Fact was, engineers, experienced
engineers, who had deep experience in various USAPS knew as a matter of fact that aerospike
in combination with composite structures and advanced TPS would make SSTO-RLV a reality for NASA.
Because they were flying them already! So, within the constraints of what they could talk about,
they pushed forward on the X-33. This attracted negative attention of the intelligence community,
and that is the most rational explanation of events surrounding the X-33 program.


Mookie, I understand EXACTLY what you've been saying.

If so, then you are a propagandist and should be ignored on that basis.

It amounts to
"I know it exists.

I can't really talk about what I know. I can talk about what is out there in the public domain. I can point to a pattern of information that any knowledgeable person can see indicates pretty powerfully USAPS are flying.

But it's all secret.

Its not all secret. Otherwise there'd be a stony silence. The fact that some things remain open has inspired people in the industry who know to move forward with composites, to move forward with advanced TPS, to move forward with combined cycle engines - to create launch vehicles of superb performance.

The fact that I can't point
to any and you've never heard of any is PROOF it exists."

Nonsense. I didn't say that at all. On the contrary I give detailed analysis and references for all I say. You on the other hand can only verbally abuse people and call names.

Typical conspiracy theorist lunacy.

You're the lunatic, and you're projecting your fears and anger on to innocents who do not share your lunacy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bO0-u900OG4


Why not?

Because they're flying in USAPS and the folks flying them have pulled the plug on ever letting them out.


Bull****.

Do you really think that's convincing? Telling everyone there are no unackowledged special access programs flying hardware that's superior to the SR-71? lol.

Fact is, USAPS superior to the SR-71 DO exist. Now, what do those USAPS look like? What is most likely? Some sort of combined cycle engine attached to a composite airframe using advanced thermal protection.

Where's your evidence for your claim.

Here are two counter-examples;

In late August 1989, while working as an engineer on the jack-up barge GSF Galveston Key in the North Sea, Chris Gibson and another witness saw an unfamiliar isosceles triangle-shaped delta aircraft, apparently refueling from a Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker and accompanied by a pair of F-111 fighter-bombers. Gibson, who had been in the Royal Observer Corps' trophy-winning international aircraft recognition team since 1980, was unable to identify the aircraft.

On 23 March 1992, near Amarillo, Texas, Steven Douglass photographed the "donuts on a rope" contrail and linked this sighting to distinctive sounds.. He described the engine noise as: "strange, loud pulsating roar... unique.... a deep pulsating rumble that vibrated the house and made the windows shake... similar to rocket engine noise, but deeper, with evenly timed pulses.."

taken from;

https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/t...rcraft%29.html


Hint: Think 'staging'.

Staging is immaterial for a SSTO-RLV.


Well, yes, it is, by definition. But so what?

Because that's what' we're talking about! lol. We're talking about combined cycle engines that efficiently take LOX/LH2 propelled SSTO-RLV to orbit.

Nobody is flying one
of those.

Its clear that the replacement for the SR-71 involves a) combined cycle engine, b) advanced composite cryogenic tanks, c) advanced thermal protection, was flying in the 1980s.



Aerospike engines are the baseline engines for many single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) designs ...


True, but you still don't seem to understand the point.

I understand the point very much. A 30% improvement in the first stage ...


Uh, an SSTO only has one stage.

That flies from sea level pressure to zero pressure. Yep.

Or are you now talking about
something else?

Well in addition to stages of flight, there is also the fact that a common core booster, made of common flight elements also benefit from combined cycle operation.


due to aerospike operation radically reduces the size, the complexity and the cost of a space launch
vehicle.


Yes, it would. Yet you don't see any. Why do you think that is?

Others have reported sightings and in combination with the other data in the literature and in the actual open program responses, its quite clear to any knowledgeable person these systems were flying in the 1980s.


MookFantasy elided

shrug A great advance! Now if I can only get you to ignore me totally, that' would be great. If you are unable to exert that level of self control, perhaps some responsible person can be asked to stop you from your racist abuse, and your incessant efforts to urge people to do violence to those you don't agree with and basically have you locked up far away from access to usenet for the kook you are!



... and were also a strong contender for the Space Shuttle Main Engine.


Just read the first paragraph to see what Mookie plagiarized.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerospike_engine

Note that he 'cleverly' left out the last sentence, which reads:

"However, no such engine is in commercial production, although some
large-scale aerospikes are in testing phases."

I quoted what I wanted to quote, I suggest you read that rather than rant cluelessly.


Now, the aerospike is easily converted to an air-augmented rocket.


No, it isn't.

Yes it is.


You're an idiot.

No I'm not. You're projecting again. Whenever your idiocy is clearly demonstrated, you get angry and start with the verbal abuse. I bet you don't have a girlfriend, and if you did, she probably complained about you hitting her, didn't she?

Go build one.

Combined cycle engines have been built and flown and written about in AIAA journals. I have cited a relevant article above. I urge you to go to a good library and avail yourself of these journals in propulsion physics.

Do you not understand that you CANNOT
put a shroud on an aerospike engine and still have it behave as an
aerospike? BY DEFINITION OF WHAT AN AEROSPIKE ENGINE IS.

A shroud is not a duct, though they are similar.

Details count! Combined cycle engines have been built and they start with an aerospike nozzle because the aerospike nozzle interacts already with the surrounding air! They do that because its easy to create an air augmented rocket from an aerospike. Its easy to create a scramjet from a ducted aerospike nozzle by running fuel rich. Read the freaking literature! Talk to someone who's done it! Its easy to switch from one mode to another by moving the nozzle relative to the duct!

The performance is so good, its classified!



You cannot use the exhaust of an aerospike to compress
anything.

Your understanding of air augmentation is as shallow and meaningless as your understanding of aerospike
technology. The fact that they work well together given the geometry of the aerospike is well understood
by real aerospace engineers like myself.


You're an idiot engaging in masturbation in public. Please stop.

You're projecting again! You can stop any time you realize that. Good luck!



You are also unfamiliar with the LASRE combined cycle rocket that incorporated a linear aerospike with a duct to permit air augmented operation.

http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct...84349003,d.dGc


Uh, no. LASRE was a linear aerospike engine. No duct.

This is why I don't rely too heavily on Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't report it. It does appear in the technical literature.

Look up the paper "A Technology Pathway for Airbreathing, Combined-Cycle, Horizontal Space Launch Through SR-71 Based Trajectory Modeling" by Kloesel, Ratnayake and Clark. They show BASED ON THE EXPERIMENTS THEY DID at Dryden in the late 1990s with LASRE, just how the aerospike can be turned into a combined cycle engine that includes air augmentation and scramjet operation.



You would realize this if you actually looked at how
aerospike engines work.

You're the one who is unfamiliar with the relevant details, not I.


Nya, nya, nya.

Wait a minute, I'm the one citing peer reviewed literature. I'm the one being called by the Pentagon, the White House and Congress. I'm the one invited as speakers to conferences and by major media outlets.

This pretty much proves that you're the loud mouthed fool in this conversation.

I'm calling bull****, Mookie ... AGAIN.

Its just a reflection of you abject lack of understanding and your eager willingness to be fooled by those who are out to fool you on this subject.

If you put a duct on an aerospike engine to
turn it into a ducted rocket,

Its called a combined cycle engine. Which is what I'm talking about..


Different name, same thing, you ignorant ****.

At last you finally got it! So, what are you arguing about?

Please explain to everyone just where you can inject compressed air
into an aerospike engine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWf4iOMSPNc

There are several advantages of the aerospike engine. You are confused in believing altitude compensation is the only advantage. Even so, a properly designed air augmented engine and scramjet using an aerospike core, can maintain this feature as well.

As you can see from the video above, the aerospike is an inside out engine. The expansion nozzle is in intimate contact with the surrounding air throughout the expansion process. This makes it ideally suited for air augmentation and scramjet designs. This is achieved most easily by putting a duct around a portion of the spike. Where the duct ends relative to the spike, determines the expansion ratio of the air augmented engine. Moving the duct relative to the spike provides a means to change that expansion ratio as needed.

By running the air augmented engine fuel rich, and providing enough oxidizer to cause the exhaust speed of the fuel rich exhaust to match the incoming air speed, the air fuel mixture can be detonated to produce additional thrust effects. The structure of the detonation wave formed can be made to interact with the aerospike to efficiently produce thrust in this mode too..

So, these are the thrust cycles available to the combined cycle engine.




you are no long talking about an
aerospike engine

So?


So it's not a bloody aerospike engine with a duct, you ****.

Nonsense. You just said that combined cycle engine and aerospike are interchangable terms. I told you you finally got it. I guess you didn't get it.


and you lose all that nice altitude compensation that
you wanted the aerospike for in the first place.

Nonsense. Absolutely false. As in all things, what happens when you combine features
depends on the details. Those details are important in getting efficient operations in
going from the surface to orbit in a single stage.


Handwavium and ignorance. Mookie's stocks in trade.

No, you're projecting again! Don't get made at me, look in the mirror and vow to do better next time!

(reading a book or two, and a few journal articles, might not hurt either)


Air-augmented rockets use the supersonic exhaust of the aerospike rocket
engine to compress air collected by ram effect during flight to use as
additional working mass, leading to greater effective thrust for any given
amount of fuel than either the rocket or a ramjet alone.


Mookie is plagiarizing Wikipedia again,

No, I'm quoting relevant passages to make a point.


You're quoting with no quotation marks and no citation.

Yeah, that's why you were fooled NOT! lol. You quote a citation when you don't change it dude. lol.

That's called
'plagiarizing'.

Not really. You said yourself I changed it. lol. Which is it?

but he has inserted the word
'aerospike'

That's right, to make a point. Its also why I didn't say it was from Wikipedia,
because I made that change. Quoting relevant passages and inserting words to
communicate a specific meaning is called conversation. You ought to try it rather
than cluelessly ranting and calling names.


Except when the word makes the quotation wrong.

You haven't grokked yet that YOU are the one who is wrong.

Then it's called
STUPID.

Then a reasonable response by you would be that the statement was wrong and stupid. lol. You didn't say that. You said I plagiarized it. But how can that be if I said something totally different? lol.

You're really not making much sense here.

I think you should calm down and realize you're projecting again.


and mad the Wiki statement incorrect.

Nonsense. The success of the LASRE using a ducted linear aerospike reflects that accuracy of MY statement.


LASRE wasn't a ducted aerospike. It was a linear aerospike. No duct.

Look are you going to believe Wikipedia, which is subject to CIA manipulation, or are you going to believe a peer reviewed article by the folks who actually did the experiment?


The original
statement was:

"Air-augmented rockets (also known as rocket-ejector, ramrocket,
ducted rocket, integral rocket/ramjets, or ejector ramjets) use the
supersonic exhaust of some kind of rocket engine to further compress
air collected by ram effect during flight to use as additional working
mass, leading to greater effective thrust for any given amount of fuel
than either the rocket or a ramjet alone."

I quoted the relevant portion I felt was accurate and modified it to communicate what I wanted to communicate.


And what you communicated was that you were an ignorant ****.

No, you're projecting again. Your ignorance is likely derived from the fact that you refuse to read relevant articles, and rely instead on popularizations that are prone to manipulation. If you actually read articles and talked with the folks who did the work, you'd see.


Haha - you can't have it both ways. If I plagiarized then I wrote precisely what
someone else said and claim it as my own. If I modified it, changing its meaning,
then its not plagiarism.


Changing one word doesn't make it not plagiarism.

Not if you start with 7 words! lol.

It just means
you're really bad at it and don't understand what it said.

Nonsense. You're being irrational.


The fact is, I took seriously enough what I was to say to read relevant sources on the
subject before saying WHAT I WANTED TO SAY. The aerospike engine is an inside out sort
of engine that responds to the atmosphere around it.


Yes and no.

You don't know what you're talking about and no amount of twisting will change that.


This makes it ideally suited for air augmented and ram rocket design features,


Wrong.

Its precisely why the linear aersospike is the heart of a combined cycle engines and the LASRE is the pathway to efficient space engines as the folks who did the experiment say.

You don't understand the atmospheric 'interaction' that goes
on.

You're projecting again!


... which is the bases if of Linear Aerospike SR-71 Experiment quoted above.


You mean the one without air augmentation?

I mean the experiments spoken of in the literature, not the kiddie stuff on Wikipedia.


Any aerospace engineer worth their salt is familiar with this experiment and others
like it, and knows that the aerospike design has a lot to recommend it as the starting
point for any combined cycle engine.


Poppycock.

You're projecting.


Mookie replaced "some kind of" with "aerospike".

I said what I wanted to say. How can someone plagiarize something that doesn't appear in
the material he supposedly plagiarized? lol.


Yes, you changed one word in the material you plagiarized and made it
INCORRECT.

You're incorrect dude. Totally. The sooner you realize that, the happier you'll be.



But beyond that foolishness, you are making baldly false statements about the aerospike engine
and its use as the heart of various combined cycle designs. You are the one who is confused.
What I'm saying is straightforward and accurate.


So build one and prove me wrong, Mook. Or point to one someone else
has built. You can't because there isn't one. LASRE was not a
combined cycle engine.

Wait a minute, I thought you said you understood they were the same thing? hmm...

It was pure linear aerospike. They SIMULATED
the behavior of a combined cycle engine by mounting it on an SR-71.

That's right because the spike is the starting point for a combined cycle operation like I said.


But aerospike is one
type of rocket engine this cannot

It is the most suitable type of engine for combined cycle operation according to
aerospace engineers at Dryden who actually flew these type of engines in a range of experiments.


Cite? LASRE was not a combined cycle engine.

Dude, go to a library and look it up. I've given you enough data to do that.


be done with, since when you add the
duct it isn't an aerospike anymore.

Its called a combined cycle engine and how such engines behave depend on the details of
their design. Discussing such details with you is a waste of time since you obviously
don't have a clear understanding of the basics.


You mean because I'll point out your errors and make you look like a
mook, Mook.

Your projecting again, you racist *******.


Air-augmented rockets are a hybrid class of rocket/ramjet engines, similar
to a ramjet, but able to give useful thrust from zero speed, and is also able
to operate outside the atmosphere, with fuel efficiency not worse than both a
comparable ramjet or rocket at every point.


Straight from Wikipedia.

Quoted straight from wikipedia so you won't be able to say its wrong! lol.


I won't?

Well, so you won't be able to RATIONALLY say its wrong! lol.

Lots of things in Wikipedia are.

True. Which is why I take it with a grain of salt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-augmented_rocket

But, as in everything MookieMathed, Mook apparently doesn't read far
enough to note the difficulties of this "easily converted" design.

Nonsense.

From the Wiki article he's plagiarizing:

"It might be envisaged that such an increase in performance would be
widely deployed, but various issues frequently preclude this. The
intakes of high-speed engines are difficult to design, and they can't
simply be located anywhere on the airframe whilst getting reasonable
performance - in general the entire airframe needs to be built around
the intake design. Another problem is that the air eventually runs
out, so the amount of additional thrust is limited by how fast the
rocket climbs. Finally, the air ducting weighs about 5× to 10× more
than an equivalent rocket that gives the same thrust. This slows the
vehicle quite a bit towards the end of the burn."

Wikipedia has many shortcomings as well as strengths.


Oh, I see. Wikipedia is perfect evidence for you except when it
disagrees with you?

Pretty much on this topic, yeah FOR THE REASONS ALREADY CITED AND REFERENCED!

Yeah, that's pure mook.

No, its called knowledge and experience. Something you lack.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critici...and_harassment

And because of that I tend to be careful in quoting wiki in what I say. If what I read in wiki agrees with what I learned at school, and is in the literature and textbooks, then I tend to quote it where appropriate. If what I read in wiki is obviously the product of an edit war, I tend to bypass it. Obviously the commentary repeated above makes a lot of conclusions, but doesn't provide one reference to support it. Such far reaching conclusions ought to point to some sort of reference to justify them. They do not. The fact is, many AIAA articles and textbooks can be found to say precisely the opposite on many points. So, I chose not to quote this obviously politically motivated point about aerospike engines.

The question then arises, why should there be any politics around a piece of hardware? Obviously, like atom bombs and plastic explosives, aerospike has been found by the pervasive military industrial complex, to be something that is of interest and thus, something whose knowledge is controlled. Likely because its part and parcel of many USAPs flying today.

And this is why NO space launchers do this.

No ACKNOWLEDGED launchers.


NO LAUNCHERS. If you claim otherwise, point to one.

I gave you two pointers to reported sightings, all you've got to do is read the literature as I've pointed out. Its obvious the SR-71 would not have been retired had something better not been flying. Its also obvious that aerospike went dark along with composites and so forth. Its obvious Boeing and Lockheed have maintained significant capacity over the years. It adds up.


You need compensating
intakes,

Depends on the details.


With the primary detail being whether you want something that works or
something that does not.

Nonsense.


just like you need a compensating nozzle (heavy and difficult
to design)

Nonsense.


Oh, really?

Really!

How many have you designed and built?

haha - I can't really say dude!

Why do you think
they are uncommon as hen's teeth?

Because they're the heart of some of the most important USAPS flying today and that's the way the military wants it.


and it adds a lot of parasitic structure weight.

Again, it depends on the details.


Yes, if you don't worry about little details like structural
integrity, you can build the bloody things out of rainbows and unicorn
horns.

No you can't.


snip remaining Mookspew - tired of correcting him ... AGAIN

You didn't get the basics right, so your 'corrections' were idiocy as usual.


Sure, Mook. Get back to me when you can point to A SINGLE VEHICLE
like what you claimed is so common.

Alright. I'll fly one through your bloody forehead if authorized to do so! lol. You'll never see it coming!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWKG6ZmgAX4

I'M KIDDING! IT'S A JOKE! A JOKE! I kid I kid. I joke with you!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3BE-Ck1D58
snip remaining mookery


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine