A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Aerospike engine to be tested at high altitude (Finally!)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 21st 17, 02:58 PM posted to rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.policy,sci.physics,sci.military.naval
Robert Clark[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 245
Default Aerospike engine to be tested at high altitude (Finally!)

The new start-up Arca Space Corporation will test this year for the very
first time, more than 50 years after the aerospike was developed, the high
altitude performance of an aerospike on their liquid-fueled demonstrator for
their planned SSTO:

Flight of the Aerospike: Episode 1.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1hnImvI2gw

ARCA to perform historic space flight of aerospike engine.
Published by Klaus Schmidt on Sat Jun 17, 2017 9:30 am
Quote:
For 60 years the aerospace industry has been waiting for this moment, a
moment ARCA Space Corporation will offer to the scientific community in
August this year by launching the Demonstrator 3 space vehicle: the first
space flight of an aerospike rocket engine. Soon we are going to know if the
hopes and dreams of generations of aerospace engineers, in their pursuit to
create what is supposed to be the most efficient rocket engine in the world,
will materialize. We hope to confirm that aerospike rocket engines, which
are significantly more fuel efficient than the current engines, are
achievable and that they can lead the way to the creation of Single Stage to
Orbit rockets, which are more cost efficient and responsive.
https://spacefellowship.com/news/art...ke-engine.html

Rocket engine nozzles now are of a fixed bell shape. However, it is known a
bell nozzle is most efficient at a certain altitude and less efficient at
other altitudes. As an example, the SpaceX Merin engines for sea level use
have an Isp of 312 s. But the Merlin Vacuum optimized for vacuum use given a
much longer nozzle has a vacuum Isp of 348 s.

Since all orbital rockets operate in stages, this lack of efficiency at
varying altitudes was considered acceptable. But the SSTO concept
(single-stage-to-orbit) would use a single engine all the way to orbit. So
there were investigated methods such as the aerospike that could maintain
high efficiency at all altitudes.

However, it came to be believed that SSTO's were not feasible, either
technically or economically. So little research went into the aerospike.
This is extremely unfortunate. In fact, the aerospike can increase payload
for all rockets including staged ones. If the aerospike or other altitude
compensation had been used for existing rockets, it would have been observed
that at the increased Isp, several *existing* first stages could be SSTO's.
For instance, the famous Saturn 1C first stage of the of the Saturn V could
be SSTO with altitude compensation to give it a max vacuum Isp of 360 s
instead of its 304 s.

As I said this increase in payload using the aerospike can be significant. I
estimated it could be 25% for the Falcon 9. How much is the increase is
dependent on the individual rocket. But for a solid rocket launch system I
was investigating I found the aerospike doubled the payload to orbit!

This is because solid rocket motors typically get about 285 s vacuum ISP.
But using a rocket simulation program, I found the vacuum Isp could get as
as high as 325 s and above. The required bell size though would be quite
large, and would extend far outside the width of the rocket body, making it
impractical. But the aerospike could do this without extending outside the
rocket body's width.

In short the reason why the aerospike hasn't been used for any rocket liquid
or solid is because of the idea it is only useful for SSTO's and because of
the idea that SSTO's aren't useful.

Both of these ideas are incorrect.

Bob Clark

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize
21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital
launchers, to 'flying cars'.
This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:

Nanotech: from air to space.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/n...ce/x/13319568/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  #2  
Old June 23rd 17, 11:13 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Aerospike engine to be tested at high altitude (Finally!)

JF Mezei wrote:

On 2017-06-21 09:58, Robert Clark wrote:
The new start-up Arca Space Corporation will test this year for the very
first time, more than 50 years after the aerospike was developed, the
high


Would an aerospike engine be inherently more complex/costly to build?
or it is more or less a conventional engine with different engine bell?


You've confused. An aerospike engine essentially doesn't have an
engine bell. That's the point of the 'spike'.


In the case of linear aerospike, is there a single combustion chamber
with manifolds that direct thrust left/right (to provide steering), or
is there a single turbopump but multiple combustion chambers with
manifolds to direct fuel/oxidizer to the combustion chambers?


No.


And in terms of steering in the other axis, does the whole thing rotate?


What 'other axis' are you referring to?


Couldn't they make an engine bell in X shape at which point thrust could
be vectors in both axis?


I don't know what you're talking about now, but it's not an aerospike.


In the case of a round aerospike, is it just the inner portion which
moves to steer or does the whole kit move?


If by 'round' you mean 'annular aerospike', you steer them by using
one or more of the same techniques used to steer any other rocket.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #3  
Old June 24th 17, 08:42 PM posted to rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.policy,sci.physics,sci.military.naval
Robert Clark[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 245
Default Aerospike engine to be tested at high altitude (Finally!)

"Robert Clark" wrote in message news
================================================== ==============
The new start-up Arca Space Corporation will test this year for the very
first time, more than 50 years after the aerospike was developed, the high
altitude performance of an aerospike on their liquid-fueled demonstrator for
their planned SSTO:

Flight of the Aerospike: Episode 1.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1hnImvI2gw

ARCA to perform historic space flight of aerospike engine.
Published by Klaus Schmidt on Sat Jun 17, 2017 9:30 am
Quote:
For 60 years the aerospace industry has been waiting for this moment, a
moment ARCA Space Corporation will offer to the scientific community in
August this year by launching the Demonstrator 3 space vehicle: the first
space flight of an aerospike rocket engine. Soon we are going to know if the
hopes and dreams of generations of aerospace engineers, in their pursuit to
create what is supposed to be the most efficient rocket engine in the world,
will materialize. We hope to confirm that aerospike rocket engines, which
are significantly more fuel efficient than the current engines, are
achievable and that they can lead the way to the creation of Single Stage to
Orbit rockets, which are more cost efficient and responsive.
https://spacefellowship.com/news/art...ke-engine.html

Rocket engine nozzles now are of a fixed bell shape. However, it is known a
bell nozzle is most efficient at a certain altitude and less efficient at
other altitudes. As an example, the SpaceX Merin engines for sea level use
have an Isp of 312 s. But the Merlin Vacuum optimized for vacuum use given a
much longer nozzle has a vacuum Isp of 348 s.

Since all orbital rockets operate in stages, this lack of efficiency at
varying altitudes was considered acceptable. But the SSTO concept
(single-stage-to-orbit) would use a single engine all the way to orbit. So
there were investigated methods such as the aerospike that could maintain
high efficiency at all altitudes.

However, it came to be believed that SSTO's were not feasible, either
technically or economically. So little research went into the aerospike.
This is extremely unfortunate. In fact, the aerospike can increase payload
for all rockets including staged ones. If the aerospike or other altitude
compensation had been used for existing rockets, it would have been observed
that at the increased Isp, several *existing* first stages could be SSTO's.
For instance, the famous Saturn 1C first stage of the of the Saturn V could
be SSTO with altitude compensation to give it a max vacuum Isp of 360 s
instead of its 304 s.

As I said this increase in payload using the aerospike can be significant. I
estimated it could be 25% for the Falcon 9. How much is the increase is
dependent on the individual rocket. But for a solid rocket launch system I
was investigating I found the aerospike doubled the payload to orbit!

This is because solid rocket motors typically get about 285 s vacuum ISP.
But using a rocket simulation program, I found the vacuum Isp could get as
as high as 325 s and above. The required bell size though would be quite
large, and would extend far outside the width of the rocket body, making it
impractical. But the aerospike could do this without extending outside the
rocket body's width.

In short the reason why the aerospike hasn't been used for any rocket liquid
or solid is because of the idea it is only useful for SSTO's and because of
the idea that SSTO's aren't useful.

Both of these ideas are incorrect.

---
================================================== =============

Flight of the Aerospike: Episode 2 - The Propellant Tank.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lGJz1i7VxQ


Very informative video. They mention in the video that the tank will be at
20 bar for their pressure-fed vehicles. This is fine their suborbital
demonstrator, but will be problematical for their SSTO vehicle. The problem
is a SSTO has to be highly weight optimized. A tank pressure of 20 bar is
about 10 times higher than that for typical orbital rockets, commonly
pump-fed.

They expect to reduce tank weight by using composites, but this can cut the
tank weight by only 1/2. Yet by having the pressure 10 times higher than
normal for an orbital rocket, the result is still a tank 5 times heavier
than for usual orbital rockets. Since an SSTO is already skating on the edge
of what is feasible, this makes it even more difficult for their SSTO to
succeed.

Still, for this suborbital demonstrator it will be important to prove it can
get the high vacuum Isp that theory suggests. I expect though when they move
to the full orbital SSTO, they'll switch to pump-fed engines.

Bob Clark

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize
21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital
launchers, to 'flying cars'.
This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:

Nanotech: from air to space.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/n...ce/x/13319568/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
72 M-1 Combustor Aerospike Engine William Mook[_2_] Policy 3 October 31st 10 05:27 PM
High altitude lights John Kirkland UK Astronomy 1 August 24th 06 01:32 PM
New methane/Lox engine tested - news to anyone? Important milestone? Frank Scrooby Technology 4 May 14th 06 07:36 PM
Rugged Laptop at high altitude Chris Technology 4 April 10th 06 09:45 AM
Spaceshipone high altitude nozzle missing Jim C Technology 4 April 28th 04 05:59 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.