Elon's Latest Take (FWIW)

On Mar 30, 4:53 am, (Henry Spencer) wrote:
In article .com,

wrote:
Im not even talking about SpaceX, but im curious why is it still
called rocket science ? To me, it looks all as an applied engineering
field, so long as you dont go into exotics.

Even if you do. Engineers do advanced R&D at times.

The "rocket science" business was a PR misnomer from post-WW2 days, when
"scientist" had higher prestige than "engineer" and so the Peenemuende
team got called "rocket scientists". So obviously what they did must be
"rocket science".

The term is still occasionally misused by the ignorant. Knowledgeable
people sometimes use it with half-humorous connotations; some of the more
humorless and pedantic among them sometimes complain about this and want
it stamped out.

...Even aerospikes belong in the engineering field by now,
that they have flown.

Actually, they haven't -- I think it's still true that nobody has flown a
real aerospike. "Aerospike" and "spike nozzle" are not synonyms -- a
proper aerospike has a *truncated* spike, with gas injection to fill in
the truncation aerodynamically -- "aerospike" is "aerodynamic spike".
The DART tests a few years ago used a spike nozzle, not an aerospike,
despite their press releases. :-)

Are you referring to these tests ?
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=12631
"A joint academic / industry team conducted the first known flight
test of a powered liquid-propellant aerospike engine this past
Saturday, 20 September 2003. California State University, Long Beach
(CSULB) and Garvey Spacecraft Corporation, principal partners in the
California Launch Vehicle Education Initiative (CALVEIN), successfully
launched their Prospector 2 (P-2) research vehicle using a 1,000 lbf
LOX/ethanol aerospike engine designed and developed by CSULB
students."

So they were using what you would refer to as a "spike nozzle", not an
aerospike ?

-kert