Talk:Aerospike engine

Redirect
I've noticed that Trident missile links to aerospike which redirects here, yet the opening text clarifies that the article is about something entirely different. Shouldn't "aerospike" by itself be a separate article, then? --- Neckro 07:46, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I turned aerospike into a disambig page that links to both kinds of aerospike now. Triddle 19:02, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another aerospike photograph
I just added a new article on LASRE and I thought you might like to know a new aerospike photograph is in wikipedia now. Hope you can use it!. Triddle 07:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

starting the engine
Ok here is a question: how would a SSTO vehicle initially start? When the vehicle is not moving the engine is missing an entire part, the nozzle. I imagine on the static engine test stands that air is being forced around the engine similar to a wind tunnel. Is this the case? Is this how the engine would be started on the launch pad? If so, what happens when the vehicle leaves the area of localized high speed wind? It won't accelerate that fast and I imagine it takes quite a bit of wind to put up resistance against rocket exhaust. My curiosity has been peaked. Boy these things are cool. Triddle 19:01, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The engine relies on static atmospheric pressure rather than dynamic atmospheric pressure. I believe that this article could use a lot more information on how an aerospike works.--Mbaur181 16:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Toroidal description
I don't understand where the 'smaller spike' in the toroidal engine goes. Clarification please? --jonon, 25 Sep 2005

Am I correct in thinking that the annular (ring-shaped) aerospike pictured is the same thing as the toroidal aerospike described in the text? (Allister MacLeod 13:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC))

Cross- section
A cross section pic would be nice to clarify exactly how these things work. RSido 04:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Cons?
I would disagree with the cons listed in this article. While I have no experience directly working with aerospike engines, I was taught the opposite (that they were very structurally efficient in both weight and cooling) in university when this was covered. It is more structurally efficient for three reasons:

1) You only need half a nozzle ... the other half is provided by the surrounding airflow with no weight and no need for heat dissipation

2) It is much easier to build a light strong supporting truss within the spike than surrounding a traditional nozzle

3) No heavy actuation mechanism is required for the spike structure as thrust vectoring is provided by controlling the fuel flow

Am I wrong?

I don't know what the cons are (I would guess that there is some plume control issues at low speeds) but those listed don't seem valid. (bob 16:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC))


 * Cooling is an issue. When we were working on the CSULB spike, we thought about regenerative cooling, but found it to be too difficult(the tubing going through the spike would have been extremely thin, especially at the base), hence the abalative plug.  Also there were some structural issues with the plug (it was carbon graphite) since it broke and plugged up the combustion chamber causing the engine to explode during its first test fire.Mbaur181 13:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Principles
Okay, I have found some mistakes in this section. Over the next few weeks I am going to start correcting them. Here is a list of things I intend to correct. 1) The external portion of the nozzle is not formed by the air moving past the engine.  Rather it is merely the fact that there is air around engine exerts pressure on the exhaust flow.

2) The losses for a traditional bell nozzle come from under or over-expansion of the exhaust flow.  An aerospike achieves its performance advantage because the flow is ideally expanded for the given altitude.

Any inputs are greatly appreciated.Mbaur181 04:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Spike vs Aerospike
Several of the comments here relate to the misnomer in the article title.

This Article is about (all) Spike engines.

The figure in the "Performance" section is of a non-truncated, toroidal spike engine. You can see the spike coming to a "point" at the left side of the photo.

The figure in the "Variations" section shows a truncated, toroidal aerospike engine. In this case the "point" is not visible because it is formed by gas coming from the center of a shorter truncated spike.

I recommend the article make these distinctions explicit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.4.238.61 (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a nozzle?
Shouldn't this article be renamed "Aerospike nozzle"? Conceivably one could have two rocket engines differing only in the nozzle, with an aerospike nozzle the only thing distinguishing a so-called "aerospike engine." We speak of already divergent, convergent, convergent-divergent nozzles, isn't this just another type of nozzle?

Minor Edit
There is a special place in Hell for those who denote a plural with an apostrophe. Sofa King (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, and I expect it involves endlessly writing them out wrongly in front of people like you. ;-)- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Citations and sources are needed
Please be sure that all additions to the Aerospike engine are  verifiable. Any new items added to the article should have inline citations for each claim made.

I have removed a few pieces of unsourced material that had been previously tagged citation needed for at least a couple of months with no sources added. If you have a source, please feel free to add the material back in, along with the citation. N2e (talk) 03:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Tagging every paragraph "citation needed" is obnoxious and unpleasant to read, especially when the paragraphs are explanatory, rather than the sort of assertions that typically draw requests for citations. There is a notice at the top of the article requesting citations, let that be enough except in rare spots that really need citations. I don't see any such points in this article - the explanations could be rewritten to be clearer but they are logical and on reading the links appear to be correct.

I don't think this article needs more citations, actually. (heresy!) The lack of response to your demands for more citations seems like a tacit consensus that no more citations are really needed - not that they wouldn't be fine, but it is too easy to spam articles with {cn} every paragraph and pretend that you have high standards for verifiability while not expending the effort to do the research and add citations yourself. You can't put the burden on everyone else to do all the work. If You want citations, then add them. Enon (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

usable in space?
directing the gases via the surrounding air is all good and well, but how is the plume shaped/maintained in a total vacuum? would it even ignite and form a dynamic thrusting flame, or would it just burn uncontrolled on the spike? 62.227.55.149 (talk) 10:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Aerospike engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080615154007/http://www.csulb.edu:80/colleges/coe/mae/views/projects/rocket/ to http://www.csulb.edu/colleges/coe/mae/views/projects/rocket/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071007072409/http://www.pwrengineering.com/dataresources/AerospikeEngineControlSystemFeaturesAndPerformance.pdf to http://www.pwrengineering.com/dataresources/AerospikeEngineControlSystemFeaturesAndPerformance.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071009152233/http://www.pwrengineering.com/dataresources/X-33AttitudeControlUsingTheXRS-2200LinearAerospikeEngine.pdf to http://www.pwrengineering.com/dataresources/X-33AttitudeControlUsingTheXRS-2200LinearAerospikeEngine.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Aerospike engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100402105625/http://www.pwrengineering.com/articles/nozzledesign.htm to http://www.pwrengineering.com/articles/nozzledesign.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110317035653/http://www.astronautix.com/engines/rs2200.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/engines/rs2200.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050219153713/http://astronautix.com/stages/satt250k.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/stages/satt250k.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Is the KSF thing even worth mentioning
In this edit, someone added the claim about KSF Space. As far as I can tell, KSF is a satellite equipment manufacturer (so I'm not claiming this is a hoax, or some rando's backyard project). But that person added no source, and the only thing I can find is KSF's own claim, a very scant web page of a plan to make something - with no evidence of any actual attempt to proceed beyond that. All the other implementers listed in the article (Rocketdyne, Dryden, CSU, Firefly, and ARCA) have all built and tested an actual engine.

I don't think we should list an "implementation" when there's no evidence that they've actually made anything, or had any serious project to do so, and there's no independent coverage that this project is notable. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 17:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Free Expansion Ramp
A note on terminology: According to T.A. Heppenheimer, if memory serves (as I'm sure it does, though I don't have the book handy just now), the proper name for this critter is actually Free Expansion Ramp. This is a most descriptive name because the exhaust gases actually are expanded against flat surfaces on the outside of the nozzle. Heppenheimer included an actual photograph taken during the Rocketdyne tests in the 1970s.

I doubt this is a term that Heppenheimer just made up for his book; there are most likely Rocketdyne documents where this came from. I will have to dig into the library and produce the book, and look up the reference. This could take awhile, going over my to-do lists. If somebody can assist with producing a cite, much appreciated! Else keep a lookout for my next edit here! Wikkileaker (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Twin Linear Aerospike XRS-2200 Engine PLW edit.jpg scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture File:Twin Linear Aerospike XRS-2200 Engine PLW edit.jpg, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for October 6, 2020. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2020-10-06. Any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be made before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

"Engine Bell" needs to be defined
There is no page on Wikipedia that describes "engine bell". I think it pertains to the "nozzle" of a jet or rocket engine, but, if that is true, the text should be changed to "rocket engine nozzle" rather than "engine bell". Cyberswimmer (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Reference 1 no longer at that link
The link for reference 1 ( https://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/background/facts/aerospike.html ) leads to a 404 page. An archive is available here: https://web.archive.org/web/20211004010718/https://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/background/facts/aerospike.html

Just a quick drive by as I'm not a regular wikipedian, and don't currently have the time to dig into how to format the reference properly 91.208.124.126 (talk) 09:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)