To: telescope115
Probably, but I think it’s meant to be a proof-of-concept. If they can get it to work in principle, then they can invest more in a proper model.
6 posted on
05/10/2024 5:11:49 AM PDT by
Jonty30
(He hunted a mammoth for me, just because I said I was hungry. He is such a good friend. )
To: Jonty30
Yup. We’ll see how the later models fare. Hope they are successful!
14 posted on
05/10/2024 5:29:39 AM PDT by
telescope115
(I NEED MY SPACE!!! 🔭)
To: Jonty30
. . . it’s meant to be a proof-of-concept.
Yes. I'm sure all they want to do is get high and fast enough to show that they can make the aerospike work, and get some data on performance.
Getting to orbit is all about speed. You can get high with low speeds (which, for orbiting spacecraft, can be something around Mach 2). Orbit requires about Mach 20. So the real issue is getting high enough to reduce drag, then go fast. Back when we had the Space Shuttle, if you watch the films you see that they got to Mach 1 at less than one minute into the (almost) nine minute main burn.
Most of that main burn was spent high enough that the bells on the engines were very efficient. Picking up a little efficience (with the aerospike) at Mach 3-4, and losing it from Mach 4 to Mach 20 doesn't sound like a very good optimization.
But I'm all for letting them try, particularly since NASA is not involved. The NASA of nowadays (all DEI and government bureaucrats) has ruined anything manned for the last 30 years.
19 posted on
05/10/2024 5:39:11 AM PDT by
Phlyer
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson