They are more efficient than conventional designs. Since mass ratios are so important in rocketry, the more efficient type of engine would be a big advantage, so why not use them?
The video goes into the subject and answers the question. The answer seems to be about money.
Note: There are a lot of posts about the experimental X-33 programs that nearly became operational. It featured Aerospike Engines, and would have been a single stage to orbit spacecraft--- the first of its kind. The Skylon concept would also feature aerospike engines.
An idea came to mind to use these in a staged system, but I note that the ISP really isn't an advantage. Yet, the aerospike is said to more efficient. Perhaps an explanation for why it doesn't give better ISP numbers at sea level can give the reasons why. I don't have one.
Since Elon Musk has shown that a launch booster can be recovered, then the use of aerospike engines may boost performance even further. But Musk won't pursue this line of development.
Update :
The only thing I found on this subject that can give an explanation is that the aerospike is more efficient at all altitudes, whereas a typical bell nozzle is not. Hence, it may be possible to be better overall even if it isn't at certain altitudes.
But I am not convinced of that. Another reason for aerospikes not being used is that they may have a problem with overheating. Hard to cool an engine like this.
No comments:
Post a Comment