XRS-2200 Linear Aerospike Engine Test fire at NASA Stennis Space Center (SSC)
Barrel Roll0 HN recommenders · 2014–2025
1.5M views · demo · evergreen · Uploaded 2012-10-22
A short test firing of the XRS-2200 linear aerospike engine at NASA Stennis Space Center, which was designed for the cancelled X-33 VentureStar. The engine is shown at roughly 80 percent of max thrust.
Linked as the go-to footage of a linear aerospike engine actually running whenever aerospike nozzles come up.
9:31Around The Corner - How Differential Steering Works (1937)
US Auto Industry
1:21:22Light Years Ahead | The 1969 Apollo Guidance Computer
TNMoC
32:35Detergent packs are kinda wishy-washy (Dishwashers Explained)
Technology Connections
41:53Mechanical Computer (All Parts) - Basic Mechanisms In Fire Control Computers
Excelsior10000
25:33Children Of The Magenta Line
Mossie Fly
18:28The Antique Toaster that's Better than Yours
Technology Connections
23:32The Solar Gravitational Lens will Map Exoplanets. Seriously.
Launch Pad Astronomy
19:43U.S. NAVY BASIC MECHANISMS OF FIRE CONTROL COMPUTERS MECHANICAL COMPUTER INSTRUCTIONAL FILM 27794
PeriscopeFilm
3 comments from Hacker News
Lots of work done on aerospike engines. Google IYF. FYI, here's a video of a linear aerospike test: [VIDEO]
I love SpaceX, but I don't find them quite as miraculously impressive as some people. SpaceX is "just" doing what NASA did in their glory days: rapidly iterating, innovating, and then carrying those innovations all the way through to real world flight. That last part is key. In industry we call that "shipping." NASA didn't stop innovating per se. In the 1980s and 1990s they worked out their own version of vertical take-off and landing and actually test flew it: [LINK] Linear aerospike engines are pretty neat too: [VIDEO] Problem is absolutely none of this stuff ever got close to operational. It kept getting cancelled in the prototype stage. If the DC-X had been developed into a fully reusable first stage, we'd have had something like Falcon 9 by the year 2000 and might be on Mars by now.
A reusable lower stage with powered landing also had never been flown to orbit at that time. And in contrast to aerospike engines, which had been tested before on the ground [1], you can't do ground testing with rocket stage landings. I think SpaceX didn't try to develop aerospike nozzles because the advantages probably aren't that large compared to the mixed nozzle design they are currently using. They also reused the same ceramic heat shield material developed for the space shuttle instead of developing something new. Compare that to the cancelled "VentureStar": It would have used both linear aerospike engines and a new metallic thermal protection system (TPS) instead of a ceramic one. I remember an interview where Musk answered the question of why they aren't doing aerospikes or metallic heat shields etc, that there are many ways to skin a cat. They are only doing one thing that they think will work, which is not necessarily the best possible solution, but potentially faster or cheaper to develop. [1] [VIDEO]