Ken, I was a big supporter of the X-33 Single Stage To Orbit, SSTO vehicle that was based on the Aerospike engine. The video covers historical technical background information that is useful. It supplies an overview of this NASA development work. The Aerospike engine design has the potential to reduce the vehicle mass ratio. Now, as SpaceX moves toward reusable boosters, any cost improvements in the entire Falcon system are welcomed. The big issue that nixed the X-33 wasn't the engine or the SSTO idea. It was the composite material & irregular shape used for the liquid oxygen(LOX) & liquid hydrogen(LH2) tanks. There was a failure on filling them on a test stand. No additional money was available at that time to develop a sound design. Here is a link to a Wikipedia article on the X-33.

I recently discovered this engine after doing some research on the X-33. I further researched and read some of the papers related to this engine and I must say, I can hardly believe this technology is 40 years old! I think it's an engine that was ahead of its time. I think in 10 years' time, this has to be revisited.

Freakishly fascinating Rocket Engine.

Its been 43 years since this and we still using bell rocket engines.....

Here's hoping the ARCA Demonstrator 3 linear aerospike rocket test in August this year goes well. I'm sure I'm not the only one who'll be fascinated to see the LA concept finally being flown!

Aerospike engines are used on Naboo starfighters.

I wonder if ARCA aerospace saw this video

Thanks for posting this. A little bit of engineering history... or the future.

This is exactly the info and footage I need I’m building the linier Aerospike in LEGO and this will be a big help

Very informative. Thank you.

ARCA aerospace might just launch one to space this year.

Why this wasn't used for the space shuttle by NASA is a huge question. A replacement was designed with the aerospike engine, but...? I'm amazed that SpaceX isn't using it. Maybe in the future?

A reminder we are decades behind where we should be, even more if you've seen the station and earth orbit rendezvous ideas from von Braun.

There was a model of this outside a propulsion research center at Redstone Arsenal along with some other rocket engines. I saw this a few years ago while on a bicycle ride. I can't find the center now with Google Maps so maybe the place has been replaced.

This is awesome! Thank you!

Luv it

Sounds like Col Potter (MASH)!!!!

This sweet baby is coming back!

Either this tech was mothballed or it went black. I'm not sure which...

2:33 Can sameone explain how this recirculated air inisde of flow can give thrust? I think There is lost of efficincy. No wall to recolect the lift and not having power right in the 180º of desire lift is waste energy. What if put and engine instead of truncated?

They should show this at the Infinity Center by the Stennis Space Center since that is where one of the two linear aerospike engines are on display. Or at least offer more info on it... how many seconds of operating life it has accrued, or some of the other great information in this video.

The word "nozzle" is used a full 20 times in this film.

wow i actually understand the techno-babble

A 5730 nautical mile ballistic hop requires 95% orbital velocity and a 20 degree burnout angle. This takes you from New York City to Tokyo in 20 minutes. A hydrogen oxygen single stage rocket requires an 81.7% propellant fraction. With an 8% structure fraction this leaves 10.3% payload fraction. So, a 129 passenger ship, capable of carrying 29 tonnes of payload in two class arrangement, 48 passengers in superior class arrangement, would have the following description; 29.0 tonne - payload (51.0 m3) 281.6 tonne - Take off weight 22.5 tonne - inert structure 35.4 tonnes - LH2 (505.7 m3) 194.7 tonnes - LOX (170.8 m3) And if we go for a Horizontal Take off and Horizontal Landing, we have something like this; www.warbirdforum.com/paxwing.htm Filled with hydrogen and oxygen propellant in the wing, a linear aerospike engine on either side of the observation platform in the tail with four J2 turbo pump systems.

Yes

Once again the Earth makes SSTO tantalizing close but unreachable. Hydrogen is not a good booster fuel, needs too much volume flow for the weight throw (so to speak.) Aerospike cooling increases by square, the need increases by cube, doesn't scale up.

Very difficult construction and maintenance. Now i understand why SpaceX choose the "bell" design instead.

0:38 is the bell actually oscillating or it's just an optical effect?

10 People, and ARCA space disliked this video.

I guess I don't know enough about these to understand why they aren't being used.. I remember that NASA did some tests in the last 5 or 10 years with a new version of this though.

Interesting concept. Film looks old. Why the linear engine wasn't widely used?

Go SpaceX!

You related to Heidi Hollis?

That plan worked out well 🙄...

17-07-2019.My teacher at School freaked out when he fould out l hold the patents to this type of Rocket engine, latter he confened it when he talked to his Boss Dr Von Brown who our Family know.

I knew somebody that's uses that cooladex in his truck! don't ask me why!

Arguably the biggest dead-end in rocket technology. The commentator is really talking it up, whilst glossing over the serious disadvantages of the design. These include serious overheating issues with the spike as the engine is scaled up (a conventional engine throat is a small surface area to cool, but an aerospike is a large area to cool), more mass than a conventional engine with the same thrust (higher temperature tolerant materials tend to be much heavier), and greater complexity than a conventional engine as size is scaled up (how do you ensure an even combustion across the whole spike? Multiple feed points, and many more pieces of plumbing.). If the design was as good as the commentary says, why has nobody managed to fit one to a space-going rocket? Go figure. It was shelved because it was found to be unreliable, and conventional rockets are also lighter, cheaper and 'easier' to build.

yes , but can they make an omelette

so we are left here to dry and die! if anyone is paying attention.

If this little doc was made today it would have an extremely patronizing narration repeating the same basic information every few minutes, irritating techno soundtrack, and about 50 different camera angles and effects.

They didn't do their best in that era.

Roswell engine. Or should I say primative attempt at Roswell engine.