Talk:Aerospike engine

message: 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)
thread_title: Redirect

message: 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)
thread_title:  Another aerospike photograph 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  starting the engine 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Toroidal description 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cons? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Principles 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Spike vs Aerospike 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Minor Edit 

message: 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  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)
thread_title:  Citations and sources are needed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  usable in space? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Is the KSF thing even worth mentioning 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Free Expansion Ramp 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[:File:Twin Linear Aerospike XRS-2200 Engine PLW edit.jpg]] scheduled for POTD 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Engine Bell" needs to be defined 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reference 1 no longer at that link