←back to thread

A Review of Aerospike Nozzles: Current Trends in Aerospace Applications

(www.mdpi.com)
84 points PaulHoule | 5 comments | 26 Jun 25 15:33 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
psunavy03 ◴[26 Jun 25 15:59 UTC] No.44388657[source]▶
The abstract brings up SSTOs, but has there been anything in recent invention that will make them anything other than the white whale people have been chasing since forever?
replies(4): >>44388751 #>>44388945 #>>44388981 #>>44389554 #
pfdietz ◴[26 Jun 25 17:41 UTC] No.44389554[source]▶
Why make an SSTO when you can make a TSTO? First stage recovery is a solved problem and will always greatly relax the engineering problems over making a SSTO.
replies(1): >>44392505 #
avmich ◴[26 Jun 25 23:37 UTC] No.44392505[source]▶
Because of course SSTO has benefits over TSTO, simplicity of operation being one example.
replies(2): >>44392551 #>>44401090 #
1. pfdietz ◴[26 Jun 25 23:44 UTC] No.44392551[source]▶
The argument for SSTOs was that staging was too scary. But experience since then shows this argument was bogus. Staging can be made highly reliable.

Even a small amount of delta V provided by a first stage makes the job of the "almost SSTO" second stage much easier. And a low delta V first stage can be rugged, with high high safety factors, and is easy to recover at the launch site.

Put another way: if you have an SSTO, its payload increases dramatically if you stack it on a very low performance recoverable first stage.

I don't see any way SSTOs are going to be preferable to TSTOs, especially if the SSTO has to use hydrogen to get off the ground.

replies(1): >>44393707 #
2. avmich ◴[27 Jun 25 04:28 UTC] No.44393707[source]▶
Everybody may have their own criteria of preferences, so the same solution with fail for one and succeed for another.
replies(1): >>44393721 #
3. pfdietz ◴[27 Jun 25 04:31 UTC] No.44393721[source]▶
Sure, you can cook up whatever BS criteria you want, but when it hits the market SSTO doesn't make sense.
replies(1): >>44397410 #
4. avmich ◴[27 Jun 25 15:12 UTC] No.44397410{3}[source]▶
You're so sure you proved yourself right, huh?
replies(1): >>44398925 #
5. pfdietz ◴[27 Jun 25 18:07 UTC] No.44398925{4}[source]▶
I've been exposed to this argument for more than 40 years, so, yeah, I'm confident my opinion is a reality based one.