Re: After the shuttle

JRS: In article <4aadnT4yr8cr7wbfRVn-1w@xxxxxxx>, dated Mon, 30 May
2005 15:08:22, seen in news:sci.space.policy, Earl Colby Pottinger
<earlcp@xxxxxxxxxxx> posted :
>"William Mook" <william.mook@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> :
>
>> Well, that may be true of the linear aerospike engine designed for the
>> X-33. But I'm speaking of an older design that is pretty well proven;
>>
>> http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/p236.htm
>
>To my knowledge NASA has never flown an aerospike engine on any craft so how
>can you claim it is a proven design?


To be proven, it is not necessary for a design to be proven by NASA.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. *@merlyn.demon.co.uk / ??.Stockton@xxxxxxxxxxx ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Correct <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line precisely "-- " (SoRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SoRFC1036)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: After the shuttle
    ... But I'm speaking of an older design that is pretty well proven; ... To my knowledge NASA has never flown an aerospike engine on any craft so how ... can you claim it is a proven design? ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
    ... I wonder if the FDL-5 design they built a full-scale mock-up of also had a linear aerospike engine on it? ...
    (sci.space.policy)