before the Wright brothers

i'm pretty sure most people weren't into airplanes or the idea of flying until after it became common. ok so we have had space programs and shuttle missions and whatnot, and some people actually do get facinated - but until the average joe/joette begins to get the the idea that they themselves actually have a shot at experiencing it we shouldn't expect too much

i think the whole idea of the ansari x-prize is totally based on this correct (imo) presumption

Right again. By the way, welcome to the boards, if I haven't said that already. Oh, and I agree wholeheartedly with your signature. After having looked over a few AIAA documents I got interested in them, and I'm fixing to get into them by next summer. God bless physics and Texas Instruments.

ty for your welcome - and even more for your interest in aerospikes!

i'm no engineer myself but from what little i know about aerospikes i have trouble seeing why they're not in use elsewhere than the ditched x-33 venture star - hope you're successful

There has been more work (including launch) of aerospike engines then what NASA has done.

For your interest:

http://www.hobbyspace.com/AAdmin/archiv ... #Sep.22.03

ty very much for the link

i followed it and found this page: http://www.csulb.edu/colleges/coe/ae/rockets/
which shows a later and much more successful launch: http://www.csulb.edu/colleges/coe/ae/rockets/aerospike/ft-2-p-4/Flight.htm

btw a nice introductionary page on aerospikes can be found here:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/design/aerospike/main.shtml
its focus ends on linear aerospikes but it's a good primer anyway
they give the following summary on advantages and disadvantages:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/design/aerospike/x33.shtml
and it's good news indeed that csulb/gsc has actually flown an aerospike rocket! they've beaten all governmental space organisations to this!

seems to me nasa was jumping too many steps by going directly for linear aerospikes rather than testing annular aerospikes first...

i also see that csulb/gsc are using something close to a full-length isentropic spike <-- someone is using their heads imo!

Really spiky ! Great to see that some people are still researching these kind of ideas.
Aero-spike engines are significantly smaller than the ones with a bell-shaped nozzle and similar (static) performance.
Another (not often mentioned) advantage is that in the lower atmosphere a spike generates less base drag than the bell nozzle.