HackerTube.dev

XRS-2200 Linear Aerospike Engine Test fire at NASA Stennis Space Center (SSC)

Barrel Roll · 1.5M views · 2012-10-22 · 1:35

Open on YouTube ↗

If playback is restricted in your region, try opening the original video. Use Mark watched to add it to your marked videos.

Overview

A short test firing of the XRS-2200 linear aerospike engine at NASA Stennis Space Center, which was designed for the cancelled X-33 VentureStar. The engine is shown at roughly 80 percent of max thrust.

On Hacker News

Linked as the go-to footage of a linear aerospike engine actually running whenever aerospike nozzles come up.

Discussed on HN; no positive recommendation is recorded in this export · HN mentions 2014–2025

Topics

Space exploration & spaceflightAviation & aerospace engineeringMechanical & precision engineering
Search by tags
aerospikenasax-33rocket enginetest fire

What people said

cubefox · 2025-06 · Reference

A reusable lower stage with powered landing also had never been flown to orbit at that time. And in contrast to aerospike engines, which had been tested before on the ground [1], you can't do ground testing with rocket stage landings. I think SpaceX didn't try to develop aerospike nozzles because the advantages probably aren't that large compared to the mixed nozzle design they are currently using. They also reused the same ceramic heat shield material developed for the space shuttle instead of developing something new. Compare that to the cancelled "VentureStar": It would have used both linear aerospike engines and a new metallic thermal protection system (TPS) instead of a ceramic one. I remember an interview where Musk answered the question of why they aren't doing aerospikes or metallic heat shields etc, that there are many ways to skin a cat. They are only doing one thing that they think will work, which is not necessarily the best possible solution, but potentially faster or cheaper to develop. [1] [VIDEO]

Read the original HN comment ↗
api · 2021-03 · Reference

I love SpaceX, but I don't find them quite as miraculously impressive as some people. SpaceX is "just" doing what NASA did in their glory days: rapidly iterating, innovating, and then carrying those innovations all the way through to real world flight. That last part is key. In industry we call that "shipping." NASA didn't stop innovating per se. In the 1980s and 1990s they worked out their own version of vertical take-off and landing and actually test flew it: [LINK] Linear aerospike engines are pretty neat too: [VIDEO] Problem is absolutely none of this stuff ever got close to operational. It kept getting cancelled in the prototype stage. If the DC-X had been developed into a fully reusable first stage, we'd have had something like Falcon 9 by the year 2000 and might be on Mars by now.

Read the original HN comment ↗
ridgeguy · 2014-12 · Reference

Lots of work done on aerospike engines. Google IYF. FYI, here's a video of a linear aerospike test: [VIDEO]

Read the original HN comment ↗

Sources

Video by Barrel Roll, played through YouTube.

Data and selection notes

HN summaries and labels may contain AI errors. HN dates refer to discussions, not video publication.

HN Library: HackerTube export (2026-10-31) and open-index/hacker-news. Upstream summaries and classifications may contain AI errors.

Views, duration and playback status refresh separately from the published catalog. When an update fails, existing data remains visible.

Selection checks
  • SaaS & AI candidates: Topic keywords do not match
  • Editor-approved picks: Editorial review is required

Rule matches identify candidates. They do not guarantee video quality or financial results.

About the library and its sources