Skip to content
HomeVideos
AllLongsCategoriesPlaylists
BooksBlogsPodcasts
HistoryListsWatch laterLiked videosFollowing

The videos, books, blogs and podcasts Hacker News keeps recommending, all in one place.

VideosBooksBlogsPodcastsAboutPrivacySettings

Data from Hacker News, HackerTube, HackerBooks, HackerBlogs and Open Library. Credits · Not affiliated with Y Combinator.

HomeVideosBooksBlogsPodcasts
Ctrl K

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

    Barrel Roll

    3 HN mentions · mentioned in 3 months, 2014–2025

    YouTube

    1:35 · 1.5M views · Oct 22, 2012

    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.

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

    Physics, Space & ChemistrySpace exploration & spaceflightAviation & aerospace engineeringMechanical & precision engineering
    1. 49:02
      Is SpaceX's Raptor engine the king of rocket engines?Everyday Astronaut5.4M views • 7 years ago
    2. 16:19
      KSP Doesn't Teach: Rocket Engine PlumbingScott Manley1.1M views • 10 years ago
    3. 46:37
      GPUs to Mars: Full-Scale Simulation of SpaceX's Mars Rocket EngineinsideHPC Report126K views • 11 years ago
    4. 41:22
      Elon Musk Explains SpaceX's Raptor Engine!Everyday Astronaut2.8M views • 4 years ago
    5. 1:36
      Grasshopper 325m Test | Single Camera (Hexacopter)SpaceX3.8M views • 13 years ago
    6. 49:05
      The Three Rocketeers-2012:BBC-Future of Space travFirstSecondThoughts152K views • 14 years ago
    7. 1:15
      Armadillo Aerospace - Mod free flight, engine restart, 4 viewsClark Lindsey34K views • 16 years ago
    8. Starbase Live: 24/7 Starship & Super Heavy Development From SpaceX's Boca Chica FacilityNASASpaceflight128M views • 5 years ago
    9. 1:37
      Grasshopper 744m Test | Single Camera (Hexacopter)SpaceX6.6M views • 13 years ago
    10. 49:33
      The Engines That Came In From The Cold - And how The NK-33/RD-180 Came To The USAMatthew Travis458K views • 12 years ago
    11. 1:51:13
      A4 / V2 Rocket in detail: TurbopumpAstronomy and Nature TV1.8M views • 7 years ago
    12. 11:14
      What Is A Rotating Detonation Engine - And Why Are They Better Than Regular EnginesScott Manley1.4M views • 6 years ago
    13. 1:00:26
      Why Starting A Rocket Engine Is So Hard!Everyday Astronaut2.3M views • 3 years ago
    14. 3:58
      Reusable Falcon 9 Launcher from Space-X!Devon124K views • 15 years ago
    15. 5:04
      Why Can't we Remake the Rocketdyne F1 Engine?Curious Droid4.2M views • 8 years ago
    16. 17:06
      A conversation with Elon Musk about StarshipEveryday Astronaut3.2M views • 7 years ago
    17. 2:22
      Apollo Launch Abort System Testoisiaa267K views • 16 years ago
    18. 16:01
      Mars Helicopter (before it went to Mars)Veritasium6.2M views • 7 years ago
    19. 2:31
      DC-X Flight 8Spaceman Sam Coniglio141K views • 18 years ago
    20. 19:58
      The Genius of 3D Printed RocketsVeritasium13M views • 5 years ago

    3 comments from Hacker News

    1. @cubefoxJun 2025· in “A Review of Aerospike Nozzles: Current Trends in Aerospace Applications”

      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] this video

      CitesView on HN
    2. @apiMar 2021· in “Tesla's “full self driving” beta is potentially dangerous”

      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: this 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.

      CitesView on HN
    3. @ridgeguyDec 2014· in “Firefly Space Systems charges full-speed toward low Earth orbit”

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

      CitesView on HN