WikipediaIn 2015, Dassault Aviation is a multinational company employing almost 11,745 people, including 9,000 in France, with a commercial presence in over 83 countries and its activities are centered on the following areas:>aeronautics with 8,000 aircraft delivered since 1945, mainly business jets representing 71% of activity (Falcon) and also military aircraft (Mirage 2000, Rafale and nEUROn),>space activities (ground telemetry systems, spacecraft design and pyrotechnic activities),>services (Dassault Procurement Services, Dassault Falcon Jet and Dassault Falcon Service),>aerospace and defense systems (Sogitec Industries).
WikipediaFinmeccanica S.p.A. is the leading industrial group in the high-technology sector in Italy and one of the main global players in aerospace, defence and security. It operates in seven sectors: aeronautics, helicopters, space, electronics, defence systems, transportation and construction.
The review focused on changes to the Second Stage (L2), such as the reduction in weight and margins since SpaceX opted against recovery attempts of this stage in its current configuration.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 09/06/2015 04:21 amBAE SYSTEMS is a British based an aircraft manufacturer. If the UK Government is paying it may be happy to build a SSTO spacecraft.Do they even still have any capability to make large aircraft though? They sold their stake in Airbus ten years ago, do they have any facilities or experience left to enable them to be the prime airframer for Skylon?Their Taranis UAV work is probably useful software wise but beyond that what do they have to offer?
BAE SYSTEMS is a British based an aircraft manufacturer. If the UK Government is paying it may be happy to build a SSTO spacecraft.
Given the materials use in Skylon and given the size of the craft I doubt any company has a ready made facility in the UK or in fact anywhere in the world. A big sum would have to be invested building such a facility capable of manufacturing the plane.
Plus the Runway requirement means you may as well build a new facility and runaway rather doing what I presume would be a costly upgrade of existing runway and delay delivery of planes to existing customers.
Another interesting hire:Quote from: http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/news_updates.htmlJonathan Hale joins the Reaction Engines Ltd Board as a Non-Executive Director[...]Jonathan has over 35 years of commercial and financial experience in the aerospace, energy, mining and consulting sectors. Prior to joining C-FEC, a revolutionary wind turbine company, Jonathan was Director of Corporate Strategy for Rolls Royce plc and a member of its Group Executive, retiring in 2010. He was responsible for corporate strategy, M&A, development of new businesses and partnerships, and commercialisation of technology.[...]Jonathan has an MBA from Harvard School of Business Administration and an MA and BA from Cambridge University in Metallurgy and Materials Science. Sorry, no permalink.More Rolls Royce staff, perhaps pointing towards an engine partner, or perhaps the work RR did on the predecessor gives them more confidence to join REL.
Jonathan Hale joins the Reaction Engines Ltd Board as a Non-Executive Director[...]Jonathan has over 35 years of commercial and financial experience in the aerospace, energy, mining and consulting sectors. Prior to joining C-FEC, a revolutionary wind turbine company, Jonathan was Director of Corporate Strategy for Rolls Royce plc and a member of its Group Executive, retiring in 2010. He was responsible for corporate strategy, M&A, development of new businesses and partnerships, and commercialisation of technology.[...]Jonathan has an MBA from Harvard School of Business Administration and an MA and BA from Cambridge University in Metallurgy and Materials Science.
Jonathan Hale, the former Strategy Director at Rolls-Royce, understands how to shape company strategy better than pretty much anyone you could wish to meet. - Jonathan Mitchell former Global CIO of Rolls-Royce
I think what this continues to show is that serious people are taking REL seriously. Perhaps it's time for Skylon graduate from advanced concepts.
Quote from: lkm on 09/12/2015 12:37 pmI think what this continues to show is that serious people are taking REL seriously. Perhaps it's time for Skylon graduate from advanced concepts.It's a fair question. I'd like to see a few more companies other than RR show themselves What bothers me is they don't seem to have anyone with a serious background in raising money.The next steps are big upgrades in cash, but (I would guess) much lower levels of risk that an "unknown unknown" will turn up and make it unworkable. This would seem to be the point at which they need to get someone who can talk to the right kind of investor.If you can handle the level of risk involved REL has a very good story to tell about its use of investors money and its ability to deliver what it promises when it promises to do so. Those are significant virtues for investors, some of which simply won't look at less than $Bn investments due to their size.
not exactly skylon news but....A Lapcat II design was proposed yesterday by REL-affiliated ESA researches, a mach-8 airliner apparently.http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150914-the-challenges-of-building-a-hypersonic-airliner
In the BBC article they refer to a 'thermal paradox' where heating is less severe for a Mach 8 vehicle than a Mach 5 one. Below is the article that explains that (essentially overall heating is more manageable for a Mach 8 vehicle because the flight time - at high temperatures - is reduced since you land earlier.) http://www.congrexprojects.com/Custom/15A01/Papers/Room%202.1/Thursday/Long%20range%20transatmospheric%20systems%20II/90155_Steelant.pdfI guess this is a strike against the Mach 5 REL LAPCAT A2 concept.
guys, I think I need few clarifications as I am no engineer. Is this lapcat II design a hybrid jet-rocket engine like Skylon?If not, what are the implications for future Skylon design, provided that Skylon D1 is expected to travel up to M5 before switching in rocket mode, and this lapcat II design is expected to reach M8 wthout rocket mode (if I understand it well)?
I wonder what this is all about? http://aviationweek.com/technology/turbine-engine-could-pave-way-supersonic-cruise-missiles
The initial phases of the program focused on inlet performance and stability at Mach 4, which took up 95% of the early testing. Mode transition schedules were developed during tests in 2011-12, and a Mach 3 bleed configuration was created to help solve a high steady state distortion that was discovered at Mach 3. The goal of the latest phase was to focus on smooth and stable mode transition at Mach 3 and test a closed-loop inlet control system in the process. Walker says the program completed system identification of inlet dynamics for development of controls algorithms and “successfully demonstrated a fully autonomous mode transition with no unstarts.” This latest phase of testing was completed in May.Stelr is also one of the propulsion options included in a NASA-funded Lockheed Martin study in support of the proposed SR-72 hypersonic, ISR strike aircraft. The study has been looking into the viability of a TBCC propulsion system with several combinations of “near-term turbine engine solutions” and a very-low-Mach ignition dual mode ramjet. Unlike the Mach 4 takeover range of most ramjets conceived to date, this study, together with another similar contract recently awarded by NASA to Aerojet Rocketdyne, is evaluating take-over velocity to be reduced to Mach 2.5 and below.