Author Topic: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (1)  (Read 746219 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread
« Reply #1140 on: 11/05/2012 02:56 pm »
justify your opinion, it's not worth the e-paper it's written on.

Much like yours.

You have not provided any independent rational but are more like a mouthpiece for the organization vs an outsider.  Plus you are making statements like it is a given, where as I said "unlikely" and not "never".
« Last Edit: 11/05/2012 03:01 pm by Jim »

Offline pippin

  • Regular
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2575
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 45
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread
« Reply #1141 on: 11/05/2012 03:09 pm »
But, there are a lot of smart guys who have looked at the SKYLON design and said it will work.

I don't believe that.
It their word is worth anything they might have said that it COULD work. WILL work is something that is simply too far reaching a conclusion for something as complex as this.
WILL work includes feasibility, financing, demand, project management, a lot of politics and probably even other factors coming in. All of which will have to come together for a successful project.

And this particular one has challenges in every single respect:
* Technologically: this thing REQUIRES breakthrough developments in several different areas. There are very, very few examples of large scale projects who have actually succeeded from such a state of technological maturity. I don't remember even one.
* Financing: It's not like launch services right now are something you can make big money on commercially so financing for a project of this scale will have to involve governments. Which will have a lot of political interests, are notoriously short on money for investments right now and so on. AFAIK Skylon doesn't have a financing, yet.
* Demand: So far, RLVs haven't shown to be feasible because there weren't enough payloads. Of course it's also a question of cost but as long as nobody just funds a large scale project just for fun it's a chicken-and-egg-situation you don't easily get out of.
* Project Management: Developing technology and developing an operational business are two completely different animals. I know what I'm talking about here. Many a good projects with very bright people on them have failed just trying to bring together EXISTING technology. I don't say it can't be done, I just say that this part alone has a failure probability of maybe 50% or so, even if everything else works out fine.
* Politics: Since you need governments to fund, regulate and buy launches on this thing, you depend on their interest. Is the UK going to finance this alone? No? Then OK, who else has an interest in this. Another aspect with at LEAST 50% failure probability.
* Other: I'm sure I forgot something.

This is a cool project and all of what it's trying to do may be feasible (I can't judge on that) on it's own, but even then, putting it all together let's you end up with a probability of success in the single-digit percentages or so.

Offline adrianwyard

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1140
  • Liked: 322
  • Likes Given: 367
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread
« Reply #1142 on: 11/05/2012 03:12 pm »
I think the key challenging aspects of the Skylon design are well understood, and have been for quite a while. And the theoretical benefits are clear too. The trick is discerning if there is a business case for taking the conceptual Skylon and putting in the billions needed to make it a real launch system in the actual, unforgiving technological/engineering/political/financial landscape of 2012-2025.

It's not rocket science, but to state the obvious here's what can happen

You can be:
a] too early/blue-sky optimistic. (e.g. HOTOL in the 80s)
b] too late: It's 2060, all components for Skylon are fully matured for other reasons, and available from K-Mart, but no-one thinks to put them together because they were told winged SSTO can't be done in the 2000s.
c] just in time. Recognize the technologies just need a few TRL level bumps and it can work, and work well.

Jim's point about following the money is almost always reliable, so that suggests we are still in a].

I should add REL appear to be focused on convincing the world (esp. aerospace experts and financiers) that we are at c], which I'd say is exactly the right thing to do. The ESA study was convincing to many too. And it sounds as though they may have recently received new funding for expanding staff...
« Last Edit: 11/05/2012 03:29 pm by adrianwyard »

Offline Turbomotive

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 219
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread
« Reply #1143 on: 11/05/2012 03:34 pm »
Potential show-stoppers - what could they be?
The whole SABRE principle being wrong?
Precoolers not working or icing the engine?
Engine not producing enough thrust for orbit?
Thermal protection system inadequate?
or something else?

SKYLON has attracted over $350m of funding, according to space.com, dependent on successful precooler test.
http://www.space.com/11414-skylon-space-plane-british-engine-test.html
"Men might as well project a voyage to the Moon as attempt to employ steam navigation against the stormy North Atlantic Ocean." - Dionysius Lardner, 1838

Offline adrianwyard

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1140
  • Liked: 322
  • Likes Given: 367
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread
« Reply #1144 on: 11/05/2012 03:57 pm »
That $350M space.com article is from last year. I'm interested in the nature of the recent investment. Anyone know details?

Offline Turbomotive

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 219
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread
« Reply #1145 on: 11/05/2012 04:06 pm »
From my experience of giving investment numbers to media, that space.com quote might have been regretted later by management. My guess is, with delay to fully cryogenic precooler test, some money has been released (hence the hiring), but the full wallop still waiting for REL to do what they have promised.
"Men might as well project a voyage to the Moon as attempt to employ steam navigation against the stormy North Atlantic Ocean." - Dionysius Lardner, 1838

Offline BobCarver

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 274
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread
« Reply #1146 on: 11/05/2012 04:17 pm »

Jim, you have a reputation as a smart guy and it's probably well deserved. But, there are a lot of smart guys who have looked at the SKYLON design and said it will work.

Actually, not true, not enough of the right smart people have looked at it.  The fact that there is no other similar system in development or that there is not a bunch of money being thrown at it is telling.   Also, I define "working" as being cheaper that existing systems.   I don't mean like the shuttle which flew but did nothing to reduce the cost of spacelaunch.

Nice clarification. I see where you're coming from now. This is one of the Time Will Tell things.

Offline BobCarver

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 274
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread
« Reply #1147 on: 11/05/2012 04:24 pm »

* Technologically: this thing REQUIRES breakthrough developments in several different areas. There are very, very few examples of large scale projects who have actually succeeded from such a state of technological maturity. I don't remember even one.

This claim was previously made and has already been debunked on this very thread. To me, a breakthrough technology is one which has not been demonstrated in real life. I challenge you to name one technology which has not already been demonstrated in reality. Either that or redefine "breakthrough" as you understand it.

Offline pippin

  • Regular
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2575
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 45
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread
« Reply #1148 on: 11/05/2012 04:26 pm »
Potential show-stoppers - what could they be?
The whole SABRE principle being wrong?
Precoolers not working or icing the engine?
Engine not producing enough thrust for orbit?
Thermal protection system inadequate?
or something else?

You are thinking way to much in terms of fundamental issues. All of these can of course be show stoppers, but there's much less needed:
* Integration issues (always the biggest problem of complex technology projects, just have a look at X33)
* This thing relies on a lot of very tight assumptions. Just small shortcomings in structural efficiency or efficiency of the SABRE engine and the whole think comes to pieces. And that can well happen during scaling-up, doesn't even need to be a fundamental issue
* Process efficiency. This is one of the things that killed Shuttle (from a business case POV). The TPS was way to expensive to handle. It's not that it didn't work, but it needed refurbishing, careful processing and the whole stack had to be closely monitored (foam loss!) because it was too sensitive. So even if your whole technology actually works, it may still turn out a non-start from a cost perspective. And since you ALWAYS have SOME of this, you will only know where you end up after the fact which adds to the upfront risk.

Offline pippin

  • Regular
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2575
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 45
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread
« Reply #1149 on: 11/05/2012 04:27 pm »

* Technologically: this thing REQUIRES breakthrough developments in several different areas. There are very, very few examples of large scale projects who have actually succeeded from such a state of technological maturity. I don't remember even one.

This claim was previously made and has already been debunked on this very thread. To me, a breakthrough technology is one which has not been demonstrated in real life. I challenge you to name one technology which has not already been demonstrated in reality. Either that or redefine "breakthrough" as you understand it.
To me, a breakthrough is something that has not be demonstrated in real life, fully integrated and in the scale and to the efficiency needed to make the concept work. Which is the case for SABRE.
They have ideas and components, they don't have a working engine, let alone of the size required.
They don't have a working structure of the size, strength and mass ratio required and they don't have a TPS for that. All of these are breakthroughs that need to be developed.
« Last Edit: 11/05/2012 04:30 pm by pippin »

Offline BobCarver

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 274
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread
« Reply #1150 on: 11/05/2012 04:46 pm »
@pippin: REL have a TPS which is well proven. Breakthrough not required. "Fully-integrated" may be your idea of "breakthrough" but it sure isn't an industry standard. Here's what google says:

Quote
break·through/ˈbrākˌTHro͞o/
Noun:   

    A sudden, dramatic, and important discovery or development, esp. in science.
    A significant and dramatic overcoming of a perceived obstacle, allowing the completion of a process.

According to your definition, the heat exchanger is still a breakthrough to be made despite the fact that it has been thoroughly tested already. You should learn to use words as they are commonly understood and not your strange interpretation of them. It creates misunderstanding and confusion to misuse well-understood concepts as you have.
« Last Edit: 11/05/2012 04:48 pm by BobCarver »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread
« Reply #1151 on: 11/05/2012 05:06 pm »

I don't believe that.
It their word is worth anything they might have said that it COULD work.
A fair point.
Quote
And this particular one has challenges in every single respect:
* Technologically: this thing REQUIRES breakthrough developments in several different areas. There are very, very few examples of large scale projects who have actually succeeded from such a state of technological maturity. I don't remember even one.
You might care to look up the history of the SR71 and what was state of the art when its design was started. I'd suggest that TRL's in *all* the areas that Skylon/SABRE are better than they were when Kelly Johnson started that programme.

Quote
* Financing: It's not like launch services right now are something you can make big money on commercially so financing for a project of this scale will have to involve governments.
REL are not planning to *operate* Skylons. This has been mentioned repeatedly. The question *their* business model has to answer is therefor "Can we identify 30 entities who (for whatever reason) would want an *asset* which will give them orbital launch capability for about $1Bn [edit]and that have the reserves or financing to afford it?"
That is a *very* different question relative to *all* other LV builders/operators, [edit] which is roughly "How many groups need/can afford to spend c$70-150m on a 1 shot ticket to LEO/GTO with about a 1 in 20 chance of blowing up?".

Quote
Which will have a lot of political interests, are notoriously short on money for investments right now and so on.
True. Which is why REL have sought to avoid government *money* like the plague. Note that money is out there for large projects. A typical new semiconductor wafer fabrication plant is about $3Bn but these can be funded. BTW You should keep in mind that some portion of that $12Bn budget is simply to keep paying the interest charges based on borrowing from *commercial* banks.
Quote
AFAIK Skylon doesn't have a financing, yet.
And if they did how would you know it? So far they state they have had £60m in total with another £200m anticipated pending the current round of test results (IE cooling *full* flow at full LH2 temperatures). Weather the new round of hires is due to the £60m or they have had word the £200m is to be released (or *already* has been released) is anybodies guess.  [edit] If you know please share.
Quote
* Demand: So far, RLVs haven't shown to be feasible because there weren't enough payloads.
And my *suspicion* is that as long as the company that builds an RLV also *operates* it that will always be the case, except *possibly* if the RLV is very small. Note the current planned Xcorp vehicle is *not* orbital.[edit]I have great respect for the Xcorp team and have no doubt they will make it to orbit.
Quote
Of course it's also a question of cost but as long as nobody just funds a large scale project just for fun it's a chicken-and-egg-situation you don't easily get out of.
. Hence their plan to *not* operate the vehicle and not rely on how much traffic they have to pick up. You might like to consider the history of Sealaunch. While it's struggling (I'm not sure of its current status but it seems rocky) the company that *builds* its LVs is running fine.
Quote
* Project Management: Developing technology and developing an operational business are two completely different animals. I know what I'm talking about here. Many a good projects with very bright people on them have failed just trying to bring together EXISTING technology. I don't say it can't be done, I just say that this part alone has a failure probability of maybe 50% or so, even if everything else works out fine.
That would depend on what you mean by "operational business." If you mean moving from design to *construction* of Skyon/SABRE they've been clear all along they expect the Skylon side to more to an *experienced* airframe mfg who would incorporate their work, hte way Airbus is *part* of EADS or Panavia was set up *specifically* to design and mfg the Tornado. This project has *never* been anything other than high risk/cost/return.

[edit]If you're still thinking they will both build and *operate* Skylons you need to read the earlier part of this post.

Quote
* Politics: Since you need governments to fund, regulate and buy launches on this thing, you depend on their interest. Is the UK going to finance this alone? No? Then OK, who else has an interest in this. Another aspect with at LEAST 50% failure probability.

I'll suggest you preface that with "IMO". One of the reasons it has taken *so* long to gain UK govt support is the *belief* that this would become another "Concorde" and REL's fervent desire for it *not* to be so.
So in terms of "fund, regulate and buy launches" that would "no", "of course, and it's starting to be worked on" and "If the UK govt can find an *operator* to buy launches off of (at a price they can afford)then yes. Or they could just *buy* one themselves."

Quote
This is a cool project and all of what it's trying to do may be feasible (I can't judge on that) on it's own,
It's *goal* has been believed possible since at least the late 1960's (Look up Douglas Aircraft and Philip Bono).
Quote
but even then, putting it all together let's you end up with a probability of success in the single-digit percentages or so.

It's certainly true the record of large US aerospace projects in getting off the CAD screen has not been good. Concorde flew. The US SST did not. The X30 and X33 programmes absorbed *staggering* sums of govt  money without flying either. The Kistler K1 (staffed mainly by ex-NASA engineers) burned through c$900m of private VC funding

But is that because these projects are "impossible" (as the former head of the X33 programme claimed about a VTOHL SSTO) or impossible with *governemt* staff (or ex-staff) and their attendant mindset? On that basis you're PoV kind of makes the single digit percentage estimate perfectly reasonable.

I think I'm going to have to see if there is an REL Q&A section.
« Last Edit: 11/05/2012 05:23 pm by john smith 19 »
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread
« Reply #1152 on: 11/05/2012 05:52 pm »
Actually, not true, not enough of the right smart people have looked at it.  The fact that there is no other similar system in development or that there is not a bunch of money being thrown at it is telling.   Also, I define "working" as being cheaper that existing systems.   I don't mean like the shuttle which flew but did nothing to reduce the cost of spacelaunch.
The Skylon Assessment Report was done by ESA's  in house propulsion and structures team.

www.bis.gov.uk/assets/ukspaceagency/docs/skylon-assessment-report-pub.pdf

Who would you have preferred to have done it and what questions do you feel were not answered?
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread
« Reply #1153 on: 11/05/2012 06:12 pm »
You might like to consider the history of Sealaunch. While it's struggling (I'm not sure of its current status but it seems rocky) the company that *builds* its LVs is running fine.


Not a valid comparison.  The Sealaunch consortium includes the companies that builds components of Zenit and those companies are active participants in launch integration and operations.  It is not separate entities like airlines and plane manufacturers.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread
« Reply #1154 on: 11/05/2012 06:14 pm »
The Kistler K1 (staffed mainly by ex-NASA engineers) burned through c$900m of private VC funding


Wrong, it was not staffed by ex-NASA engineers

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread
« Reply #1155 on: 11/05/2012 06:15 pm »

Who would you have preferred to have done it

People who have designed and built large systems that include SOTA turbomachinery
« Last Edit: 11/05/2012 06:16 pm by Jim »

Offline pippin

  • Regular
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2575
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 45
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread
« Reply #1156 on: 11/05/2012 07:17 pm »
@pippin: REL have a TPS which is well proven. Breakthrough not required. "Fully-integrated" may be your idea of "breakthrough" but it sure isn't an industry standard. Here's what google says:

Quote
break·through/ˈbrākˌTHro͞o/
Noun:   

    A sudden, dramatic, and important discovery or development, esp. in science.
    A significant and dramatic overcoming of a perceived obstacle, allowing the completion of a process.

According to your definition, the heat exchanger is still a breakthrough to be made despite the fact that it has been thoroughly tested already. You should learn to use words as they are commonly understood and not your strange interpretation of them. It creates misunderstanding and confusion to misuse well-understood concepts as you have.

Your own quote says "allowing the completion of a process". They did not demonstrate that for SABRE, yet, and they are still pretty far from doing so.

Granted, I don't know about their TPS, how has it been "proven"? Has it flown on test vehicles? At what scale? At the weight ratio required? The speeds to be expected?

Offline BobCarver

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 274
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread
« Reply #1157 on: 11/05/2012 07:29 pm »
The heat exchanger has shown it works as designed. The breakthrough has been made.

The TPS is from the 1960s. No breakthroughs needed there. The only problem is that it's no longer being produced and a production line will have to be built. But, they think they just might be able to reproduce what was done 50 years ago.  :)

Look, all this talk about breakthroughs is just a red herring. The only real breakthrough was the heat exchanger and their tests have taken it down sub-zero, so the frost-control mechanism has been proven to work.

Offline Matt32

  • Member
  • Posts: 15
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread
« Reply #1158 on: 11/05/2012 07:41 pm »

Who would you have preferred to have done it

People who have designed and built large systems that include SOTA turbomachinery

The people behind REL have credentials here eg Blue Streak/Europa. (there's probably some turbomachinery in JET too)

Suspect the biggest challenges for skylon will actually be airframe, systems integration, and economics. REL have previously stated they need to get big aerospace companies involved to get the system built. Whether these companies come on board in the next 6-12 months will be telling.

REL seem to be approaching a crux of rhetoric vs actual progress. Happy to wait and see. Don't see how the current "can they/can't they" discussion really adds much at this point.

Offline pippin

  • Regular
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2575
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 45
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread
« Reply #1159 on: 11/05/2012 07:45 pm »
1. You might care to look up the history of the SR71 and what was state of the art when its design was started. I'd suggest that TRL's in *all* the areas that Skylon/SABRE are better than they were when Kelly Johnson started that programme.

2. REL are not planning to *operate* Skylons. This has been mentioned repeatedly. The question *their* business model has to answer is therefor "Can we identify 30 entities who (for whatever reason) would want an *asset* which will give them orbital launch capability for about $1Bn [edit]and that have the reserves or financing to afford it?"

3. True. Which is why REL have sought to avoid government *money* like the plague. Note that money is out there for large projects. A typical new semiconductor wafer fabrication plant is about $3Bn but these can be funded.

4.  And if they did how would you know it?

5. And my *suspicion* is that as long as the company that builds an RLV also *operates* it that will always be the case, except *possibly* if the RLV is very small.

6. That would depend on what you mean by "operational business." If you mean moving from design to *construction* of Skyon/SABRE they've been clear all along they expect the Skylon side to more to an *experienced* airframe mfg who would incorporate their work, hte way Airbus is *part* of EADS or Panavia was set up *specifically* to design and mfg the Tornado.

7. Concorde flew.

1. You may know more about that than me but I would like to know what you mean specifically. Turbojets were being mass-produced, RAM jets had been mass-produced and used in other projects for decades. All of the required technologies were already being used _somewhere_ yet still it was a big deal.
Here, we talk about things that haven't even been demonstrated except for on the component level, which is a completely different animal from making something work on the systems level.

2. C'mon, you are not that naive, aren't you? It doesn't make anything more viable that you add another risk layer in there (for the "separate manufacturer/operator" model BOTH businesses have to be viable, not only one!). This is just a strawman to not have to argue about the commercial viability of the operations by saying "it's not our problem, we just have to find a few entities who want to sink a few dozen billions of $$ into some high risk project". Where are these entities? Name them.

3. Semiconductor fabs are being built for well-known established markets by established companies. They can usually easily be re-purposed or are even built to serve different customers (the majority of chip-manufacturing is OEM production for various clients by specialized foundries). And still, most of them are heavily subsidized by local governments, often built by consortia and go bankrupt on a regular scale.

4. They would be sone-cold crazy not to tell anybody

5. Why? Whats the rationale? Airline operations is comparably simple and well-known. This thing has operational aspects, too, that are not understood, yet, and will have to be developed by the manufacturer, that makes the builder/operator split not more simple.

6. I mean moving to construction and demonstrating the operation (after all, you should at least be able to test fly the thing successfully before handing it to your operator). Who are these "experienced" manufacturers? An airframe like this and with these loads has never been done before, same with the engines. Integration of a similar system maybe has been done before. Once. 30 years ago. By NASA. Anyone still in the workforce with relevant experience?

7. And failed so miserably that nobody ever bothered to try again. On both sides of the equation, for the builder and the operator alike.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1