Quote from: francesco nicoli on 07/20/2016 08:57 amQuote from: JCRM on 07/20/2016 08:29 amSo, on Friday Richard Varvill will deliver a Skylon Update to the BIS conference. What are they likely to say, and what would you want them to say?Want them to say?"we secured (X) customers who have put refundable deposits on our books so we can finally move towards airframe maker selection & speed up ground testing. We will deliver on schedule."jokes aside, I would like them to develop over recent remarks that the ground test article is going to be "much cheaper originally expected". Is it due to cutting on costs, or is it due to early conservative estimates?if the latter, is there any hope that (1) the already-confirmed cost reductions for the ground test articles are applicable to the real engines, and that (2) the overall cost estimates are equally conservative? Could it also be because BAE will be providing a lot of the components without profit margins and sale tax. VAT is 20% cost reduction alone.
Quote from: JCRM on 07/20/2016 08:29 amSo, on Friday Richard Varvill will deliver a Skylon Update to the BIS conference. What are they likely to say, and what would you want them to say?Want them to say?"we secured (X) customers who have put refundable deposits on our books so we can finally move towards airframe maker selection & speed up ground testing. We will deliver on schedule."jokes aside, I would like them to develop over recent remarks that the ground test article is going to be "much cheaper originally expected". Is it due to cutting on costs, or is it due to early conservative estimates?if the latter, is there any hope that (1) the already-confirmed cost reductions for the ground test articles are applicable to the real engines, and that (2) the overall cost estimates are equally conservative?
So, on Friday Richard Varvill will deliver a Skylon Update to the BIS conference. What are they likely to say, and what would you want them to say?
Quote from: knowles2 on 07/20/2016 12:54 pm{snip} Could it also be because BAE will be providing a lot of the components without profit margins and sale tax. VAT is 20% cost reduction alone.on intermediate products, VAT is usually refundable so it shouldn't impact costs... not sure how it works in UK however.
{snip} Could it also be because BAE will be providing a lot of the components without profit margins and sale tax. VAT is 20% cost reduction alone.
In a throw-away comment about the title slide, RV joked that PR had come to Reaction engines - the title wasn't anything an engineer would write "Reaction Engines / To Mach 5 and Beyond / the SABREtm solution.
RV confirmed SABRE is designed to be a SSTO engine, but they're investigating TSTO concepts.Hypersonic passenger transport is too expensive to be practical at the moment. Not going to go into other unmanned craft in this talk.
They continued to use the same SABRE engine diagram as we've seen before, but RV was quite careful to use "This particular design" when describing it, and refer to it as the C1 engine. (with particular reference to the sub zero cooling, and the conical inlet closing shutters)They are goig to build their own H2 test facility, and have quite detailed plans. (which didn't appear to have LOX tanks I only saw LH2, LHe and LN)
The SABRE test engine begins at the compressor, has various heat exchangers but doesn't have thrust chambers. From the humanoid figure for scale it's about 4 feet high, five wide and ten deep,Once the testing of the SABRE cycle is complete, the front and back will be added and testing of the integrated engine can be done. Once that's complete a test engine can be installed into a winged test vehicle and flown. Development of the test vehicle is expected to be around 1bn (I don't know if that's cumulative or additional to the engine costs)
While too small for the propulsion systems, the National Propulsion Test Facility would probably come in useful for testing the RCS system.
REL are particularly hoping BAE can help with the analysis of the CFD at the back of the nacelle (I don't know if that's a reference to the plume issue, or the internal flow)
Unrelated, Alan Bond is one of the most charismatic people I've met. I wouldn't trust myself to objectively judge anything he said.
the C1 engine was designed to run at 100-200 bar, as is required for the high SI.The air breathing engines in SABRE 4 are more likely to be around 20.
Wasn't thinking about other unmanned craft until this...
[...] plum impingement [...]
Brexit may kill Skylon, as it would be a logical Ariane 7 and although ESA isn't an aspect of the EU most of the ESA money comes from the EU, and supports EU aerospace...
Quote from: Bob Shaw on 07/24/2016 12:28 amBrexit may kill Skylon, as it would be a logical Ariane 7 and although ESA isn't an aspect of the EU most of the ESA money comes from the EU, and supports EU aerospace...No, only roughly about ~20% is from the EU, and as per above the vast majority of that is for the Gallileo and Sentinel constellations. Launchers are not funded via the EU.Besides Skylon was never actually going to be Ariane 7 as the French are the largest investor in launchers, and for obvious political reasons they were never going to sign up to a British idea where their space industry is reliant on a piece of British technology.
Quote from: Alpha_Centauri on 07/24/2016 10:27 amQuote from: Bob Shaw on 07/24/2016 12:28 amBrexit may kill Skylon, as it would be a logical Ariane 7 and although ESA isn't an aspect of the EU most of the ESA money comes from the EU, and supports EU aerospace...No, only roughly about ~20% is from the EU, and as per above the vast majority of that is for the Gallileo and Sentinel constellations. Launchers are not funded via the EU.Besides Skylon was never actually going to be Ariane 7 as the French are the largest investor in launchers, and for obvious political reasons they were never going to sign up to a British idea where their space industry is reliant on a piece of British technology.Actually Skylon is dependent on the French made Pyrosic material as much as Skylon would be dependent on SABRE. Each is a critical part of the concept.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 07/24/2016 08:25 pmQuote from: Alpha_Centauri on 07/24/2016 10:27 amQuote from: Bob Shaw on 07/24/2016 12:28 amBrexit may kill Skylon, as it would be a logical Ariane 7 and although ESA isn't an aspect of the EU most of the ESA money comes from the EU, and supports EU aerospace...No, only roughly about ~20% is from the EU, and as per above the vast majority of that is for the Gallileo and Sentinel constellations. Launchers are not funded via the EU.Besides Skylon was never actually going to be Ariane 7 as the French are the largest investor in launchers, and for obvious political reasons they were never going to sign up to a British idea where their space industry is reliant on a piece of British technology.Actually Skylon is dependent on the French made Pyrosic material as much as Skylon would be dependent on SABRE. Each is a critical part of the concept. There UK Atomic Energy Authority SYTEM 2 material that REL and some universities was trying to reinvent. I suspect which ever material is chosen, given the size of the vehicle, a substantial investment in manufacturing will be required and therefore the decision will either be purely political, give the French the work to keep them happy or commercial which ever material is the best or which ever manufacture willing to invest in the project with capital and knowledge.
Outside the material Skylon's design is quite conventional,
Quote from: john smith 19 on 07/25/2016 07:11 pmOutside the material Skylon's design is quite conventional, That's like the Wright brothers lookin at a 747 and saying "Outside the material and engines this design is quite conventional"
...... There are details that they would have trouble understanding at first because of their knowledge base, but in general they'd see the 747 layout as very 'conventional', requiring advanced materials and propulsion far in advance of what they had available certainly but recognizable from their own knowledge.
Quote from: RanulfC on 07/28/2016 05:53 pm...... There are details that they would have trouble understanding at first because of their knowledge base, but in general they'd see the 747 layout as very 'conventional', requiring advanced materials and propulsion far in advance of what they had available certainly but recognizable from their own knowledge.Mebbe add 'controls' to that list. The Wright brothers didn't invent the joystick/rudder pedals (that came later over in Europe) so they wouldn't recognise anything in the cockpit either.
The fly-by-wire and autopilot function (even when not on the actual autopilot) that are part of current controls are even more important developments that allow airplane sizes and flight lengths that would be prohibitively taxing for pilots with direct mechanical control. That is something that would be hard to explain to them from their 19th - early 20th century reference.
(well, they'd probably think it's an actual AI flying the plane).
New material, new engines, smaller wings than ever before (while still functioning as an airplane),
dedicated landing strips,
'detachable' carbo bay that can be preloaded and quickly swapped upon landing...
About as run-off-the-mill as, say, Thunderbird II. (That one can even land propulsively. Best of both worlds :p)
[Wright Bros and 747s.]
Quote from: high road on 07/29/2016 11:24 am'detachable' carbo bay that can be preloaded and quickly swapped upon landing... Much like how most passenger luggage is shipped in fact.