That's reasonable but I'm very weary of why BAe wanted "preferred supplier" status on some systems, and what they are. {snip}
Taranis seems impressive (given what little's been released about it) and just 28% over budget. I don't think that's particularly good by commercial funding standards.
No citation of Skylon, but lot of worries in traditional EU space circles reported.
... I think it's pretty clear that a takeoff or landing from a floating runway (pretty much the worst case scenario) is never going to happen outside a Bond movie.
It's essentially OT, but why are you so skeptical about autoland?
Quote from: adrianwyard on 01/13/2016 04:40 pmIt's essentially OT, but why are you so skeptical about autoland? I'm not. Try to read what I wrote. Then compare the size of Skylon with any of the UAV's that have demonstrated a carrier deck landing.Now consider how big that carrier would have to be to accommodate a Skylon.
Fun fact: you seem to read all question directed to you as if they're trying make you sound foolish. Its not the case.
You seem to be privy to some hard-to-find information, and I wondered if you could tell me something I didn't know. I could well believe the X-47B tests exposed challenges that are not widely known.
And why on earth are we talking about landing Skylon on a carrier? Let's move on.
SpaceNews Reports that the European Commission intends to develop a European reusable rocket, the decision to be made by 2020 in order to get funding in the 2021-2028 budget. No citation of Skylon, but lot of worries in traditional EU space circles reported.
Very good news, but 2020??? "After we've lost all of our commercial payloads to SpaceX and maybe ULA and Blue Origin, we'll decide to develop a reusable rocket."Anyway, please link when reporting a news item or really any new information!Because what I do see does not seem to be exactly what you claim:http://spacenews.com/brunet-european-commission-should-have-hand-in-designing-next-gen-rocket/
2] apart from carrier landings, which only happen in Bond movies
Despite the bizarre tangents, everyone seems to agree the pilotless aspect of Skylon is not a big deal.
In particularEU <> EU Parliament <>EU Commission <> ESA <> CNES <> Arianspace.They are all distinct industrial and governmental organizations. I'm not quite sure how Brunet thinks the EU Commission can or should have a say as ESA (IIRC) comes under the Council of Ministers of the EU member countries.
Floating runway...I wonder if the cost of the runway/spaceport might be mitigated if it were a [...] japanese MegaFloat floating runway [] used steel barges with link spans
Not sure why the thread has gone this far astray, but... when in Rome...Quote from: Asteroza on 01/14/2016 11:52 pmFloating runway...I wonder if the cost of the runway/spaceport might be mitigated if it were a [...] japanese MegaFloat floating runway [] used steel barges with link spansIf we're going to these extremes, why not go whole hog and use an Ekranoplan aircraft carrier?The approach speed can be high subsonic, rather than the typical slower runway speed. That might make the design a little easier.The Skylon can land short/long, too fast, too slow, because the "runway" stays under it regardless, with effectively unlimited "run out". The Skylon auto-pilot just needs to hit the top of the approach box (to rendezvous with the carrier), and then focus on staying on heading as it descends; the carrier will adjust to always remain underneath. Take-off obviously works the same, high take-off speed, unlimited "runway"; with the bonus that the fuel to get up to high-subsonic is provided by the carrier.And once the Skylon has landed, the carrier itself can land in the water and then cruise into dock at any suitable harbour. Or even just meet up with a supply ship and have a new payload (and fuel) loaded onto the Skylon right there for immediate relaunch. (The carrier can also be used as a transport vehicle, moving your takeoff site to anywhere in the world.)The carrier in the image has a pseudo runway, but since touchdown occurs with zero relative velocity, there's no reason not to use skids or footpads, which tend to be much lighter than full wheeled landing gear. Possibly even use a cradle on the carrier and eliminate the landing gear entirely. (The missile batteries are probably also unnecessary. Probably.)
Floating runway...
An article about TISICS whose job it will be to make the titanium composite struts (thanks to Jamie Rowland for sending me this link).http://www.geektime.com/2016/01/14/this-uk-startup-is-building-a-new-kind-of-space-age-metal/