well, not sure of names, but it must have these characteristicsI would bet on RR, Boeing or LM, but who knows?
Quote from: francesco nicoli on 07/10/2015 04:41 pmwell, not sure of names, but it must have these characteristicsI would bet on RR, Boeing or LM, but who knows?Originally REL were only talking about the pre cooler but their skills seem to be growing and their confidence at executing the whole design.This would not be competition to RR, since they don't make hybrid air breathing rocket engines.LM are solely government contractors. For Europe the formation of a division of Astrium would be the logical way to go. The issue for REL remains some way of signing up future customers to purchase a vehicle from another company that has not been formed yet which can be passed to that company. That definitely sounds like a problem in economics or international law. [EDIT Read the Av Week article. So it does use Methanol in a counter flow arrangement, starting at th back with (presumably) near pure Methanol and using the dynamic pressure to force it forward to lower and lower pressure stages. Obviously a tricky process to get right but one that seems to have proved very effective.
LM are the ones who would be most interested for their aviation projects as they tick a lot of the right boxes. I don't see why LM's focus on government contracts is an issue for you?
Quote from: Star One on 07/10/2015 08:10 pmLM are the ones who would be most interested for their aviation projects as they tick a lot of the right boxes. I don't see why LM's focus on government contracts is an issue for you?AFAIK LM make no commercial products. All they do is a)Government contract work b)National security systems c) Weapon systems.This means they are good at a)Filling in procurement paperwork and b)Lobbying governments and their support staffs to get funded and c)Lobbying governments and their support staffs to get extended funding.All of those are skills, they're just not actually very useful when it comes to making stuff. IOW Their idea of "profit" is nothing to do with a commercial entities. The nearest LM come to space launch is they supplied the Delta IV half of the ULA product portfolio.AFAIK the Delta IV has never launched a non USG satellite (IE not NASA, DoD or some other "Administration"). Where private companies have gone with a ULA vehicle it's the Atlas, or the go with some other supplier. That is a very bad choice if you want to engage with world wide customers and have tight cost and schedule, which REL need to do.
ok, so we can exclude LM from the picture. Who else should be dropped?
1. AFAIK LM make no commercial products. All they do is a)Government contract work b)National security systems c) Weapon systems.2. This means they are good at a)Filling in procurement paperwork and b)Lobbying governments and their support staffs to get funded and c)Lobbying governments and their support staffs to get extended funding.3. IOW Their idea of "profit" is nothing to do with a commercial entities. The nearest LM come to space launch is they supplied the Delta IV half of the ULA product portfolio.4. AFAIK the Delta IV has never launched a non USG satellite (IE not NASA, DoD or some other "Administration"). Where private companies have gone with a ULA vehicle it's the Atlas, or the go with some other supplier.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 07/11/2015 04:46 pm1. AFAIK LM make no commercial products. All they do is a)Government contract work b)National security systems c) Weapon systems.2. This means they are good at a)Filling in procurement paperwork and b)Lobbying governments and their support staffs to get funded and c)Lobbying governments and their support staffs to get extended funding.3. IOW Their idea of "profit" is nothing to do with a commercial entities. The nearest LM come to space launch is they supplied the Delta IV half of the ULA product portfolio.4. AFAIK the Delta IV has never launched a non USG satellite (IE not NASA, DoD or some other "Administration"). Where private companies have gone with a ULA vehicle it's the Atlas, or the go with some other supplier. Wrong on all points1. They do commercial comsats. The A2100 satellite bus has been used for many comsats. The LM500 spacecraft bus was used for the initial Iridium constellation. 2. Completely unsubstantiated and nonsense3. LM supplied the Altas V which has commercial contracts and had many for Atlas II. 4. Delta IV launched Eutelsat W5. The GOES launches on Delta IV were completely commercial. They were converted Delta III launches from a Hughes block buy. The gov't had no role in the procurement.
Quote from: francesco nicoli on 07/11/2015 05:54 pmok, so we can exclude LM from the picture. Who else should be dropped?Why are you assuming this technology is only for commercial/civilian purposes because if you are then you're being very, very naive.I'd put reasonable money on this seeing use in the military long before it has commercial use.
I am not assuming that it is only for civilian purposes. However, I believe it will originally be for civilian purposes. But I might be wrong.
Quote from: francesco nicoli on 07/12/2015 10:56 amI am not assuming that it is only for civilian purposes. However, I believe it will originally be for civilian purposes. But I might be wrong.The US Air Force is one of the first companies to bankroll the technology. Unless I'm mistaken, it could be an enabling technology for hypersonic, air breathing aircraft with conventional turbine engines. If that's true, the first applications will almost certainly be military in nature.
For completeness sake we should mention Lockheed made the L-1011 TriStar passenger jet - operated by British Airways, and with engines developed for it by Rolls Royce. But that was a long time ago, and not a roaring success...