A first stage that gets to Mach 5 in the atmosphere, pops over the top of the atmosphere for second stage separation, turns around to return to the launch site, and does a powered landing on a runway. Sounds pretty awesome to me.
Unfair treatment of REL.As few people before I also feel that many here have hostile attitude toward REL. They don't have working stuff? That's the very nature of advanced concepts that they are nothing until they are build, because they are not, they do not exist, they are not part of reality. Just what's the reason for looking at advanced concepts If everything is doomed, because you have seen so many failures in the past?
People are saying it's risky. People are saying it's riskier to put all the eggs in the single-stage basket and maybe it would be less risky to try a two-stage system first.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 03/16/2016 12:02 am People are saying it's risky. People are saying it's riskier to put all the eggs in the single-stage basket and maybe it would be less risky to try a two-stage system first.That is not what I've seen. Of course - I haven't read all the comments, but on last few pages and somewhere on start of this thread5 you were saying making it TS will improve the margins, not that it'll be less risky.But still - How one vehicle can be more risky than two? Where is more potential points of failure?What you save in TSTO if first stage fails? How much reputation and value for client you save if only second stage fails?All I can agree is that it would be more probable if it was smaller and required smaller upfront dev cost. But as few people pointed out, this technology doesn't scale well. Except if they somehow could make it single engine vehicle... Hmm... But then this small vehicle could be like Falcon 1 - rather proof of concept and tech demonstrator than commercial vehicle. Don't know, but I suspect it wouldn't save much development.
The RAeS Gloucester & Cheltenham Branch invite you to explore the history of the aviation industry and learn about the future of space launcher – SKYLON – with Dr Robin Davies, Senior Control and System Engineer of Reaction Engines Ltd.A Joint Event with the IMechE.The space launcher industry is still using rocket technology from the 1950s to place things in orbit; it's expensive and involves a new rocket for every launch. SKYLON is an unpiloted, reusable Spaceplane intended to provide reliable, responsive and cost effective access to space. The advanced combined cycle air-breathing SABRE rocket engine enables the vehicle to take off from a runway, fly direct to earth orbit and return for a runway landing, just like an aircraft. This is a game-changing engine technology that could make conventional rockets obsolete overnight!18:00 visit to Jet Age Museum and networking19:30 Lecture startsALL WELCOME, but please book as spaces are limited.To book, please email:Guillermo Durango[email protected]For enquiries about the event:Kerissa Khan[email protected]Event address:Jet Age MuseumMeteor Business ParkCheltenham Road EastGloucesterGL2 9QL
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 03/16/2016 12:02 am People are saying it's risky. People are saying it's riskier to put all the eggs in the single-stage basket and maybe it would be less risky to try a two-stage system first.That is not what I've seen. Of course - I haven't read all the comments, but on last few pages and somewhere on start of this thread5 you were saying making it TS will improve the margins, not that it'll be less risky.
But still - How one vehicle can be more risky than two? Where is more potential points of failure?What you save in TSTO if first stage fails? How much reputation and value for client you save if only second stage fails?
Quote from: Radical_Ignorant on 03/16/2016 07:53 am[...] But as few people pointed out, this technology doesn't scale well. Except if they somehow could make it single engine vehicle... Hmm... But then this small vehicle could be like Falcon 1 - rather proof of concept and tech demonstrator than commercial vehicle. Don't know, but I suspect it wouldn't save much development.Could the fact adding a sub scale demonstrator would increase the already large development costs on their decision to go straight to a full size prototype?.
[...] But as few people pointed out, this technology doesn't scale well. Except if they somehow could make it single engine vehicle... Hmm... But then this small vehicle could be like Falcon 1 - rather proof of concept and tech demonstrator than commercial vehicle. Don't know, but I suspect it wouldn't save much development.
Quote from: Radical_Ignorant on 03/16/2016 07:53 amQuote from: ChrisWilson68 on 03/16/2016 12:02 am People are saying it's risky. People are saying it's riskier to put all the eggs in the single-stage basket and maybe it would be less risky to try a two-stage system first.That is not what I've seen. Of course - I haven't read all the comments, but on last few pages and somewhere on start of this thread5 you were saying making it TS will improve the margins, not that it'll be less risky.Better margins means less risky.
Quote from: Radical_Ignorant on 03/16/2016 07:53 amBut still - How one vehicle can be more risky than two? Where is more potential points of failure?What you save in TSTO if first stage fails? How much reputation and value for client you save if only second stage fails?I'm talking about design risk here, not the risk of a particular mission -- that is, the risk that the design doesn't pan out and can't carry the intended payload to orbit and/or is too costly. But, even though it's not what I was talking about, you absolutely can have one vehicle be more risky than two if the one vehicle is pushing the envelope too far. Instead of spending the margin on getting to orbit in a single stage, you can spend it on making each of the stages simpler and more reliable.
#sabre engine flight demonstration aimed for 2023-2025, with production in following decade. Are @ReactionEngines going to be too late?Question asked about @ReactionEngines finances. They see #sabre and heat exchange tech as they income generators.Mark Thomas: Since @BAESystemsInc investment @ReactionEngines has scaled up and improved manufacturing processes further #SABREThere is a schools competition between @ReactionEngines and iMechE to design a #Sabre powered transport aircraft for RAF.
...And unfortunately Sabre is not very scalable. Nor down (engine reasons) nor up (infrastructure reasons) except single engine possibility.
Payload margins is wasted opportunity and means lost income.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 03/16/2016 08:33 amQuote from: Radical_Ignorant on 03/16/2016 07:53 amQuote from: ChrisWilson68 on 03/16/2016 12:02 amPeople are saying it's riskier to put all the eggs in the single-stage basket and maybe it would be less risky to try a two-stage system first.you were saying making it TS will improve the margins, not that it'll be less risky.Better margins means less risky.Payload margins is wasted opportunity and means lost income.
Quote from: Radical_Ignorant on 03/16/2016 07:53 amQuote from: ChrisWilson68 on 03/16/2016 12:02 amPeople are saying it's riskier to put all the eggs in the single-stage basket and maybe it would be less risky to try a two-stage system first.you were saying making it TS will improve the margins, not that it'll be less risky.Better margins means less risky.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 03/16/2016 12:02 amPeople are saying it's riskier to put all the eggs in the single-stage basket and maybe it would be less risky to try a two-stage system first.you were saying making it TS will improve the margins, not that it'll be less risky.
People are saying it's riskier to put all the eggs in the single-stage basket and maybe it would be less risky to try a two-stage system first.
But still - How one vehicle can be more risky than two?
proof of concept and tech demonstrator [...] but I suspect it wouldn't save much development.
In short if you don't push envelope you don't have benefits. You much prefer Space X way of pushing it in small steps. But then we have Space X and they won't stop doing it, so duplicating their way is doing what other does and makes no sense if you are not established player on the market.
Can you go to investors and tell them: hey I need few hundred millions and I'll do things like Space X is doing except I'm much late into the game
A strapon booster for existing/future LV is one possibility. Does anybody know what type performance increase 2 1xsabre boosters would give Vulcan assuming they separate at Mach5.
You have mentioned "single engine possibility" more than once now. It should be pointed out that it was the rear-heavy design failure of HOTOL - which became a "means for lifting hydraulics into orbit" (huge canards to compensate CoM issues) - which principally drove the twin-engined Skylon design.
A strapon booster for existing/future LV is one possibility.