The question is can REL turn this increase exposure into either increased funding or move them forward in forming the Skylon consortium?
No, the interviewer was harping on about the intercontinental transport, while the guy from REL clearly said their focus was on orbital in "10-15 years" and intercontinental in "about 20 years".
And for BAE, it offers a critical toehold in the growing space access market. While BAE’s North American arm does a fair amount of business in satellite components and the like, the company has no significant presence in the commercial space launch industry. “It’s a market we’re interested in but we were looking for a different way of doing it,” Allam says. “We were looking for a breakthrough or something new as opposed to just joining everybody else.”
And what about that super-high-speed point-to-point passenger travel—four hours from anywhere to anywhere on the globe? It’s certainly possible with this kind of technology, Reaction’s Thomas says. But given various safety and technical considerations, a spaceplane making regular trips to orbit at 25 times the speed of sound is the more realistic near-term proposition.“A lot of people are excited about point-to-point travel at the moment, the thought of going anywhere in the world in four hours just excites people,” he says. “But that is hugely challenging, it’s just orders of magnitude more difficult. I was telling someone from Australia recently that, unfortunately, it’s more difficult to get to Australia than it is to get into space.”
Can't see a Skylon airframer committing until there is a representative demonstration of the SABRE cycle, REL doesn't have an actual product to offer them until then. Right now the focus will be on that, which is what the tie-up with BAE should hopefully deliver.
Quote from: Alpha_Centauri on 11/07/2015 12:52 amCan't see a Skylon airframer committing until there is a representative demonstration of the SABRE cycle, REL doesn't have an actual product to offer them until then. Right now the focus will be on that, which is what the tie-up with BAE should hopefully deliver.Except of course that BAE is an airframer not an engine maker and their biggest contribution to the current development program could actually be the design and development of the test aircraft they wish to fly by 2025, doing that is very much within their capabilities and not REL's and functionally wouldn't be much different to Taranis so would be a useful activity to give to their aircraft design teams.
Quote from: lkm on 11/07/2015 10:08 amQuote from: Alpha_Centauri on 11/07/2015 12:52 amCan't see a Skylon airframer committing until there is a representative demonstration of the SABRE cycle, REL doesn't have an actual product to offer them until then. Right now the focus will be on that, which is what the tie-up with BAE should hopefully deliver.Except of course that BAE is an airframer not an engine maker and their biggest contribution to the current development program could actually be the design and development of the test aircraft they wish to fly by 2025, doing that is very much within their capabilities and not REL's and functionally wouldn't be much different to Taranis so would be a useful activity to give to their aircraft design teams.BAE used to be a major airframer but they have steadily eroded that side of their business over the last couple of decades to concentrate on generic platforms that are less dependant on any specific government programme. They are more focussed on things like avionics now.You are probably right that BAE may well develop test vehicles for SABRE, but I would expect a full Skylon would require them partnering up with an outfit like Airbus.
I increasingly see the parallels with the Taranis technological demonstrator. As that is to drone technology so this will be to hypersonic research.Wonder if the demonstrator will be manned or a drone?
Quote from: Hanelyp on 11/06/2015 04:37 pmQuote from: simonbp on 11/06/2015 03:21 amSo, I was watching this interview on CNN and the image below popped up. What is this?http://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2015/11/04/bae-systems-reaction-engines-mark-thomas-intv-qmb.cnnThat concept looks like someone took an X-30 style scramjet with forebody integrated inlet and aftbody integrated exhaust nozzle, stripped out the scramjet engines the underbody was designed to serve, and stuck sabre engines on wingtips. I'm thinking with that fuselage shape you might do better with the sabre engines installed center-body where the scramjets would be, using the contoured underbody for inlet and exhaust.It may look that way, but it's not just an artists' impression or derived from an X-30 style scramjet design. It's the result of an aerothermal study of Skylon:http://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/41933/1/Brown_et_al_Towards_Robust_Aero_Thermodynamic_Predictions_for_Re_Usable_Single_Stage_to_Orbit_Vehicles.pdf
Quote from: simonbp on 11/06/2015 03:21 amSo, I was watching this interview on CNN and the image below popped up. What is this?http://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2015/11/04/bae-systems-reaction-engines-mark-thomas-intv-qmb.cnnThat concept looks like someone took an X-30 style scramjet with forebody integrated inlet and aftbody integrated exhaust nozzle, stripped out the scramjet engines the underbody was designed to serve, and stuck sabre engines on wingtips. I'm thinking with that fuselage shape you might do better with the sabre engines installed center-body where the scramjets would be, using the contoured underbody for inlet and exhaust.
So, I was watching this interview on CNN and the image below popped up. What is this?http://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2015/11/04/bae-systems-reaction-engines-mark-thomas-intv-qmb.cnn
Quote from: Star One on 11/07/2015 02:42 pmI increasingly see the parallels with the Taranis technological demonstrator. As that is to drone technology so this will be to hypersonic research.Wonder if the demonstrator will be manned or a drone?I hope not. Taranis was billed as costing £140m, it's now running about £185m. The European Neuron project (which seems similar) is listed at about 25m euros, with roughly 75% of the takeoff mass. That's not exactly the kind of tight cost control you want from a supplier/consortium member.
The Space Shuttle was supposed to be orders of magnitude safer than previous vehicles too. Its projected reliability was far, far greater than what it turned out to be in practice.
The point is with a new design that is very different from existing systems you usually don't know what will be the real reliability problems.
Quote from: 93143 on 11/04/2015 02:30 amSkylon is more of an airplane than a rocket.People tend to think that. It's human nature. What does it look like that I understand? OK, so it must behave like that.But it's not always so. We can look deeper and see if it really holds.
Skylon is more of an airplane than a rocket.
It is all those things that give it much more risk than a typical airplane.
Quote from: 93143 on 11/04/2015 02:30 amIt takes off and flies like an airplane, which allows it to have full intact abort capability (including engine out) with no black zones.It only has an abort capability for certain kinds of failures, not all the kinds of failures a more traditional launch vehicle with an abort system has.
It takes off and flies like an airplane, which allows it to have full intact abort capability (including engine out) with no black zones.
For example, if Falcon 9 has an engine that is about to explode and destroy the main propellant tank
If the Skylon main prop tanks are about to explode, nothing at all can be done.
And Falcon 9/Dragon has no black zones in its abort capability either. It's not an "intact" abort in the sense that the first and second stages are possibly lost, but that's a positive, not a negative, because it allows the people to escape and survive when the engines and prop tanks explode.
Quote from: 93143 on 11/04/2015 02:30 amIt lands like an airplane (well, like a glider), which is a comfortable, well-understood maneuver (particularly for a computer)The computers doing a Dragon propulsive landing are just as "comfortable" with that landing maneuver.
It lands like an airplane (well, like a glider), which is a comfortable, well-understood maneuver (particularly for a computer)
If Skylon loses propulsion
Also, propulsive landings give more than one shot at an approach.
Quote from: 93143 on 11/04/2015 02:30 amIt is intended to be certified like an airplane, with an extensive test programme putting two prototypes through hundreds of flights including dozens of abort tests,And Dragon can do exactly the same thing.
It is intended to be certified like an airplane, with an extensive test programme putting two prototypes through hundreds of flights including dozens of abort tests,
Quote from: 93143 on 11/04/2015 02:30 amand each production unit will undergo four test flights before delivery.Dragon can do exactly the same.
and each production unit will undergo four test flights before delivery.
Quote from: 93143 on 11/04/2015 02:30 amIt is also an SSTO, which means that it can wait out bad weather on orbit or divert to almost anywhere in the world (the wings afford a very large cross range),That has absolutely nothing to do with it being SSTO!
It is also an SSTO, which means that it can wait out bad weather on orbit or divert to almost anywhere in the world (the wings afford a very large cross range),
Quote from: 93143 on 11/04/2015 02:30 amand that if staging (a major launch risk) is required at all, it can be done at a leisurely pace after the launch, as more of a payload deployment than a controlled inflight breakup.Staging of Falcon 9 is in no meaningful way like an "inflight breakup". That's just a meaningless emotional argument about superficial similarity with no substance to it.
and that if staging (a major launch risk) is required at all, it can be done at a leisurely pace after the launch, as more of a payload deployment than a controlled inflight breakup.
Quote from: 93143 on 11/04/2015 02:30 amAnd of course it's fully reusable, which means infant mortality should be way down.SpaceX is closing in on reusability of both their first stage and Dragon. Both are designed for it. SpaceX has also said they plan to eventually have a reusable second stage, though they're not pursuing that at the moment. But you can bet that if the flight rate is high enough to make it make economic sense SpaceX will create a reusable upper stage. The cost for SpaceX to create a reusable upper stage should be far, far less than the cost to develop Skylon, so the advantage is to SpaceX on the reusability front.
And of course it's fully reusable, which means infant mortality should be way down.
The REL team has a lot of experience doing research on engine components and writing slideware, not much on systems that actually become operational.
Quote from: 93143 on 11/04/2015 02:30 amIn other words, those are more like must-not-exceed numbers than optimistic projections.But there's no way they could possibly know the real reliability. They are of course optimistic projections not grounded in any evidence.
In other words, those are more like must-not-exceed numbers than optimistic projections.
STS killed more astronauts than any other space launch system in history.
STS's problems came from trying to push the edge of what is possible -- exactly what Skylon hopes to do.
Quote from: 93143 on 11/04/2015 02:30 amEven those should be greatly mitigated by the extensive flight test programme (so systematic design and maintenance issues can be worked out) and by the highly reusable nature of the whole system (so you don't have untried factory fresh parts on every launch).Falcon/Dragon has all those advantages too
Even those should be greatly mitigated by the extensive flight test programme (so systematic design and maintenance issues can be worked out) and by the highly reusable nature of the whole system (so you don't have untried factory fresh parts on every launch).
but without the disadvantages of having to use liquid hydrogen (very low temperatures and hydrogen working its way into everything, causing leaks and embrittlement)
and the disadvantages of having to be single-stage to orbit (so there is less margin available for safety).
Quote from: 93143 on 11/04/2015 02:30 amBased on what we know of the engine, they seem to have circumvented the main issues with the SSME that made it dangerous and maintenance-intensive.It's premature to make pronouncements about an engine that hasn't been built yet.
Based on what we know of the engine, they seem to have circumvented the main issues with the SSME that made it dangerous and maintenance-intensive.
STS had one catastrophic engine failure -- of a solid engine.
Quote from: 93143 on 11/04/2015 02:30 amQuote from: pippin on 11/04/2015 01:49 amUmmm... Development costs are sunk costs and so have no impact whatsoever on the operational economics.They affect launch prices (not costs),No, they affect costs. Development costs are costs.
Quote from: pippin on 11/04/2015 01:49 amUmmm... Development costs are sunk costs and so have no impact whatsoever on the operational economics.They affect launch prices (not costs),
Ummm... Development costs are sunk costs and so have no impact whatsoever on the operational economics.
The price a company charges isn't necessarily directly related to the costs. It often has more to do with the market -- what the market will bear.
Quote from: 93143 on 11/04/2015 02:30 amEven as matters stand, the numbers they're talking about seem pretty competitive. The more SpaceX expands the market, the more likely it becomes that Skylon will undercut them.I don't see any evidence for that. An expanding market allows SpaceX to lower prices too because its per-flight costs go down when volume goes up too.
Even as matters stand, the numbers they're talking about seem pretty competitive. The more SpaceX expands the market, the more likely it becomes that Skylon will undercut them.
there are two factors that argue for it having higher per-flight operational costs: the fact that it uses liquid hydrogen (look at Delta IV's costs versus Atlas V) and the fact that it is single-stage (so it has less mass margin to use making things more rugged and cheaper to maintain).That doesn't guarantee Skylon's costs will be higher, but it suggests they are likely to be.
Quote from: 93143 on 11/04/2015 02:30 amIt lands like an airplane (well, like a glider), which is a comfortable, well-understood maneuver (particularly for a computer)Can you explain the reasoning behind this comment? Chris was discussing "reliability" and abort scenarios. I'm not aware of any mainstream autopilot system that is capable of even an unpiloted emergency landing after a single engine-out, let alone an all-engines-out emergency glide.
Quote from: 93143 on 11/04/2015 02:30 amQuotehistorically liquid hydrogen systems haven't been as reliable as systems using other sorts of fuel.Centaur ExpendableSaturn V ExpendableDC-X Suborbital experimentAriane 5 ExpendableDelta IV ExpendableSTS Expendable hydrogen tank, very expensive and high-maintenance engine.... Not sure what this list tells you about the reliability of reusable hydrogen rockets.
Quotehistorically liquid hydrogen systems haven't been as reliable as systems using other sorts of fuel.Centaur ExpendableSaturn V ExpendableDC-X Suborbital experimentAriane 5 ExpendableDelta IV ExpendableSTS Expendable hydrogen tank, very expensive and high-maintenance engine....
historically liquid hydrogen systems haven't been as reliable as systems using other sorts of fuel.
I agree that advocates are grossly underplaying Skylon's complexity and risks
It maybe possible to build and flight test the Skylon without a finished Reaction engine. Existing rocket engines or Reaction engine in rocket mode should provide enough DV to take airframe through the riskier parts of flight envelope.Even better/cheaper build a subscale version using existing rocket engines. These don't necessary need to be hydrogen fuelled engines either.