Subscale models are needed to prove intact vehicle reentry from orbit.Unless you want to try it with a full scale "reuseable" but really expendable vehicle. F9R is cheap enough to start from F9 expendable, is Skylon also cheap enough to start from expendable?
Allan Broad said it would cost £350 to get finished engine. £10B to produce Skylon and engines, I think this is large scale manufacturing. Going from finished engine to flying prototype Skylon would still cost a few £B.
Are you implying BAe has a hypersonic military aircraft in mind, or a passenger aircraft? If military, what's the end product? I'm having a hard time imagine what strike/reconnaissance capability could justify the cost. And it's been previously argued that a passenger aircraft is likely much harder to pull off (technically and economically) than an SSTO launcher.
Orbital reentry of razor-thin tank airframe is something with "razor-thin margins".Unless somebody reentry and reuse an upperstage before Skylon.No matter with engines.
Allan Broad said it would cost £350 to get finished engine. £10B to produce Skylon and engines, I think this is large scale manufacturing.
An one person above mention costs. Cost per flight is expected to be just 5 million quid, they add 5 million for cost of acquiring Skylon presuming it will still cost 1 billion per unit but I suspect prices there will full as they introduce more 3d printed components, and they could add another 5 for their profit and still be less than half the price of Falcon 9 whilst potentially being a lot more flexible in the missions it is able to carry out.
Quote from: knowles2 on 11/08/2015 11:29 amAn one person above mention costs. Cost per flight is expected to be just 5 million quid, they add 5 million for cost of acquiring Skylon presuming it will still cost 1 billion per unit but I suspect prices there will full as they introduce more 3d printed components, and they could add another 5 for their profit and still be less than half the price of Falcon 9 whilst potentially being a lot more flexible in the missions it is able to carry out. You're comparing RELs projected cost goals after a long, expensive development program to SpaceX costs today. Surely it makes more sense to compare RELs projected future costs against SpaceX projected future costs.Shotwell told a satellite industry conference SpaceX is targeting $5-8 million per launch long term. That's the number to compare Skylon to.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 11/09/2015 02:56 amQuote from: knowles2 on 11/08/2015 11:29 amAn one person above mention costs. Cost per flight is expected to be just 5 million quid, they add 5 million for cost of acquiring Skylon presuming it will still cost 1 billion per unit but I suspect prices there will full as they introduce more 3d printed components, and they could add another 5 for their profit and still be less than half the price of Falcon 9 whilst potentially being a lot more flexible in the missions it is able to carry out. You're comparing RELs projected cost goals after a long, expensive development program to SpaceX costs today. Surely it makes more sense to compare RELs projected future costs against SpaceX projected future costs.Shotwell told a satellite industry conference SpaceX is targeting $5-8 million per launch long term. That's the number to compare Skylon to.$5-8M including an expendable upper stage?
Which one? The CNN, FT, and Forbes coverage follow the same pattern: REL talk up SSTO launch, but the press wants to talk about passenger travel, REL agree that's enabled by their technology, but if allowed, state that's not their first priority, and that it's harder than space launch.Am I missing another article? Or missing a quote in these that suggests point-to-point is the new raison d'être?
“This could fundamentally change the way aerospace works,” says Chris Allam, engineering director for BAE’s aerospace business. If the technology works as designed, he says, it could spawn a new breed of aircraft engines capable of much higher speeds and performance."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.”
Yes you are missing an article because it is this one.http://fortune.com/2015/11/06/bae-commercial-space-launch/Quote“This could fundamentally change the way aerospace works,” says Chris Allam, engineering director for BAE’s aerospace business. If the technology works as designed, he says, it could spawn a new breed of aircraft engines capable of much higher speeds and performance."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.”
“The engine would then transition to rocket power to propel the aircraft to space. On its return journey the aircraft could then transition back to jet power and land like a traditional jetliner on a conventional runway."
Orbital reentry of razor-thin tank airframe is something with "razor-thin margins".
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: adrianwyard on 11/09/2015 03:36 amQuote from: ChrisWilson68 on 11/09/2015 02:56 amQuote from: knowles2 on 11/08/2015 11:29 amAn one person above mention costs. Cost per flight is expected to be just 5 million quid, they add 5 million for cost of acquiring Skylon presuming it will still cost 1 billion per unit but I suspect prices there will full as they introduce more 3d printed components, and they could add another 5 for their profit and still be less than half the price of Falcon 9 whilst potentially being a lot more flexible in the missions it is able to carry out. You're comparing RELs projected cost goals after a long, expensive development program to SpaceX costs today. Surely it makes more sense to compare RELs projected future costs against SpaceX projected future costs.Shotwell told a satellite industry conference SpaceX is targeting $5-8 million per launch long term. That's the number to compare Skylon to.$5-8M including an expendable upper stage?She didn't say, but presumably no, that would be with a reusable upper stage.
SpaceX has said they're not working on a reusable upper stage right now, but they've always said it's their long-term plan.
SpaceX seems to want to grow the market first with somewhat lower costs with first-stage reuse, then later introduce upper stage reuse to lower costs more. At the flight rate it would take to make Skylon meet its targets, there would be more than enough incentive for SpaceX to make a reusable upper stage.
Quote from: adrianwyard on 11/08/2015 06:34 pmWhich one? The CNN, FT, and Forbes coverage follow the same pattern: REL talk up SSTO launch, but the press wants to talk about passenger travel, REL agree that's enabled by their technology, but if allowed, state that's not their first priority, and that it's harder than space launch.Am I missing another article? Or missing a quote in these that suggests point-to-point is the new raison d'être?Yes you are missing an article because it is this one.http://fortune.com/2015/11/06/bae-commercial-space-launch/Quote“This could fundamentally change the way aerospace works,” says Chris Allam, engineering director for BAE’s aerospace business. If the technology works as designed, he says, it could spawn a new breed of aircraft engines capable of much higher speeds and performance."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.”By the way the fact that the media are more interested in high speed passenger transport than access to space should tell you something alone about where public interest maybe is.
Payloads are usually 10x more expensive than launch services...simply reducing launch cost won't stimulate market size effectively, unless extremely low cost to enable different market structure.
Quote from: Katana on 11/09/2015 03:37 pmPayloads are usually 10x more expensive than launch services...simply reducing launch cost won't stimulate market size effectively, unless extremely low cost to enable different market structure.Payloads are expensive driven by demand to get mass down and reliability up, and by no economy of production scale. If launch costs and delays drop to where launching a replacement isn't such a big deal, there are economies than can be had in the payloads. Getting the delay to launch a payload down may be a bigger driver here than reducing price.