Quote from: SteveKelsey on 09/04/2015 04:11 pmAnd any defence supplier could do the same with precisely the same result, the loss of their customer base . Who would buy from them in the future.I agree 100%. The difference is Airbus/Boeing/Lockheed-Martin are massive companies with long-term government contracts/subsidies so you can guarantee they'll be around for a few years and will want to keep their customers happy. REL on the other hand could fold comparatively quickly, and would not be bailed out if the financials didn't look compelling.
And any defence supplier could do the same with precisely the same result, the loss of their customer base . Who would buy from them in the future.
How about this bit of fiction:+ In 2018 progress on the SABRE test-bed has been sufficiently encouraging to draw more investors.+ The UK government signs a multi-billion pound contract with a REL company to provide launch services for UK satellites for the years x to y. This represents a saving of £z over projected launch costs for those years when you factor in the overall value to the UK economy.+ The launch contract is structured principally on fee per launch, so technical problems and financing difficulties would not cost the taxpayer, but could theoretically derail the program. However, the UK gov has a vested interest in the venture succeeding so would help smooth out issues.+ With that backing and stability in place, other investors join the program, enabling its development.And finally, because of the above...+ Indonesia (to use SteveKelsey's example) buys a Skylon, confident the program will continue, along with servicing contracts.
Quote from: adrianwyard on 09/04/2015 04:59 pmHow about this bit of fiction:+ In 2018 progress on the SABRE test-bed has been sufficiently encouraging to draw more investors.+ The UK government signs a multi-billion pound contract with a REL company to provide launch services for UK satellites for the years x to y. This represents a saving of £z over projected launch costs for those years when you factor in the overall value to the UK economy.+ The launch contract is structured principally on fee per launch, so technical problems and financing difficulties would not cost the taxpayer, but could theoretically derail the program. However, the UK gov has a vested interest in the venture succeeding so would help smooth out issues.+ With that backing and stability in place, other investors join the program, enabling its development.And finally, because of the above...+ Indonesia (to use SteveKelsey's example) buys a Skylon, confident the program will continue, along with servicing contracts.Please don't link me to your fantasy
REL have repeatedly stated that they are not interested in building Skylon. They want to be the engine manufacturer and have said that Skylon would most likely be built by a consortium of established and experienced (I.e. Credible) airframers.
Quote from: SteveKelsey on 09/04/2015 05:09 pmQuote from: adrianwyard on 09/04/2015 04:59 pmHow about this bit of fiction:+ In 2018 progress on the SABRE test-bed has been sufficiently encouraging to draw more investors.+ The UK government signs a multi-billion pound contract with a REL company to provide launch services for UK satellites for the years x to y. This represents a saving of £z over projected launch costs for those years when you factor in the overall value to the UK economy.+ The launch contract is structured principally on fee per launch, so technical problems and financing difficulties would not cost the taxpayer, but could theoretically derail the program. However, the UK gov has a vested interest in the venture succeeding so would help smooth out issues.+ With that backing and stability in place, other investors join the program, enabling its development.And finally, because of the above...+ Indonesia (to use SteveKelsey's example) buys a Skylon, confident the program will continue, along with servicing contracts.Please don't link me to your fantasyI was trying to build up a scenario that made your claim (Indonesia buys Skylon with confidence) more credible.And on the word 'ransom': I didn't mean to imply REL (or another company) would actually hold owners to ransom, merely that a purchaser would know that are dependent upon someone else for servicing. And if the servicer is a small company without major contracts or government support, there's a risk they could go bankrupt.
of course it's an asset. Only a foolish would think otherwise.
No, a country could set the price at pretty much anything they want.And of course if that really happens as much as you seem to predict it would obviously kill all that commercial Skylon market everybody is talking about because subsidized flights at half the price... well...
I still don't see it. I still believe countries are after the development of the technological knowledge if they invest because even today there's enough competition in the world market that you will always find a flight for those one or two sats a decade you really want to launch as a government.
No, if you develop your own access it's because you want to develop a domestic industry, not just make sure you get your birds launched.
Well, we'll see. There was another RLV that was supposed to reach that price range....
You are right, in fact I never tought of Cubesats as a sign of strong price elasticity, but now that you pointed at it I think that you got it right. With Skylon in place, the costs could be so low that virtually any municipality could launch a dedicated news smallsat. I think that the margins are huge, although human spaceflight will remain really costly even with Skylon, on the 300.000 eur. /ticket to LEO in the case of a public-owned vector. A dramatic decrease in respect to other plans, but still far away from mass consumption; space access remains, even with Skylons in place, a million-dollar luxury that only the richest can afford.
Countries create their own 'independent' access to space exactly because of fear of being cut off for POLITICAL reasons, no one has any doubt that commercial launch operators on the international market will always be available at a market price.
I can guaranteed you that Skylon manufacturers will be barred from selling to governments that the UK deems hostile, and the supply of parts would be subject to being pulled the moment relations turn sour, the more nations are involved in building it the more would have a veto on who can buy it,
it would be as closely guarded as ICBM technology because Skylon is a fairly obvious substitute for an ICBM.
Space access is highly politically charged due to the extreme military importance of space assets and the national prestige attached to having access. It is not like selling an AirBus to Indonesia.Skylon is so cutting edge that only the worlds most advanced airo-space companies have a prayer or even being able to build it IF it can even be built, it makes most military air-craft look like balsa-wood gliders by comparison. No hypothetical buyer nation outside the G7 could maintain such a vehicle on it's own, they would all be dependent on a constant stream of parts and skilled labor from the manufacturer so much so that it would be a de-facto lease.
Yes. They would probably go with one of the usual suspects for aircraft: Airbus, Boeing, or Lockheed Martin.
Either Boeing or Lockheed Martin would be good because of space experience.
Airbus would be good because its European, but it would probably have to work with Arianespace for space experience.
Knowles2**Can anyone seriously imagine them in 2020s, having built workable, flyable Sabre that have hundreds of ground tests and just saying whole damn we can't get consortium together to build the airframe let abandon the whole idea.**If, as you suggest, REL managed to produce a successful SABRE engine but couldn't convince Boeing or Airbus or whoever to come on-board and build an airframe, they might well give up on Skylon as envisioned now. I say this because REL would know that investors would be very reluctant to pour $Bns into a project which was being overseen by people with little, or at best less experience than Boeing et al in that area. REL might therefore decide to use the SABRE technology in another area of aerospace instead of Skylon.
BAE SYSTEMS is a British based an aircraft manufacturer. If the UK Government is paying it may be happy to build a SSTO spacecraft.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 09/06/2015 04:21 amBAE SYSTEMS is a British based an aircraft manufacturer. If the UK Government is paying it may be happy to build a SSTO spacecraft.Do they even still have any capability to make large aircraft though? They sold their stake in Airbus ten years ago, do they have any facilities or experience left to enable them to be the prime airframer for Skylon?Their Taranis UAV work is probably useful software wise but beyond that what do they have to offer?
Quote from: lkm on 09/06/2015 10:14 pmQuote from: A_M_Swallow on 09/06/2015 04:21 amBAE SYSTEMS is a British based an aircraft manufacturer. If the UK Government is paying it may be happy to build a SSTO spacecraft.Do they even still have any capability to make large aircraft though? They sold their stake in Airbus ten years ago, do they have any facilities or experience left to enable them to be the prime airframer for Skylon?Their Taranis UAV work is probably useful software wise but beyond that what do they have to offer?They are supposedly still making wings for the A320, A330, and A340, large components for the B777, as well projects on a number of smaller aircraft - Hawk, F-35, Typhoon, Grippen, and ongoing BAe 125 manufacture.
Quote from: Dalhousie on 09/06/2015 10:33 pmQuote from: lkm on 09/06/2015 10:14 pmQuote from: A_M_Swallow on 09/06/2015 04:21 amBAE SYSTEMS is a British based an aircraft manufacturer. If the UK Government is paying it may be happy to build a SSTO spacecraft.Do they even still have any capability to make large aircraft though? They sold their stake in Airbus ten years ago, do they have any facilities or experience left to enable them to be the prime airframer for Skylon?Their Taranis UAV work is probably useful software wise but beyond that what do they have to offer?They are supposedly still making wings for the A320, A330, and A340, large components for the B777, as well projects on a number of smaller aircraft - Hawk, F-35, Typhoon, Grippen, and ongoing BAe 125 manufacture.Aren't the wings for those aircraft made being made by Airbus UK at Airbus Broughton and isn't the Bae 125 a) out of production and b) not been made by BAE since 1993 when the division was sold to Raytheon.How much cross over in capabilities is there between making jet fighters and an aircraft the size of an A380 but constructed like an airship?
Quote from: lkm on 09/06/2015 10:14 pmQuote from: A_M_Swallow on 09/06/2015 04:21 amBAE SYSTEMS is a British based an aircraft manufacturer. If the UK Government is paying it may be happy to build a SSTO spacecraft.Do they even still have any capability to make large aircraft though? They sold their stake in Airbus ten years ago, do they have any facilities or experience left to enable them to be the prime airframer for Skylon?Their Taranis UAV work is probably useful software wise but beyond that what do they have to offer?I should hope they do as they are going to be one of the primes on the UK's sixth generation combat aircraft/drone. Or did you miss the point of Taranis which is not just some software exercise as you seem to be characterising it but actually a way to build & test sixth generation technologies. Being as Taranis is fairly classified project I'm not sure how you expect to find out much beyond what's in the press releases online.