The Science and Technology Committee: Satellites and Space Inquiry have just published their minutes http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/science-and-technology-committee/satellites-and-space/oral/29543.pdf. There were some interesting contributions from Mark Thomas, such as that they still haven't seen any of the £60M funds that Osborne promised in 2013...
In reference the the parliamentary committee where Mark Thomas mentioned that Reaction engines was going to be short of people with experience in rocket engines:https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-ariane-6-launch-cost-assault-is-a-revoluti-422239/I don't want to get too far off the topic - the article just says that "too many people are employed in building Ariane rockets" and details how this is going to be remedied. So that might solve RE's problem in finding people with the right experience.
Continuous development went missing on a lot of rockets in the past. It be interesting to see if Arianespace/ Airbus Safran Launchers will be able to keep up continuous development of Vega and Ariane rockets. An where the money for this continuous development will come from there own funds or from government. I'm surprise to see the French give up the 1/3 of Arianespace they own. That must have took a lot of convincing.
Quote from: Soundbite on 02/29/2016 11:58 amThe Science and Technology Committee: Satellites and Space Inquiry have just published their minutes http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/science-and-technology-committee/satellites-and-space/oral/29543.pdf. There were some interesting contributions from Mark Thomas, such as that they still haven't seen any of the £60M funds that Osborne promised in 2013...This is very disappointing. It would seem they have taken the government at it's word. Always a doubtful proposition. By all means wait till a reasonable amount of time has gone by but once the deadline is passed they really needed to have started seriously chasing this.
a SABRE- based first stage for USAF, then. How would it fit with the second stage based on RAPTOR that USAF is also developing?
Would such architecture mixinx REL & SpaceX technologies provide ground for a 2stage full reusable system?
"USAF set to unveail concept based on Skylon technology"key takeaways:- two 2STO concepts based on SABRE will be unveiled either in September or in March 2017- a competition had been launched in February this year for in-flight testing of the SABRE precoolers.http://www.space.com/32115-skylon-space-plane-engines-air-force-vehicle.html?cmpid=514648
So the Air Force has found a concept that allows them to maximize system cost while minimizing the advantages? I mean... What should a two stag concept be good for? You replace a simple and scalable booster with an expensive SABRE design just to then add a second stage? Why???
Anyone else building precoolers other than Reaction Engines. Here hoping this isn't an attempt by the air force to replicate Reaction Engine technologies in the US without Reaction engine involvement.
"USAF set to unveail concept based on Skylon technology"http://www.space.com/32115-skylon-space-plane-engines-air-force-vehicle.html?cmpid=514648
"The oxygen in the chilled air will become liquid in the process."
Let the US figure that out, Reaction Engine will just build the engine, what other people do with them is their choice,
hopefully Reaction engine will have enough money left over to continue their development of a SSTO Skylon.