You're perhaps thinking of the Olympus engine tests for Concorde, where (IIRC) a test engine for the Concorde version was mounted underneath a Vulcan bomber (powered by 4 more of them). IE roughly 1/4 the full thrust of the aircraft, Or the LASRE tests planned for NASA's SR71 in the X33 programme.The trouble is a full size SABRE has roughly 4.5x the thrust of all the engines on an Airbus 380, and that won't even get you to Mach 1.
Quote from: adrianwyard on 02/26/2015 12:12 amInteresting - I missed the change away from the 'dissected rabbit'. Hopefully that's indicative of confidence in all the theoretical and simulation work they've done, rather than impatience.Any idea if what they're building includes everything, i.e. combustion chambers, nozzles, bypass burners, etc?And does this match up with the phasing they mentioned in 2013 - where 3a included SCEPTRE? A near-flight-worthy engine is much more ambitious (expensive) than what I was expecting.From Jeremy Nickless' talk last December http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34964.msg1298468#msg1298468Quote from: SICA DesignPhases 3 & 4 of the £10bn project now stretch over 10.5 years, of which £3.64bn is for SABRE. Phase 3 (£0.36bn) commenced April 2014 and approximately £100m has been secured, with approx £250m to secure in the next few years. Phase 4 is due to commence October 2018, with a (new) Skylon in-service date of October 2024.Valkyrie? - "Could not possibly comment on that". Phase 3 WILL however involve a flying SABRE engine (not Skylon).::QuoteMy impression was a single full-size SABRE with wings and tank
Interesting - I missed the change away from the 'dissected rabbit'. Hopefully that's indicative of confidence in all the theoretical and simulation work they've done, rather than impatience.Any idea if what they're building includes everything, i.e. combustion chambers, nozzles, bypass burners, etc?And does this match up with the phasing they mentioned in 2013 - where 3a included SCEPTRE? A near-flight-worthy engine is much more ambitious (expensive) than what I was expecting.
Phases 3 & 4 of the £10bn project now stretch over 10.5 years, of which £3.64bn is for SABRE. Phase 3 (£0.36bn) commenced April 2014 and approximately £100m has been secured, with approx £250m to secure in the next few years. Phase 4 is due to commence October 2018, with a (new) Skylon in-service date of October 2024.Valkyrie? - "Could not possibly comment on that". Phase 3 WILL however involve a flying SABRE engine (not Skylon).
My impression was a single full-size SABRE with wings and tank
I would love to know how much of the 'build a flying SABRE' plan is dependent on the next £250m coming in, and what happens if it's late, or doesn't materialise. Here are a couple of options, one very cautious, and one not:1] Spend the £100m to complete more ground-based component testing. Start work on the flyable Skylon when/if the £250m comes in. If it hasn't showed up when the £100m has been spent, REL goes into quiet mode awaiting money. Alan Bond retires soon thereafter, but the company continues.2] Start spending the £100m to get ~ 1/3 of the way to a flying SABRE. If no-ones comes forth with the needed £250m to finish it, wasting that £100m will not reflect well on REL.
Quote from: Paul451 on 02/24/2015 10:13 amQuote from: francesco nicoli on 02/24/2015 09:38 am2) deliver the specifically designed lander into space, and bring the squad there when it is needed.The lander-in-orbit would be limited to a single window in a single orbital plane, making it incompatible with the goal of a suborbital ballistic "drop-ship" to allow any point-to-point travel in 90 minutes or so.Just to make sure everyone's on the same page, the actual SUSTAIN/Hot Eagle requirements had the vehicle being capable of P2P travel OR being put into orbit as a "standby" measure for "drop" at any point up to several days later.The conflicting requirements of those two mission parameters were something that was never addressed and would drive a "vehicle" design that would be very costly to meet both requirements.Randy
Quote from: francesco nicoli on 02/24/2015 09:38 am2) deliver the specifically designed lander into space, and bring the squad there when it is needed.The lander-in-orbit would be limited to a single window in a single orbital plane, making it incompatible with the goal of a suborbital ballistic "drop-ship" to allow any point-to-point travel in 90 minutes or so.
2) deliver the specifically designed lander into space, and bring the squad there when it is needed.
Build a heat-shielded jet aircraft lighter than 15 tons or maintain a network of LH2-capable runways in hostile regions, neither seems particularly feasible
If it's just the engine cycle itself, ie the thermodynamic cycle, then it probably doesn't need to include any specific information on the heat exchangers and frost control mechanisms.
And is it the SABRE 3 or SABRE 4 engine cycle?
What might the USAF gain from studying the thermodynamics of the engine cycle? ie what applications or insights might it give them for future planning? Is it like JS19 suggests - the only real reason for studying the cycle in this engine is to look at possible applications for launch capacity only.
Quote from: space_britannia on 03/01/2015 03:14 amBuild a heat-shielded jet aircraft lighter than 15 tons or maintain a network of LH2-capable runways in hostile regions, neither seems particularly feasibleCorrect.The CRADA is about specifically about the SABRE engine cycle. If they'd wanted Hypersonic cruise I'm quite sure they'd have requested more information on the LAPCAT work for M5 cruise.Put it this way, if they are not looking at SABRE for use in a launch vehicle they are very foolish.
Clearly they are looking at launch rather than hypersonic cruise, my question is if it is SUSTAIN they have in mind then how are they going to make this sabre carrier / turbojet lander architecture work
Any chance we can hack a ramp into the bottom of the payload bay for paratrooper deployment? Baumgartner up some airborne troops and fire them off the back of the ramp.How does the payload bay compare to a c130 in number of troopers. And can the craft slow down long enough and low enough to deploy them and then land far downrange? Or maybe a disposable frame that gets ejected and then drops the troops.
UK ministers issue spaceport shortlist:-http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-31711083Three of the 6 shortlisted sites have runways under 3000m, with implications for Skylon unless rectified.
Quote from: SICA Design on 03/03/2015 11:51 amUK ministers issue spaceport shortlist:-http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-31711083Three of the 6 shortlisted sites have runways under 3000m, with implications for Skylon unless rectified.I don't think any of the runways have the necessary 5000m for a full Skylon runway. Logically Newquay, being at a slightly lower longitude is best if you want direct launch to orbit. Otherwise I think most of then could handle Skylon payload loading and take off in air breathing mode. OTOH as Hempsell pointed out all UK sites are bad for equatorial launch, but OK for polar launch, which is handy for some kinds of Earth observation missions.