I believe this is the first time we've heard the UKSA £60m is matching funds, released when REL has their own £60m. The following prior announcements talk about the money being released in the past tense, and to encourage investment in REL. I wonder which it is.http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/press_release/Press_Release_17July2013_SABRE.pdfhttp://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-23332592
I imagine a subscale demonstrator would be attractive in publicising the technology beyond its use in Skylon. Other interested parties such as the AFRL would be no doubt invited to view it.
Quote from: adrianwyard on 11/18/2015 04:59 pmI believe this is the first time we've heard the UKSA £60m is matching funds, released when REL has their own £60m. The following prior announcements talk about the money being released in the past tense, and to encourage investment in REL. I wonder which it is.http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/press_release/Press_Release_17July2013_SABRE.pdfhttp://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-23332592I think so too.If so it's an even less generous deal that it looked originally. Quote from: Star One on 11/18/2015 07:01 pmI imagine a subscale demonstrator would be attractive in publicising the technology beyond its use in Skylon. Other interested parties such as the AFRL would be no doubt invited to view it.A full size, but not full thrust engine gives you all the drag of a full size engine without all the thrust to overcome it. This (from REL's PoV) then drags you into a detailed design exercise to fund and build a flight vehicle that's either a scaled Skylon (to preserve the aerodynamics) or a completely 1 off test vehicle. REL don't like scale models because they have scale effects which have to be compensated for and may not be fully understood, increasing the design risk scaling up. Likewise the one off test vehicle brings all the problems of designing a flight vehicle without the benefits of transferring the solutions of those problems to Skylon. You'd want to mfg it in as conventional a way as possible to avoid the technical risks of the Titanium framework, ceramic body shell for example. REL's original concept was for 2 test Skylons, similar in appearance but with evolving capabilities. They did not expect the 1st Skylon to be orbital capable but to give them experience and to discover where they had been conservative on margins (or where they had not been, given one of those "unknown unknowns" that come up in aeronautical testing) for the final orbit capable version.I'm guessing the did a fair bit of cost modelling on this and this was the plan that had the lowest overall cost to implement. What is not known outside REL is how all the testing and research has refined their confidence in their models, or equally, if it's shown areas that are not adequately modeled and will need a full scale test vehicle.REL have made progress, and attracted good staff, by focusing on their goal and not getting side tracked. They may not have moved fast, but they have always moved in the same direction.I doubt many people in REL have any interest in building a prototype military anything, or the appetite for the endless procurement paperwork that defense contractors seem to love.
If the military are going to give you development money for what is after all an untried technology in actual usage then you would be foolish in the extreme to turn your nose at it, if it helps reach your goals. Anyway now that BAE have a seat at the table I suspect your belief in what REL will or will not do may be misplaced.
There's also the ITAR issue, where too heavy involvement in the USA could could prevent REL from exporting their technology, though they have been working with the US military to confirm the engine's feasibility.
Quote from: Star One on 11/20/2015 01:03 pmIf the military are going to give you development money for what is after all an untried technology in actual usage then you would be foolish in the extreme to turn your nose at it, if it helps reach your goals. Anyway now that BAE have a seat at the table I suspect your belief in what REL will or will not do may be misplaced.Remember that Alan Bond had a terrible experiences with the government cancelling cancelling HOTOL, then slapping an official secrets order on the patents for the RB545 HOTOL engine which he had designed. He spent decades working around his own patents to produce SABRE.There's also the ITAR issue, where too heavy involvement in the USA could could prevent REL from exporting their technology, though they have been working with the US military to confirm the engine's feasibility.REL have had bad dealings with government departments before, and so may be very careful before they sign any deals that could relinquish any control over the SABRE project. How that squares with BAE buying a stake in REL remains to be seen.
If the military are going to give you development money for what is after all an untried technology in actual usage then you would be foolish in the extreme to turn your nose at it,
if it helps reach your goals. Anyway now that BAE have a seat at the table I suspect your belief in what REL will or will not do may be misplaced.
Remember that Alan Bond had a terrible experiences with the government cancelling cancelling HOTOL, then slapping an official secrets order on the patents for the RB545 HOTOL engine which he had designed. He spent decades working around his own patents to produce SABRE.There's also the ITAR issue, where too heavy involvement in the USA could could prevent REL from exporting their technology, though they have been working with the US military to confirm the engine's feasibility.REL have had bad dealings with government departments before, and so may be very careful before they sign any deals that could relinquish any control over the SABRE project. How that squares with BAE buying a stake in REL remains to be seen.
Quote from: Ravenger on 11/20/2015 02:09 pmThere's also the ITAR issue, where too heavy involvement in the USA could could prevent REL from exporting their technology, though they have been working with the US military to confirm the engine's feasibility.ITAR has recently (a few months ago) become significantly less restrictive about space hardware. That may in fact have allowed the BAE deal to happen (speculation).
I imagine it was less restrictive ITAR environment that partly interested BAE in the first place, plus they have plenty of experience with dealing with military bureaucracy.
Quote from: Star One on 11/20/2015 01:03 pmIf the military are going to give you development money for what is after all an untried technology in actual usage then you would be foolish in the extreme to turn your nose at it,There is no indication that has happened. Quote if it helps reach your goals. Anyway now that BAE have a seat at the table I suspect your belief in what REL will or will not do may be misplaced.Well there's what they will do and there's what they would like to do if they did not have other constraints. It's not about funding. It's about control.Quote from: Ravenger on 11/20/2015 02:09 pmRemember that Alan Bond had a terrible experiences with the government cancelling cancelling HOTOL, then slapping an official secrets order on the patents for the RB545 HOTOL engine which he had designed. He spent decades working around his own patents to produce SABRE.There's also the ITAR issue, where too heavy involvement in the USA could could prevent REL from exporting their technology, though they have been working with the US military to confirm the engine's feasibility.REL have had bad dealings with government departments before, and so may be very careful before they sign any deals that could relinquish any control over the SABRE project. How that squares with BAE buying a stake in REL remains to be seen.Various staff at REL also dealt with Concorde, where repeated government interference delayed the programme and wasted a lot of funds, basically becuse the French thought you could build an SST with 70 seats. Quote from: simonbp on 11/20/2015 02:24 pmQuote from: Ravenger on 11/20/2015 02:09 pmThere's also the ITAR issue, where too heavy involvement in the USA could could prevent REL from exporting their technology, though they have been working with the US military to confirm the engine's feasibility.ITAR has recently (a few months ago) become significantly less restrictive about space hardware. That may in fact have allowed the BAE deal to happen (speculation).AFAIK this solely applies to communications satellites and parts. Launch vehicles remain dual use with all the problems that implies. http://bizwest.com/relaxed-munitions-rules-pave-way-for-aerospace-exports/Gives a background on the changes. Quote from: Star One on 11/20/2015 03:34 pmI imagine it was less restrictive ITAR environment that partly interested BAE in the first place, plus they have plenty of experience with dealing with military bureaucracy.http://bizwest.com/relaxed-munitions-rules-pave-way-for-aerospace-exports/Suggests your imagination is wrong.
I'll admit I haven't gone through the 5 threads on this subject, and though I wish my brothers across the pond the best I don't see how this architecture pans out successfully.It feels like the shuttle, which flew but didn't fly 52 times per year or reduce cost.
It's not like the Shuttle much at all, other than they both have wings. Really it's closer to aviation than any winged space vehicle so far to have flown.
Quote from: Star One on 11/23/2015 06:33 amIt's not like the Shuttle much at all, other than they both have wings. Really it's closer to aviation than any winged space vehicle so far to have flown.That's certainly the objective. That's also a lot closer to what was promised for the shuttle than what was delivered. Hopefully they can get a vehicle not crippled by overwhelming maintenance demands.
One of the biggest issue with the shuttle was that very little attempt was made to decrease the amount of maintenance needed after each flight and that was down to the lack of money available to Nasa.
When, if ever, will Skylon fly? Anyone want to put down a prediction?