Does SKYLON support emergency opening/jettison of the payload bay doors? I am wondering because this could become an issue on a manned mission if an abort was required.
thanks Hempsell.@Hermit: sorry pal. Wont do it again. But anyway, A2 is kinda related to Skylon... not only it looks similar (but larger and white as "The Scimitar engines use related technology to the company's earlier SABRE engine, which is intended for space launch, but here adapted for very long distance, very high speed travel."
Quote from: tnphysics on 06/24/2011 01:28 amDoes SKYLON support emergency opening/jettison of the payload bay doors? I am wondering because this could become an issue on a manned mission if an abort was required.This was considered during a previous incarnation of the passenger module for ejection seats but it did not look good. The SPLM assumes that it is the safe haven; it will not leave the SKYLON and passengers would stay inside until any incident is over then they would exit through the side doors. But this not cast in concrete and may change as discussions with the certifying authorities progress over the development programme.
Quote from: Hempsell on 06/24/2011 11:53 amQuote from: tnphysics on 06/24/2011 01:28 amDoes SKYLON support emergency opening/jettison of the payload bay doors? I am wondering because this could become an issue on a manned mission if an abort was required.This was considered during a previous incarnation of the passenger module for ejection seats but it did not look good. The SPLM assumes that it is the safe haven; it will not leave the SKYLON and passengers would stay inside until any incident is over then they would exit through the side doors. But this not cast in concrete and may change as discussions with the certifying authorities progress over the development programme. ??how can it be a safe haven if Skylon falls?
Not sure if this will effect the Skylon effort or not as money was thought to come from private sources. But, ESA will not be funding independent manned spaceflight.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304569504576403810498723484.html?mod=WSJ_DefenseandAerospace_leftHeadlines
Some more skylon snippets here:http://www.rocketeers.co.uk/node/1595Apparently there are plans for ten X-37 sized nacelle test vehicles to be constructed...
Reaction Engines designing propulsion systems for Martian atmospheric ISRU. LOX/carbon monoxide, LOX/cyanogen, N2O4/cyanogen. LOX/CO has sufficient performance for SSTO from Mars surface.
Quote from: aceshigh on 06/24/2011 02:01 pmQuote from: Hempsell on 06/24/2011 11:53 amQuote from: tnphysics on 06/24/2011 01:28 amDoes SKYLON support emergency opening/jettison of the payload bay doors? I am wondering because this could become an issue on a manned mission if an abort was required.This was considered during a previous incarnation of the passenger module for ejection seats but it did not look good. The SPLM assumes that it is the safe haven; it will not leave the SKYLON and passengers would stay inside until any incident is over then they would exit through the side doors. But this not cast in concrete and may change as discussions with the certifying authorities progress over the development programme. ??how can it be a safe haven if Skylon falls?Same thing can be said of your standard airliner.
Some key points on passenger safety issueMost aircraft incidents happen at takeoff and landing and in aircraft incidences most causalities occur after the aircraft has come to a stop on the ground (hence the emphasis on rapid evacuation in safety briefings). In our case we expect the outside environment to be more dangerous because of the cryogen propellants and the presence of an oxidiser; so evacuation maybe a more dangerous procedure than staying put.There are two points that help us with this stay put approach. First; with aircraft the passengers are contained in the primary airframe we are not and so can consider the passenger module as protective structure and the airframe primary structure as an impact absorber. Second we have a sealed cabin with a full environmental support system again unlike an aircraft. With a mid air-break up again the independent passenger structure puts us more into the Shuttle territory where the cabin structure survived the Challenger accident and we can learn lessons from this. It is possible that parachutes and airbags may give a substantial increase in survival probability from that type of incident. However an active ejection system does not look feasible we rely on the module free falling from the break up.An in orbit stranding is handed by a second SKYLON performing a rescue mission which is why the docking port is set 15 degrees off axis; it enables two SPLM equipped SKYLONs to dock without the airframes hitting each other.
According to the video the passenger pod is lowered into the Skylon. A mobile crane could be used to extract the pod from a crashed Skylon. The crane's wheels/tracks will need protecting against the cryogenic cold.
I would be worried about a breakup in which some structure did not separate from the crew cabin and prevented parachute/airbag deployment.
Also, what about turning the nacelle ramjets (hmm...look alot like the warp nacelles from Star Trek!) into dual-mode scramjets that can provide airbreathing propulsion up to Mach 10 and beyond?