But it does seem Space X gets a free pass from criticism on here by some yet REL gets told that will never happen, perhaps some tire of the double standards expressed.
Quote from: Star One on 07/31/2016 08:30 amBut it does seem Space X gets a free pass from criticism on here by some yet REL gets told that will never happen, perhaps some tire of the double standards expressed.The "double standard" is due to one group actually building and flying real hardware, whereas the other group only has managed to build test hardware of small components, all the while claiming that there "are no showstoppers" for building something much better.Which group do you think would naturally be taken more seriously?
Quote from: Lars-J on 08/01/2016 06:58 pmQuote from: Star One on 07/31/2016 08:30 amBut it does seem Space X gets a free pass from criticism on here by some yet REL gets told that will never happen, perhaps some tire of the double standards expressed.The "double standard" is due to one group actually building and flying real hardware, whereas the other group only has managed to build test hardware of small components, all the while claiming that there "are no showstoppers" for building something much better.Which group do you think would naturally be taken more seriously?That's a far from fair comment being as REL have had to traverse a literal labyrinth to obtain the financing they have so far unlike Space X.
Quote from: Star One on 08/01/2016 07:25 pmQuote from: Lars-J on 08/01/2016 06:58 pmQuote from: Star One on 07/31/2016 08:30 amBut it does seem Space X gets a free pass from criticism on here by some yet REL gets told that will never happen, perhaps some tire of the double standards expressed.The "double standard" is due to one group actually building and flying real hardware, whereas the other group only has managed to build test hardware of small components, all the while claiming that there "are no showstoppers" for building something much better.Which group do you think would naturally be taken more seriously?That's a far from fair comment being as REL have had to traverse a literal labyrinth to obtain the financing they have so far unlike Space X.It may not be "fair", but it is accurate. Fairness has nothing to do with it. And SpaceX has not had an "easy street" either.
I come to this thread to read about Sabre and Skylon, not endless rehashing of how SpaceX is better than everything.
As for confidence. We know 3 vehicles have demonstrated winged reentry from full LEO velocity.
On a general point I can see why some people can't deal with the paradox of people having confidence in a design yet still calling it high risk at the same time.
QuoteNew material, new engines, smaller wings than ever before (while still functioning as an airplane), Wing loading for the MD MD11F was 844 Kg/m^2. That was for a passenger carrying airliner. I don't have a figure for wing area for Skylon but anything above 386 m^2 would put it's wing loading below that.
New material, new engines, smaller wings than ever before (while still functioning as an airplane),
Quotededicated landing strips, Wrong again. A dedicated launch runway to orbit, but in air breathing only mode Skylon can take off from a much wider range of runways. Most of the length is to meet emergency stop criteria for the fully loaded vehicle, which only apply when it's fully loaded to go to orbit. Landing is much easier with a low empty weight and no engine noise issues.
dedicated landing strips,
Quote'detachable' carbo bay that can be preloaded and quickly swapped upon landing... Much like how most passenger luggage is shipped in fact.
'detachable' carbo bay that can be preloaded and quickly swapped upon landing...
Quote from: john smith 19 on 07/29/2016 11:18 pmQuoteNew material, new engines, smaller wings than ever before (while still functioning as an airplane), Wing loading for the MD MD11F was 844 Kg/m^2. That was for a passenger carrying airliner. I don't have a figure for wing area for Skylon but anything above 386 m^2 would put it's wing loading below that. With a length of 82 meters, and the design on wikipedia remotely to scale, it's considerably less, indeed. That's the point of a SSTO. Smaller wings, less mass to haul along. Which means a higher cruising speed to compensate for the smaller wings.
And that's the sort of exaggeration that makes everything else you say suspect.
There's no analogous relationship between the Skylon design and the two round-nosed, stubby-body, delta-wing orbiters (STS/Buran), nor with the tiny little X-37 spaceplane.
Skylon is an entirely new untried dissimilar design.
You can't just say "Oo, look, wings" and expect anyone to take you seriously.
(As Lars-J notes, it'd be like comparing a reusable upper-stage and a capsule, "Oo, look, wingless".
There's just no comparison. And Lars could have also added a re-entry body for a warhead. Or even those three winged re-entry vehicles: They have as much similarity, from a physics standpoint, to a reusable upper-stage as they have to Skylon. (Ie, none.))
Firstly, if you are going to address a comment to me, address it to me. "Some people" is just passive aggressive nonsense.
Secondly, you couldn't have missed my point more if you'd deliberately got into a car and travelled in the opposite direction until you hit ocean.
With a length of 82 meters, and the design on wikipedia remotely to scale, it's considerably less, indeed. That's the point of a SSTO. Smaller wings, less mass to haul along. Which means a higher cruising speed to compensate for the smaller wings.
That's what I said. The Skylon needs a dedicated runway to get to orbit. Using the SABRE engine for an airplane doesn't require the Skylon design.
QuoteMuch like how most passenger luggage is shipped in fact. Oh yeah, last time I took the airplane, the preloaded cargo bay was inserted into the plane. Totally forgot about that one. And after that, the passenger cabin was attached to the wings that had just landed. No reason to wait to board until the previous passengers had gotten off.
Much like how most passenger luggage is shipped in fact.
Wait, that design also exists only on the drawing board. (I've tried finding the thread, but no such luck. Apparently, I didn't post in it).
Curious statement, coming from the man who's arguing that there's nothing that revolutionary about the Skylon. Personally, I think it has quite a few new features, that'll require a lot of funding to get the kinks out. It's high risk, with possible high gain (as you said yourself, very confusing compared to the post I quoted above).
Will it fly? Who knows. Personally, I'm not going into that one until there's a full scale model of the SABRE engine. Otherwise, there's nothing but opinion to argue with.