Author Topic: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)  (Read 442427 times)

Online john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6192
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 829
  • Likes Given: 5169
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #1220 on: 01/31/2016 05:30 AM »
And what's wrong with that?
Quite a lot.

The world does not need another weapons system.

It does need a fully reusable launch system that has a real shot at cutting the price of missions 10x.  :(
"Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/11  Averse to bold? You must be in marketing."It's all in the sequencing" K. Mattingly.  STS-Keeping most of the stakeholders happy most of the time.

Online john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6192
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 829
  • Likes Given: 5169
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #1221 on: 01/31/2016 05:35 AM »
http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/01/charles-bombardier-has-improved.html

to quote daffy duck when he is about to be in a lot of pain:  "mother"
And this has any relevance to Skylon how?
"Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/11  Averse to bold? You must be in marketing."It's all in the sequencing" K. Mattingly.  STS-Keeping most of the stakeholders happy most of the time.

Offline NovaSilisko

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1828
  • Liked: 1435
  • Likes Given: 1305
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #1222 on: 01/31/2016 06:57 AM »
And what's wrong with that?
Quite a lot.

The world does not need another weapons system.

It does need a fully reusable launch system that has a real shot at cutting the price of missions 10x.  :(

I'm confused. Is a Britishism sailing over my head? Isn't aeroplane a general term for aircraft? Or does it mean a military aircraft specifically?

Online Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1308
  • Liked: 231
  • Likes Given: 86
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #1223 on: 01/31/2016 07:20 AM »
http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/01/charles-bombardier-has-improved.html

to quote daffy duck when he is about to be in a lot of pain:  "mother"
And this has any relevance to Skylon how?
look at the comment section. this could be a competitor to it. though they lack one important thing... a hypersonic engine. Just a minor detail.  :)
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8276
  • UK
  • Liked: 1341
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #1224 on: 01/31/2016 08:28 AM »

And what's wrong with that?
Quite a lot.

The world does not need another weapons system.

It does need a fully reusable launch system that has a real shot at cutting the price of missions 10x.  :(

I'm confused. Is a Britishism sailing over my head? Isn't aeroplane a general term for aircraft? Or does it mean a military aircraft specifically?

No it is a general term here as well.:)

Online john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6192
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 829
  • Likes Given: 5169
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #1225 on: 01/31/2016 09:32 AM »
I'm confused. Is a Britishism sailing over my head? Isn't aeroplane a general term for aircraft? Or does it mean a military aircraft specifically?
Yes. It's more BAe systems only making weapon systems. They sold off their commercial airliner business a long time ago.  :(
"Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/11  Averse to bold? You must be in marketing."It's all in the sequencing" K. Mattingly.  STS-Keeping most of the stakeholders happy most of the time.

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2083
  • Liked: 220
  • Likes Given: 595
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #1226 on: 01/31/2016 09:55 AM »

Make 'er out of Titanium, then...

I think even that has its issues at hypersonic speeds as the craft starts to stretch, the old SR-71 used to and that was only doing Mach 3.

The SR-71 leaked fuel on the ramp, so much that it had to be refueled after liftoff by a KC-135Q...

Offline Hankelow8

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 155
  • UK
  • Liked: 112
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #1227 on: 01/31/2016 10:02 AM »

Make 'er out of Titanium, then...

I think even that has its issues at hypersonic speeds as the craft starts to stretch, the old SR-71 used to and that was only doing Mach 3.

The SR-71 leaked fuel on the ramp, so much that it had to be refuelled after liftoff by a KC-135Q...







How old is SR-71 technology?,I think we have come a long way since then.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8276
  • UK
  • Liked: 1341
  • Likes Given: 168
The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #1228 on: 01/31/2016 02:37 PM »

Make 'er out of Titanium, then...

I think even that has its issues at hypersonic speeds as the craft starts to stretch, the old SR-71 used to and that was only doing Mach 3.

The SR-71 leaked fuel on the ramp, so much that it had to be refuelled after liftoff by a KC-135Q...







How old is SR-71 technology?,I think we have come a long way since then.

As far as aircraft are concerned it might be old but it's the only practical example we have going at these kind of speeds. If there was other examples they haven't been disclosed.
« Last Edit: 01/31/2016 02:44 PM by Star One »

Offline Hanelyp

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 252
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #1229 on: 01/31/2016 03:00 PM »
The SR-71 leaked fuel on the ramp, so much that it had to be refuelled after liftoff by a KC-135Q...
How old is SR-71 technology?,I think we have come a long way since then.
The SR-71 leaked on the runway because of thermal expansion joints in the fuel tank.  Come up with a fuel tank that can take the heat without thermal expansion joints and you can get a hypersonic aircraft that doesn't leak on the runway.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8031
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2220
  • Likes Given: 5203
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #1230 on: 01/31/2016 03:12 PM »
The SR-71 leaked fuel on the ramp, so much that it had to be refuelled after liftoff by a KC-135Q...
How old is SR-71 technology?,I think we have come a long way since then.
The SR-71 leaked on the runway because of thermal expansion joints in the fuel tank.  Come up with a fuel tank that can take the heat without thermal expansion joints and you can get a hypersonic aircraft that doesn't leak on the runway.
Nitrile rubber fuel bladder...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Offline Paul451

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1290
  • Australia
  • Liked: 631
  • Likes Given: 535
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #1231 on: 01/31/2016 04:41 PM »
The SR-71 leaked on the runway because of thermal expansion joints in the fuel tank.  Come up with a fuel tank that can take the heat without thermal expansion joints and you can get a hypersonic aircraft that doesn't leak on the runway.

So a pressurised liquid hydrogen cryo-tank that can withstand hypersonic shock temperatures for several hours, which is light enough to allow the aircraft to fly, but likely must be strong enough to be a major structural component of the airframe?

...Let me check in the back shed.

Offline SICA Design

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 179
  • UK
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #1232 on: 01/31/2016 07:34 PM »
And what's wrong with that?
Quite a lot.

The world does not need another weapons system.

It does need a fully reusable launch system that has a real shot at cutting the price of missions 10x.  :(

I'm confused. Is a Britishism sailing over my head? Isn't aeroplane a general term for aircraft? Or does it mean a military aircraft specifically?

More importantly, the term aeroplane generally does not include spaceplane.

My concern is that BAe's interest and money is towards an atmospheric application (such as LAPCAT, or some other military hypersonic) rather than towards reusable space launch, i.e. Skylon.

This is a SPACEFLIGHT forum!

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8276
  • UK
  • Liked: 1341
  • Likes Given: 168
The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #1233 on: 01/31/2016 08:09 PM »
And what's wrong with that?
Quite a lot.

The world does not need another weapons system.

It does need a fully reusable launch system that has a real shot at cutting the price of missions 10x.  :(

I'm confused. Is a Britishism sailing over my head? Isn't aeroplane a general term for aircraft? Or does it mean a military aircraft specifically?

More importantly, the term aeroplane generally does not include spaceplane.

My concern is that BAe's interest and money is towards an atmospheric application (such as LAPCAT, or some other military hypersonic) rather than towards reusable space launch, i.e. Skylon.

This is a SPACEFLIGHT forum!

Don't be so narrow. Especially if you look suborbital & hypersonic vehicles are covered on here as well. Anyway success with one will probably lead to the other eventually.
« Last Edit: 01/31/2016 08:11 PM by Star One »

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4416
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 770
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #1234 on: 02/01/2016 02:41 PM »
I don't think the nomenclature is really a problem, though to repeat my mantra; A Spacecraft is not an Airplane and an Airplane! Space-plane, Aerospaceplane, would be more accurate, but "aero" plane implies an atmosphere only vehicle WHICH I suspect is actually the point since it's BAe and all :)

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31362
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9638
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #1235 on: 02/01/2016 06:54 PM »

Skylon could not get into space without an atmosphere, it relies upon lifting flight and aerodynamics for control, almost up to MECO



No, the aerodynamic control is not used after a few minutes and certainly not near MECO.  The engines provide most of the control

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31362
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9638
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #1236 on: 02/01/2016 07:55 PM »
Yes,  it is. See page 11 of Skylon Aerodynamics and SABRE Plumes report, which details the foreplane activity up to 75KM.


No, Mach 17 is not near MECO and 75km is far from orbital altitude.
« Last Edit: 02/01/2016 07:55 PM by Jim »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31362
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9638
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #1237 on: 02/01/2016 11:19 PM »

I used the NASA source as you're less likely to dismiss it as biased.


It isn't a source.  It is an in depended study that makes assumptions on the flight profile.  It doesn't use an official Skylon trajectory

Online john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6192
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 829
  • Likes Given: 5169
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #1238 on: 02/03/2016 01:08 PM »
The SR-71 leaked on the runway because of thermal expansion joints in the fuel tank.  Come up with a fuel tank that can take the heat without thermal expansion joints and you can get a hypersonic aircraft that doesn't leak on the runway.

So a pressurised liquid hydrogen cryo-tank that can withstand hypersonic shock temperatures for several hours, which is light enough to allow the aircraft to fly, but likely must be strong enough to be a major structural component of the airframe?

...Let me check in the back shed.
Or

You can accept LH2 vehicles have special challenges and split the task into a highly insulated tank (handling the dead weight of the LH2 and the acceleration loads on it) and an outer fuselage handling the aerothermal loads.

Which is how every LH2 fueled aircraft concept since the original Suntan has planned to handle it.

And which is how Skylon will handle it.
"Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/11  Averse to bold? You must be in marketing."It's all in the sequencing" K. Mattingly.  STS-Keeping most of the stakeholders happy most of the time.

Offline francesco nicoli

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 493
  • Amsterdam
    • About Crises
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #1239 on: 02/08/2016 09:12 AM »
I have been thinknig, of late, at a different military application for a Sabre-based vehicle. Let's say, a small-ish drone carrying anti-sat weaponry which jumps to LEO, releases its small payload, and goes back. How small can a sabre-based vehicle be made? I am sure there is a downard limitation...

Tags: