Author Topic: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)  (Read 442312 times)

Offline Soundbite

  • Member
  • Posts: 18
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #1260 on: 02/29/2016 11:58 AM »
The Science and Technology Committee: Satellites and Space Inquiry have just published their minutes http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/science-and-technology-committee/satellites-and-space/oral/29543.pdf.  There were some interesting contributions from Mark Thomas, such as that they still haven't seen any of the 60M funds that Osborne promised in 2013...

Offline t43562

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 174
  • UK
  • Liked: 72
  • Likes Given: 38
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #1261 on: 02/29/2016 07:14 PM »
The Science and Technology Committee: Satellites and Space Inquiry have just published their minutes http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/science-and-technology-committee/satellites-and-space/oral/29543.pdf.  There were some interesting contributions from Mark Thomas, such as that they still haven't seen any of the 60M funds that Osborne promised in 2013...

Many many thanks for that.  I found the whole thing interesting - not just the reaction engines bit. 

I noticed what seemed like a rather competitive attitude towards RE from several of the witnesses. There were comments about how the UK should not trying to do anything new that competes with what other countries have spent a lot of money on  since it would be hard for the UK to have any advantage.   The argument was  that money could be directed to the places where the UK already had an "edge" so that it can maintain that.

Then there was some water-muddying which seemed a little unprofessional to me regarding the cost of a launcher.   There are all sorts of places to look for evidence but this rather old link http://spacenews.com/39906former-arianespace-chief-says-spacex-has-advantage-on-cost/ suggests that Mark Thomas was not wrong and that perhaps they were talking about somewhat different things.  Nevertheless I felt there was some degree of animosity that you get when people are competing for attention and of course the possibility of getting money.   

Then there was a comment about the spaceport and horizontal launch to the effect of "lets not choose something for which the technology and business case don't exist"  -  which seemed entirely aimed at RE.

It made me see why the space industry in the UK might not be too keen on Skylon/SABRE being a success as they see it soaking up government money that they want. Since they are satellite makers or buyers they see launching as something they are not competing in internationally and they obviously feel that if a new launcher is created by e.g. SpaceX then they can buy rides on it like anyone else - no need for the UK to blow any cash that could instead be spent of making their actual products more competitive.

I don't accept this viewpoint of course because I am an RE fanboi and because to a degree these companies are either big enough to look after themselves or profitable even if small and to some degree they have had their cake and should be able to generate investment interest if they really have something to offer, some big plan to execute.

Anyhow perhaps it's just my mindset that I saw it this way. :-)  The bit about RE not having any of the money yet is just ridiculous but it's interesting to see how things happen.

« Last Edit: 02/29/2016 07:24 PM by t43562 »

Offline knowles2

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 115
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #1262 on: 02/29/2016 11:02 PM »
Sadly that just like Cameron and Osborn all talk and very very little in the way of action. In fact I can't remember a single pledge they have actually fulfilled. So it doesn't surprise me that their pledge of funds to RE have yet to be fulfilled.
« Last Edit: 02/29/2016 11:04 PM by knowles2 »

Offline Ravenger

  • Member
  • Posts: 41
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #1263 on: 03/01/2016 09:34 AM »
The main problem with dealing with governments and big organizations is the bureaucracy and the time it takes them to do anything.

One reason for the delay in the government's payment is that it had to be referred to the EU, as it could have breached EU state-aid rules. Permission was eventually given for the payment to go ahead, but it took a long while to happen.

Even with that delay, it's still a scandal that the UK government haven't delivered the promised funding by now.

Offline t43562

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 174
  • UK
  • Liked: 72
  • Likes Given: 38
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #1264 on: 03/02/2016 01:18 PM »
In reference the the parliamentary committee where Mark Thomas mentioned that Reaction engines was going to be short of people with experience in rocket engines:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-ariane-6-launch-cost-assault-is-a-revoluti-422239/

I don't want to get too far off the topic - the article just says that "too many people are employed in building Ariane rockets"  and details how this is going to be remedied.   So that might solve RE's problem in finding people with the right experience.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6192
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 829
  • Likes Given: 5167
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #1265 on: 03/02/2016 07:24 PM »
The Science and Technology Committee: Satellites and Space Inquiry have just published their minutes http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/science-and-technology-committee/satellites-and-space/oral/29543.pdf.  There were some interesting contributions from Mark Thomas, such as that they still haven't seen any of the 60M funds that Osborne promised in 2013...
This is very disappointing.

It would seem they have taken the government at it's word. Always a doubtful proposition.  :(

By all means wait till a reasonable amount of time has gone by but once the deadline is passed they really needed to have started seriously chasing this.
"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 knowles2

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 115
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #1266 on: 03/03/2016 12:25 AM »
In reference the the parliamentary committee where Mark Thomas mentioned that Reaction engines was going to be short of people with experience in rocket engines:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-ariane-6-launch-cost-assault-is-a-revoluti-422239/

I don't want to get too far off the topic - the article just says that "too many people are employed in building Ariane rockets"  and details how this is going to be remedied.   So that might solve RE's problem in finding people with the right experience.
Continuous development went missing on a lot of rockets in the past. It be interesting to see if Arianespace/ Airbus Safran Launchers will be able to keep up continuous development of Vega and Ariane rockets. An where the money for this continuous development will come from there own funds or from government.

I'm surprise to see the French give up the 1/3 of Arianespace they own. That must have took a lot of convincing.   

Offline t43562

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 174
  • UK
  • Liked: 72
  • Likes Given: 38
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #1267 on: 03/03/2016 06:45 AM »
Continuous development went missing on a lot of rockets in the past. It be interesting to see if Arianespace/ Airbus Safran Launchers will be able to keep up continuous development of Vega and Ariane rockets. An where the money for this continuous development will come from there own funds or from government.

I'm surprise to see the French give up the 1/3 of Arianespace they own. That must have took a lot of convincing.

Another thing that I note as interesting is that they claim that horizontal payload integration is going ot be faster and cheaper.   This reminds me of the debate earlier on about whether Skylon had advantages for that reason - if this is actually significant for Ariane 6 then presumably it would also be for a Skylon.

Presumably the other ideas about having an assembly line for  engines etc don't apply so much to SABRE unless there's a huge order book.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8182
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 258
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #1268 on: 03/03/2016 11:58 AM »
The Science and Technology Committee: Satellites and Space Inquiry have just published their minutes http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/science-and-technology-committee/satellites-and-space/oral/29543.pdf.  There were some interesting contributions from Mark Thomas, such as that they still haven't seen any of the 60M funds that Osborne promised in 2013...
This is very disappointing.

It would seem they have taken the government at it's word. Always a doubtful proposition.  :(

By all means wait till a reasonable amount of time has gone by but once the deadline is passed they really needed to have started seriously chasing this.

Britain starts a new financial year on the 5th April. Making noises before then can backfire badly.

Offline francesco nicoli

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 493
  • Amsterdam
    • About Crises
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #1269 on: 03/03/2016 02:00 PM »
"USAF set to unveail concept based on Skylon technology"


key takeaways:

- two 2STO concepts based on SABRE will be unveiled either in September or in March 2017
- a competition had been launched in February this year for in-flight testing of the SABRE precoolers.


http://www.space.com/32115-skylon-space-plane-engines-air-force-vehicle.html?cmpid=514648
« Last Edit: 03/03/2016 02:09 PM by francesco nicoli »

Offline francesco nicoli

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 493
  • Amsterdam
    • About Crises
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #1270 on: 03/03/2016 02:11 PM »
a SABRE- based first stage for USAF, then.
How would it fit with the second stage based on RAPTOR that USAF is also developing?
Would such architecture mixinx REL & SpaceX technologies provide  ground for a 2stage full reusable system?

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 #1271 on: 03/03/2016 03:36 PM »
a SABRE- based first stage for USAF, then.
How would it fit with the second stage based on RAPTOR that USAF is also developing?

Might not use the Raptor at all, they could use the something similar to the SMV set-up in this report:
http://www.sei.aero/eng/papers/uploads/archive/SEI_JANNAF_Sentinel_2007_present.pdf (Page 18)

Or if they do they've been "thinking" about using Falcon derived upper stages for a while now:
http://www.sei.aero/eng/papers/uploads/archive/SEI_JANNAF_Spiral2_2007.pdf
http://www.sei.aero/eng/papers/uploads/archive/AIAA-2006-8057.pdf

Quote
Would such architecture mixinx REL & SpaceX technologies provide  ground for a 2stage full reusable system?

Probably but very different from what SpaceX is looking to.

Examples:
http://www.sei.aero/eng/papers/uploads/archive/AIAA-2004-5950.pdf
http://www.sei.aero/eng/papers/uploads/archive/GT-SSEC-B.1_present.pdf
https://mdao.grc.nasa.gov/publications/TETS-2010_TBCC-JSS.pdf
http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/depssite/documents/webpage/deps_068007.pdf

Mostly because it IS the "Air Force Research Laboratory" and once they move past expendable upper stages they tend to put wings on everything anyway :) I'm not going to be at all surprised either if they (AFRL that is) don't find some way to stick a SCramjet on the concepts as well.

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 Hankelow8

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 155
  • UK
  • Liked: 112
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #1272 on: 03/03/2016 03:50 PM »
"USAF set to unveail concept based on Skylon technology"


key takeaways:

- two 2STO concepts based on SABRE will be unveiled either in September or in March 2017
- a competition had been launched in February this year for in-flight testing of the SABRE precoolers.


http://www.space.com/32115-skylon-space-plane-engines-air-force-vehicle.html?cmpid=514648

Here we go again, another Frank Whittle moment !!!

Offline Asteroza

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #1273 on: 03/03/2016 10:23 PM »
For TSTO, the trajectory profile should be basically the same as the current Skylon suborbital max payload throw as currently envisioned, right? For reference, what's the max suborbital throw weight? As a rough figure of merit, with said upperstage, what are we looking as payload to a minimal parking/checkout orbit assuming the payload can electric thrust its way elsewhere?

Online pippin

  • Regular
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2543
  • Liked: 282
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #1274 on: 03/03/2016 11:00 PM »
So the Air Force has found a concept that allows them to maximize system cost while minimizing the advantages? I mean... What should a two stag concept be good for? You replace a simple and scalable booster with an expensive SABRE design just to then add a second stage? Why???

Offline knowles2

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 115
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #1275 on: 03/04/2016 12:06 AM »
Anyone else building precoolers other than Reaction Engines?. Here hoping this isn't an attempt by the air force to replicate Reaction Engine technologies in the US without Reaction engine involvement.

Spacex Raptor program is design for this generation of space launch vehicles, one presume this would be next generation of launch vehicles.
« Last Edit: 03/04/2016 09:41 AM by knowles2 »

Offline knowles2

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 115
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #1276 on: 03/04/2016 12:10 AM »
So the Air Force has found a concept that allows them to maximize system cost while minimizing the advantages? I mean... What should a two stag concept be good for? You replace a simple and scalable booster with an expensive SABRE design just to then add a second stage? Why???
Let the US figure that out, Reaction Engine will just build the engine, what other people do with them is their choice, hopefully Reaction engine will have enough money left over to continue their development of a SSTO Skylon.

Online Alpha_Centauri

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 553
  • England
  • Liked: 174
  • Likes Given: 111
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #1277 on: 03/04/2016 09:25 AM »
Anyone else building precoolers other than Reaction Engines. Here hoping this isn't an attempt by the air force to replicate Reaction Engine technologies in the US without Reaction engine involvement.

That was inevitable once REL started working with the Americans. Tbh I would rather someone, anyone, take the technology forward rather than it remain a pretty PowerPoint.  It's a shame, but this country has become far too myopic.

Offline Paul451

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1290
  • Australia
  • Liked: 631
  • Likes Given: 535
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #1278 on: 03/05/2016 02:22 AM »
"USAF set to unveail concept based on Skylon technology"
http://www.space.com/32115-skylon-space-plane-engines-air-force-vehicle.html?cmpid=514648

Hmmm...

Quote
"The oxygen in the chilled air will become liquid in the process."

Unless the USAF really does intend to turn REL's (or equivalent) pre-coolers into LACE, I suspect this in a standard Space.com "near enough" article. So I wouldn't read too much into the details.

Offline momerathe

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 137
  • Liked: 59
  • Likes Given: 36
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #1279 on: 03/05/2016 08:10 PM »
Let the US figure that out, Reaction Engine will just build the engine, what other people do with them is their choice,
Really, this should be what REL are doing. I've always found their "this is our design for a spaceplace guys - by the way, we want someone else to build it" stance to be a little contradictory.

Quote
hopefully Reaction engine will have enough money left over to continue their development of a SSTO Skylon.
or at least let AFRL pay to get the first engine flying; once that's done, building a second gets that much easier, and other investors that much easier to find.
thermodynamics will get you in the end

Tags: