Author Topic: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)  (Read 420614 times)

Offline francesco nicoli

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 491
  • Amsterdam
    • About Crises
  • Liked: 224
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #400 on: 07/10/2015 04:41 PM »
well, not sure of names, but it must have these characteristics

- being a big player with a history in airframes
- being interested in space launch business
- being credible when developing new projects
- being stack with cash, or eventually being so well known to being able to raise cash at favourable interest rates.

I would bet on RR, Boeing or LM, but who knows?

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5868
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 744
  • Likes Given: 4501
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #401 on: 07/10/2015 07:14 PM »
well, not sure of names, but it must have these characteristics
I would bet on RR, Boeing or LM, but who knows?
Originally REL were only talking about the pre cooler but their skills seem to be growing and their confidence at executing the whole design.

This would not be competition to RR, since they don't make hybrid air breathing rocket engines.

LM are solely government contractors. For Europe the formation of a division of Astrium would be the logical way to go.

The issue for REL remains some way of signing up future customers to purchase a vehicle from another company that has not been formed yet which can be passed to that company.

That definitely sounds like a problem in economics or international law.

[EDIT Read the Av Week article. So it does use Methanol in a counter flow arrangement, starting at th back with (presumably) near pure Methanol and using the dynamic pressure to force it forward to lower and lower pressure stages.

Obviously a tricky process to get right but one that seems to have proved very effective.
« Last Edit: 07/10/2015 07:22 PM by john smith 19 »
"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 Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8002
  • UK
  • Liked: 1278
  • Likes Given: 168
The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #402 on: 07/10/2015 08:10 PM »
well, not sure of names, but it must have these characteristics
I would bet on RR, Boeing or LM, but who knows?
Originally REL were only talking about the pre cooler but their skills seem to be growing and their confidence at executing the whole design.

This would not be competition to RR, since they don't make hybrid air breathing rocket engines.

LM are solely government contractors. For Europe the formation of a division of Astrium would be the logical way to go.

The issue for REL remains some way of signing up future customers to purchase a vehicle from another company that has not been formed yet which can be passed to that company.

That definitely sounds like a problem in economics or international law.

[EDIT Read the Av Week article. So it does use Methanol in a counter flow arrangement, starting at th back with (presumably) near pure Methanol and using the dynamic pressure to force it forward to lower and lower pressure stages.

Obviously a tricky process to get right but one that seems to have proved very effective.

LM are the ones who would be most interested for their aviation projects as they tick a lot of the right boxes. I don't see why LM's focus on government contracts is an issue for you?
« Last Edit: 07/10/2015 08:11 PM by Star One »

Offline AnalogMan

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2935
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 644
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #403 on: 07/10/2015 11:04 PM »
Apart from a batch of UK patents published on 15 April 2015 (ten of them) there have also been 3 more published within the last 4 weeks.  All 13 patents were originally lodged on 11 Oct 2013.  I didn't see these new ones mentioned yet.

17 June 2015
Patent GB2521113
Applicant: Reaction Engines Limited (Incorporated in the United Kingdom)
Title: Heat exchanger
Date Lodged: 11 October 2013
Inventors: Bond, Alan and Varvill, Richard

17 June 2015
Patent GB2521114
Applicant: Reaction Engines Limited (Incorporated in the United Kingdom)
Title: Heat exchanger
Date Lodged: 11 October 2013
Inventors: Bond, Alan and Varvill, Richard

01 July 2015
Patent GB2521588
Applicant: Reaction Engines Limited (Incorporated in the United Kingdom)
Title: Turbomachine with radially compressed blades
Date Lodged: 11 October 2013
Inventor: Varvill, Richard

Copies attached.  List of published UK patents since 2010 can be found at this link.

Offline Citizen Wolf

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 158
  • Milky Way, Western spiral arm
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #404 on: 07/10/2015 11:15 PM »
Well, plenty of technical specifications there. As the Dutch say - the monkey's out of the sleeve now. :)
« Last Edit: 07/10/2015 11:15 PM by Citizen Wolf »
The only thing I can be sure of is that I can't be sure of anything.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5868
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 744
  • Likes Given: 4501
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #405 on: 07/11/2015 04:46 PM »
LM are the ones who would be most interested for their aviation projects as they tick a lot of the right boxes. I don't see why LM's focus on government contracts is an issue for you?
AFAIK LM make no commercial products. All they do is a)Government contract work b)National security systems c) Weapon systems.

This means they are good at a)Filling in procurement paperwork and b)Lobbying governments and their support staffs to get funded and c)Lobbying governments and their support staffs to get extended funding.

All of those are skills, they're just not actually very useful when it comes to making stuff.

IOW Their idea of "profit" is nothing to do with a commercial entities. The nearest LM come to space launch is they supplied the Delta IV half of the ULA product portfolio.

AFAIK the Delta IV has never launched a non USG satellite (IE not NASA, DoD or some other "Administration"). Where private companies have gone with a ULA vehicle it's the Atlas, or the go with some other supplier.

That is a very bad choice if you want to engage with world wide customers and have tight cost and schedule, which REL need to do.
"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 adrianwyard

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 947
  • Liked: 160
  • Likes Given: 209
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #406 on: 07/11/2015 05:18 PM »
For completeness sake we should mention Lockheed made the L-1011 TriStar passenger jet - operated by British Airways, and with engines developed for it by Rolls Royce. But that was a long time ago, and not a roaring success...

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8002
  • UK
  • Liked: 1278
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #407 on: 07/11/2015 05:53 PM »

LM are the ones who would be most interested for their aviation projects as they tick a lot of the right boxes. I don't see why LM's focus on government contracts is an issue for you?
AFAIK LM make no commercial products. All they do is a)Government contract work b)National security systems c) Weapon systems.

This means they are good at a)Filling in procurement paperwork and b)Lobbying governments and their support staffs to get funded and c)Lobbying governments and their support staffs to get extended funding.

All of those are skills, they're just not actually very useful when it comes to making stuff.

IOW Their idea of "profit" is nothing to do with a commercial entities. The nearest LM come to space launch is they supplied the Delta IV half of the ULA product portfolio.

AFAIK the Delta IV has never launched a non USG satellite (IE not NASA, DoD or some other "Administration"). Where private companies have gone with a ULA vehicle it's the Atlas, or the go with some other supplier.

That is a very bad choice if you want to engage with world wide customers and have tight cost and schedule, which REL need to do.

Well if you're the U.S. & want REL's technology for military use then I would think that's precisely what makes LM a strong choice.

Offline francesco nicoli

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 491
  • Amsterdam
    • About Crises
  • Liked: 224
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #408 on: 07/11/2015 05:54 PM »
ok, so we can exclude LM from the picture. Who else should be dropped?

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8002
  • UK
  • Liked: 1278
  • Likes Given: 168
The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #409 on: 07/11/2015 06:25 PM »
ok, so we can exclude LM from the picture. Who else should be dropped?

Why are you assuming this technology is only for commercial/civilian purposes because if you are then you're being very, very naive.

I'd put reasonable money on this seeing use in the military long before it has commercial use.
« Last Edit: 07/11/2015 06:26 PM by Star One »

Offline adrianwyard

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 947
  • Liked: 160
  • Likes Given: 209
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #410 on: 07/11/2015 06:46 PM »
We're in danger of talking past each other here. There are at least two points being argued for, which are fairly distinct:

1] If REL is looking for an airframer to build Skylons, Lockheed Martin is not an obviously good choice.
2] If REL is looking to license some of its recently patented technologies (multiple), then Lockheed Martin is a likely customer as they deal in products that could potentially benefit from them, e.g. military jet/UAV/cruise missiles, etc.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31222
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9494
  • Likes Given: 298
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #411 on: 07/11/2015 10:58 PM »

1.  AFAIK LM make no commercial products. All they do is a)Government contract work b)National security systems c) Weapon systems.

2.  This means they are good at a)Filling in procurement paperwork and b)Lobbying governments and their support staffs to get funded and c)Lobbying governments and their support staffs to get extended funding.

3.  IOW Their idea of "profit" is nothing to do with a commercial entities. The nearest LM come to space launch is they supplied the Delta IV half of the ULA product portfolio.

4.  AFAIK the Delta IV has never launched a non USG satellite (IE not NASA, DoD or some other "Administration"). Where private companies have gone with a ULA vehicle it's the Atlas, or the go with some other supplier.


Wrong on all points

1.  They do commercial comsats.   The A2100 satellite bus has been used for many comsats.  The LM500 spacecraft bus was used for the initial Iridium constellation.

2.  Completely unsubstantiated and nonsense

3. LM supplied the Altas V which has commercial contracts and had many for Atlas II.

4.  Delta IV launched Eutelsat W5.  The GOES launches on Delta IV were completely commercial.  They were converted Delta III launches from a Hughes block buy.  The gov't had no role in the procurement.
« Last Edit: 07/11/2015 10:59 PM by Jim »

Offline t43562

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 172
  • UK
  • Liked: 72
  • Likes Given: 36
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #412 on: 07/12/2015 07:28 AM »

1.  AFAIK LM make no commercial products. All they do is a)Government contract work b)National security systems c) Weapon systems.

2.  This means they are good at a)Filling in procurement paperwork and b)Lobbying governments and their support staffs to get funded and c)Lobbying governments and their support staffs to get extended funding.

3.  IOW Their idea of "profit" is nothing to do with a commercial entities. The nearest LM come to space launch is they supplied the Delta IV half of the ULA product portfolio.

4.  AFAIK the Delta IV has never launched a non USG satellite (IE not NASA, DoD or some other "Administration"). Where private companies have gone with a ULA vehicle it's the Atlas, or the go with some other supplier.


Wrong on all points

1.  They do commercial comsats.   The A2100 satellite bus has been used for many comsats.  The LM500 spacecraft bus was used for the initial Iridium constellation.

2.  Completely unsubstantiated and nonsense

3. LM supplied the Altas V which has commercial contracts and had many for Atlas II.

4.  Delta IV launched Eutelsat W5.  The GOES launches on Delta IV were completely commercial.  They were converted Delta III launches from a Hughes block buy.  The gov't had no role in the procurement.

I read that the Altas V was developed for a US Airforce program.    Are they the type of company to start a risky new venture that doesn't have a big guaranteed customer such as the government?  e.g. there are people who say that about BAE.

Offline francesco nicoli

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 491
  • Amsterdam
    • About Crises
  • Liked: 224
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #413 on: 07/12/2015 10:56 AM »
ok, so we can exclude LM from the picture. Who else should be dropped?

Why are you assuming this technology is only for commercial/civilian purposes because if you are then you're being very, very naive.

I'd put reasonable money on this seeing use in the military long before it has commercial use.

I am not assuming that it is only for civilian purposes. However, I believe it will originally be for civilian purposes. But I might be wrong.

Offline RotoSequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
  • Liked: 554
  • Likes Given: 762
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #414 on: 07/12/2015 11:01 AM »
I am not assuming that it is only for civilian purposes. However, I believe it will originally be for civilian purposes. But I might be wrong.

The US Air Force is one of the first companies to bankroll the technology. Unless I'm mistaken, it could be an enabling technology for hypersonic, air breathing aircraft with conventional turbine engines. If that's true, the first applications will almost certainly be military in nature.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8002
  • UK
  • Liked: 1278
  • Likes Given: 168
The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #415 on: 07/12/2015 11:10 AM »
I am not assuming that it is only for civilian purposes. However, I believe it will originally be for civilian purposes. But I might be wrong.

The US Air Force is one of the first companies to bankroll the technology. Unless I'm mistaken, it could be an enabling technology for hypersonic, air breathing aircraft with conventional turbine engines. If that's true, the first applications will almost certainly be military in nature.

Yes I think we need to separate one thing from another. Technology licensed to the airforce & Skylon's build by commercial private industry.

I apologise in retrospect my OP was rather too hot headed.
« Last Edit: 07/12/2015 11:12 AM by Star One »

Offline francesco nicoli

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 491
  • Amsterdam
    • About Crises
  • Liked: 224
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #416 on: 07/12/2015 11:16 AM »
why don't we open a poll on who will be the airframer?  :) it could be fun to see who's the most guessed.

Offline momerathe

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 137
  • Liked: 59
  • Likes Given: 36
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #417 on: 07/13/2015 10:57 AM »
EADS would be at the top of the list, I would have thought. Probably the only non-US* aerospace company capable of executing a development program of that size.



* ITAR
thermodynamics will get you in the end

Offline flymetothemoon

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 239
  • Liked: 40
  • Likes Given: 212
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #418 on: 07/13/2015 05:36 PM »
Nice posts JCRM. Welcome to the thread.

If anyone is interested the wingspan of the Skylon D1 is 26.818m - for comparison, a bit less than an original 737 at 28.35m (both sources Wikipedia).
« Last Edit: 07/13/2015 05:38 PM by flymetothemoon »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5868
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 744
  • Likes Given: 4501
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #419 on: 07/14/2015 06:46 AM »
For completeness sake we should mention Lockheed made the L-1011 TriStar passenger jet - operated by British Airways, and with engines developed for it by Rolls Royce. But that was a long time ago, and not a roaring success...
A long time ago.  :(

They (like BAe) pretty much divested themselves of any stuff that doesn't have some part of a government (preferably the US, but as long as they have plenty of cash) a long time ago.

Do  you want that as the core contractor for a time critical project to replace a significant part of their business?

If you wonder what LM would be like on this I have a simple example.

The X33 programme.

Swallowed every cent of both the development and test budgets and still failed to build a vehicle.

On that basis BAe would be a better fit.  :(
« Last Edit: 07/14/2015 07:16 AM by john smith 19 »
"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.

Tags: