Author Topic: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)  (Read 421984 times)

Offline Hankelow8

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 155
  • UK
  • Liked: 112
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #460 on: 07/27/2015 05:15 PM »
It has come from  Aviation Week, who are crediting it to Reaction Engines, if this is correct,we have to ask what
is the purpose of what you guys clearly feel does not have any real engineering relevance to a fully engineered prototype engine on its test stand.




Offline adrianwyard

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 947
  • Liked: 160
  • Likes Given: 209
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #461 on: 07/27/2015 05:23 PM »
Why all the consternation? It's just a notional graphical representation of a current project from a company that is not known for spending a lot of effort on PR materials. As far as I can tell the glass is half full.

And it's not as if other companies (i.e. SpaceX) haven't released graphics and animations before now that are notional at best.
___________
Plus the SABRE 4 cycle is still under wraps, so that's an additional good reason to show something vaguely representative rather than rendering the actual test bed design.
« Last Edit: 07/27/2015 05:27 PM by adrianwyard »

Offline Hankelow8

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 155
  • UK
  • Liked: 112
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #462 on: 07/27/2015 05:38 PM »
In the past Reaction Engines have always produced nothing less than full on engineering diagrams.

Possibly they are now starting to use PR in a much more positive way.

The new MD no doubt will want to raise the profile of the company as they push for more funding, which over the next few years will need to be not millions but billions!

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 #463 on: 07/28/2015 05:30 PM »
For those of us that aren't subscribed to Aviation Weekly, does it say anything new or interesting in the article?  Thanks.
The only thing I can be sure of is that I can't be sure of anything.

Offline Hankelow8

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 155
  • UK
  • Liked: 112
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #464 on: 07/28/2015 08:05 PM »
For those of us that aren't subscribed to Aviation Weekly, does it say anything new or interesting in the article?  Thanks.

Hi Citizen Wolf,

If you view aga's post it has a link to the Aviation Week's article.
« Last Edit: 07/28/2015 08:06 PM by Hankelow8 »

Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #465 on: 07/28/2015 08:15 PM »
Hankelow8, right, but as was said, if you are not subscribed to Aviation Week, you don't really see the article, you only get a paragraph...

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 #466 on: 07/28/2015 08:23 PM »
@Hankelow8
If you're not subscribed to Aviation Weekly you come up against a pay wall and can't see the article.

EDIT: oops sorry, ElGuapoGuano has already said the same thing.
« Last Edit: 07/28/2015 08:25 PM by Citizen Wolf »
The only thing I can be sure of is that I can't be sure of anything.

Offline kch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1731
  • Liked: 466
  • Likes Given: 8321
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #467 on: 07/28/2015 08:42 PM »
Hankelow8, right, but as was said, if you are not subscribed to Aviation Week, you don't really see the article, you only get a paragraph...

... not worth clicking, really (unless you're a subscriber).  "Next!"

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5891
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 749
  • Likes Given: 4556
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #468 on: 07/29/2015 03:41 PM »
From the Aviation Week digital magazine. Photo credit  Reaction Engines
That's an interesting qualification.

I've just seen the hard copy version (dated July 20th onward) and this picture is not in there .

The article is a one pager and seems to part of their coverage of the AIAA Hypersonics and reentry conference, held (for reasons I'm not clear about) in Glasgow, Scotland.

It's only illustration is a cutaway of the pre cooler/front of engine section of SABRE.

There are also reports on hypersonic airliner design where efforts are being made to combine European and Japanese efforts in this area LAPCAT is mentioned but initial goals are for a 100 seat design at a price  2x that of current average business class tickets. They are targeting 200 such vehicles globally with point to point services for routes over up to (and ideally around ) 6200nm.

Possibly the most relevant item to Skylon were the data points from SR71 operations. The M5 airliner concept is targeting 48 hr turnaround. Comments by former SR71 staff state that when flying it took 19 hrs to go from a flight request to takeoff for a flight ready aircraft (IE not needing overhaul).

They noted that to get it ready for a next flight would take (on average) 1 week and if serious work needed to be done then about 1 month. They listed several areas of problems but the only one I recall was rivets being popped by the flight conditions.

I suspect at least one member of REL was at the conference and was taking careful notes of such points, if they weren't already aware of them, to refine their Skylon plans.

I also found the "commentary" section on page 11, on why grouping "Aerospace" with "Defense" is becoming increasingly misleading. It compared Airbus, Boeing and LM product mixes.

I'm not the only one who thinks of LM as strictly a government contractor and nothing else.
"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 Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31222
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9495
  • Likes Given: 298
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #469 on: 07/29/2015 03:45 PM »

I'm not the only one who thinks of LM as strictly a government contractor and nothing else.

Doesn't mean it is right.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5891
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 749
  • Likes Given: 4556
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #470 on: 07/29/2015 10:05 PM »

I'm not the only one who thinks of LM as strictly a government contractor and nothing else.

Doesn't mean it is right.
When it's someone who makes their living analyzing companies in (or not in) the aerospace and defense business whose reputation matters to them I think that adds credibility to the view.

However let's look at LM's market segments, from their 2014 annual report.

Aeronautics.
"is engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration, sustainment, support and upgrade of advanced military aircraft,"
IE Military aircraft, mostly for the US government.

Information Systems & Global Solutions.
"IS&GS provides advanced technology systems and expertise, integrated information technology solutions and management services across a broad spectrum of applications for civil, defense, intelligence and other government customers. "
So basically selling IT systems and services to governments.

Missiles & Fire Control.
I think this is pretty self explanatory. Not something you sell to private customers.

Mission Systems & Training
"In 2014, U.S. Government customers accounted for 75%, international customers accounted for 24% and U.S. commercial and other customers accounted for 1% of MSTís net sales."
So 1% of this segments $7.1Bn revenue is from civilian customers.

Space Systems
"In 2014, U.S. Government customers accounted for 97%, international customers accounted for 1% and U.S.commercial and other customers accounted for 2% of Space Systemsí net sales. "
So maybe 2% of their $8.1Bn revenue is commercial.
"Operating profit for our Space Systems business segment includes our share of earnings for our 50% ownership interest in United Launch Alliance (ULA)."

On that basis I think I'd suggest most people looking at LM would conclude it's essentially a government contractor, mostly (but not entirely) for the US government. Non governmental works is a very small part of their total revenue.

Which I would suggest makes them about the worst candidate for building a large commercially funded project to a (relatively) tight time scale and budget, where you can't get an additional appropriation if you overrun your budget.
"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: 8020
  • UK
  • Liked: 1281
  • Likes Given: 168
The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #471 on: 07/29/2015 11:15 PM »

I'm not the only one who thinks of LM as strictly a government contractor and nothing else.

Doesn't mean it is right.
When it's someone who makes their living analyzing companies in (or not in) the aerospace and defense business whose reputation matters to them I think that adds credibility to the view.

However let's look at LM's market segments, from their 2014 annual report.

Aeronautics.
"is engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration, sustainment, support and upgrade of advanced military aircraft,"
IE Military aircraft, mostly for the US government.

Information Systems & Global Solutions.
"IS&GS provides advanced technology systems and expertise, integrated information technology solutions and management services across a broad spectrum of applications for civil, defense, intelligence and other government customers. "
So basically selling IT systems and services to governments.

Missiles & Fire Control.
I think this is pretty self explanatory. Not something you sell to private customers.

Mission Systems & Training
"In 2014, U.S. Government customers accounted for 75%, international customers accounted for 24% and U.S. commercial and other customers accounted for 1% of MSTís net sales."
So 1% of this segments $7.1Bn revenue is from civilian customers.

Space Systems
"In 2014, U.S. Government customers accounted for 97%, international customers accounted for 1% and U.S.commercial and other customers accounted for 2% of Space Systemsí net sales. "
So maybe 2% of their $8.1Bn revenue is commercial.
"Operating profit for our Space Systems business segment includes our share of earnings for our 50% ownership interest in United Launch Alliance (ULA)."

On that basis I think I'd suggest most people looking at LM would conclude it's essentially a government contractor, mostly (but not entirely) for the US government. Non governmental works is a very small part of their total revenue.

Which I would suggest makes them about the worst candidate for building a large commercially funded project to a (relatively) tight time scale and budget, where you can't get an additional appropriation if you overrun your budget.

Military government applications are likely to reach reality before any commercial ones are and in that case LM are ideally placed.
« Last Edit: 07/29/2015 11:21 PM by Star One »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5891
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 749
  • Likes Given: 4556
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #472 on: 07/30/2015 07:06 AM »
Military government applications are likely to reach reality before any commercial ones are and in that case LM are ideally placed.
That's an assertion.

Perhaps you could take us through your reasoning?
"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: 491
  • Amsterdam
    • About Crises
  • Liked: 225
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #473 on: 07/30/2015 07:18 AM »
guys, did you see the design for an airbreathing nuclear rocket reported by nextbigfuture? I know that it's just summer speculation, but I was wondering whether an integrated design with the SABRE is, as a pure matter of principle, possible.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/07/nuclear-thermal-turbo-rocket-with.html

Offline t43562

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 172
  • UK
  • Liked: 72
  • Likes Given: 37
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #474 on: 07/30/2015 10:46 AM »

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8020
  • UK
  • Liked: 1281
  • Likes Given: 168
The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #475 on: 07/30/2015 12:08 PM »
Military government applications are likely to reach reality before any commercial ones are and in that case LM are ideally placed.
That's an assertion.

Perhaps you could take us through your reasoning?

Fairly simple the military will always get first dibs on something like this once they are persuaded it works and does what it says on the can. The commercial sector is often more risk adverse and though the military can be conservative in these things as well, if they are persuaded they are far more likely to put money into something like this.
« Last Edit: 07/30/2015 12:10 PM by Star One »

Offline oddbodd

  • Member
  • Posts: 36
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #476 on: 07/30/2015 01:06 PM »
guys, did you see the design for an airbreathing nuclear rocket reported by nextbigfuture? I know that it's just summer speculation, but I was wondering whether an integrated design with the SABRE is, as a pure matter of principle, possible.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/07/nuclear-thermal-turbo-rocket-with.html

Fission is a barely controlled potential runaway catastrophe. And the idea of strapping one to a type of vehicle that flies over our heads, and typically has a 1 in 50 chance of exploding... I would never say never, but very unlikely. The US and USSR experimented with nuclear powered airplanes, but they only did a few test flights with the reactor on board, and not active, before the ICBM made them pointless. One of the issues was the mass for shielding, and in a mass sensitive concept like Skylon, it just doesn't make sense as far as I can see.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31222
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9495
  • Likes Given: 298
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #477 on: 07/30/2015 01:22 PM »
On that basis I think I'd suggest most people looking at LM would conclude it's essentially a government contractor, mostly (but not entirely) for the US government. Non governmental works is a very small part of their total revenue.

Which I would suggest makes them about the worst candidate for building a large commercially funded project to a (relatively) tight time scale and budget, where you can't get an additional appropriation if you overrun your budget.

That is a statement based on bias and not supported by any relevant data.  Not all gov't contracts are cost plus.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8020
  • UK
  • Liked: 1281
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #478 on: 07/30/2015 02:13 PM »

On that basis I think I'd suggest most people looking at LM would conclude it's essentially a government contractor, mostly (but not entirely) for the US government. Non governmental works is a very small part of their total revenue.

Which I would suggest makes them about the worst candidate for building a large commercially funded project to a (relatively) tight time scale and budget, where you can't get an additional appropriation if you overrun your budget.

That is a statement based on bias and not supported by any relevant data.  Not all gov't contracts are cost plus.

There seems to be a degree of either accidental or deliberate misunderstanding of LM's business.

Offline lkm

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 508
  • Liked: 91
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (5)
« Reply #479 on: 07/30/2015 03:15 PM »
guys, did you see the design for an airbreathing nuclear rocket reported by nextbigfuture? I know that it's just summer speculation, but I was wondering whether an integrated design with the SABRE is, as a pure matter of principle, possible.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/07/nuclear-thermal-turbo-rocket-with.html

Fission is a barely controlled potential runaway catastrophe. And the idea of strapping one to a type of vehicle that flies over our heads, and typically has a 1 in 50 chance of exploding... I would never say never, but very unlikely. The US and USSR experimented with nuclear powered airplanes, but they only did a few test flights with the reactor on board, and not active, before the ICBM made them pointless. One of the issues was the mass for shielding, and in a mass sensitive concept like Skylon, it just doesn't make sense as far as I can see.

This has actually been extensively discussed in some of the nuclear threads, Ranulf has a lot to say about it. Essentially  the  SABRE cycle is well suited to having a nuclear derivative as the rocket combustion chamber can just be replaced with the reactor and the compressed air can be injected into the nozzle in an air augmented mode, potentially followed by an Lox augmented mode. The technology was actually listed in the 2012 NASA draft technology roadmap.
The performance benefit however is very dependant on how much shielding you require and the T/W of your reactor core. ANP shielding encased the reactor in concentric spheres of tungsten and lithium hydride such that you could stand next to the thing and get more radiation coming in through the window and the plane could plow into a mountain and the shielding would never crack and the reactor never melt down. By the nature of reactor power to mass to volume this meant that ANP only makes performance sense for aircraft sized 500mt and up (A380 sized). So a full ANP shielded SABRE engine would only make sense on a large launch vehicle but just how large depends on your shielding requirements and your reactor T/W.   

 

Tags: