by the way, Reuters had a story on Skylon as well yesterdayhttp://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/30/us-rocket-engine-space-plane-idUSKBN0TJ19U20151130
Quote from: francesco nicoli on 12/01/2015 07:12 pmby the way, Reuters had a story on Skylon as well yesterdayhttp://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/30/us-rocket-engine-space-plane-idUSKBN0TJ19U20151130Having followed Skylon's progress only sporadically during the last few years, is the article a good recap or does it miss any important details/developments?
Quote from: john smith 19 on 11/29/2015 05:45 pmQuote from: francesco nicoli on 11/29/2015 11:38 amI'm definetively not an expert, but with a 15 T payload, Couldn't skylon carry a weapon optimized for re-entry up to orbit, and release the warhead just above target?True, but as others have pointed out it's a very expensive way to carry out this task and if you have the skills (and funding) to do it anyway you already have the means to carry much more cost effective forms of warfare. Quote from: lkm on 11/27/2015 04:19 pmI meant that it that it couldn't both be true the Skylon could be successful in providing point to point transport and at same time fail to provide the lowest priced orbital launch and that the logical conclusion of success at point to point transport is in the long term development of dedicated hypersonic air transport using the same Skylon derived technology which for the reasons stated means that it really can't be true that Sklyon derived systems could prove superior at revolutionising air travel but fail to be better at orbital launch than staged reusable rockets, i.e. the statement doesn't make any sense.Yes I'd agree with that. REL's focus has been orbital launch. It seems to believe they would succeed at something that was not their core focus, but fail at their core goal.Quote from: 93143 on 11/27/2015 09:23 pmIt could be true if Falcon ends up cheaper at a moderately high flight rate than Skylon does at a very high flight rate. That doesn't seem especially likely to me, but we don't actually know yet...Good point. But let's keep in mind the Skylon consortium will sell Skylons. It's up to the operators what the launch rate isAn if the Skylon operator is truly ruthless they will massively undercut SpaceX prices , drive them into bankruptcy and then raise their prices to cover the cost of launches and buying new Skylons. It the ruthless, no prisoner approach to the space business. ...
Quote from: francesco nicoli on 11/29/2015 11:38 amI'm definetively not an expert, but with a 15 T payload, Couldn't skylon carry a weapon optimized for re-entry up to orbit, and release the warhead just above target?True, but as others have pointed out it's a very expensive way to carry out this task and if you have the skills (and funding) to do it anyway you already have the means to carry much more cost effective forms of warfare. Quote from: lkm on 11/27/2015 04:19 pmI meant that it that it couldn't both be true the Skylon could be successful in providing point to point transport and at same time fail to provide the lowest priced orbital launch and that the logical conclusion of success at point to point transport is in the long term development of dedicated hypersonic air transport using the same Skylon derived technology which for the reasons stated means that it really can't be true that Sklyon derived systems could prove superior at revolutionising air travel but fail to be better at orbital launch than staged reusable rockets, i.e. the statement doesn't make any sense.Yes I'd agree with that. REL's focus has been orbital launch. It seems to believe they would succeed at something that was not their core focus, but fail at their core goal.Quote from: 93143 on 11/27/2015 09:23 pmIt could be true if Falcon ends up cheaper at a moderately high flight rate than Skylon does at a very high flight rate. That doesn't seem especially likely to me, but we don't actually know yet...Good point. But let's keep in mind the Skylon consortium will sell Skylons. It's up to the operators what the launch rate is
I'm definetively not an expert, but with a 15 T payload, Couldn't skylon carry a weapon optimized for re-entry up to orbit, and release the warhead just above target?
I meant that it that it couldn't both be true the Skylon could be successful in providing point to point transport and at same time fail to provide the lowest priced orbital launch and that the logical conclusion of success at point to point transport is in the long term development of dedicated hypersonic air transport using the same Skylon derived technology which for the reasons stated means that it really can't be true that Sklyon derived systems could prove superior at revolutionising air travel but fail to be better at orbital launch than staged reusable rockets, i.e. the statement doesn't make any sense.
It could be true if Falcon ends up cheaper at a moderately high flight rate than Skylon does at a very high flight rate. That doesn't seem especially likely to me, but we don't actually know yet...
Quote from: francesco nicoli on 12/01/2015 07:12 pmby the way, Reuters had a story on Skylon as well yesterdayhttp://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/30/us-rocket-engine-space-plane-idUSKBN0TJ19U20151130Quote60 million pounds ($.4 million USD)...
60 million pounds ($.4 million USD)
...except it's preposterous and clearly violates WTO rules, for either SpaceX or some mystery Skylon operator. Sounds like a very good way to lose billions of dollars for basically no gain (countries maintain independent launch capability for national security purposes, so one provider will never be able to totally drive everyone else out and develop a monopoly).
Thank you for noticing the difference between a launch vehicle manufacturer and a launch services provider
For ELV's this is a book keeping exercise but for Skylon there would indeed be a clear separation between the two.
If I remember this correctly Sabre 4 has different combustion chambers for airbreathing and rocket modes, rather than the combined combustion chamber of Sabre 3. This adds weight, but means you don't have to cool the air as deeply, so you don't need the frost control mechanism.It's also more fuel efficient so the extra weight is more than traded off by the performance increases. In theory of course It's deeply ironic that we finally found out how the top-secret frost-control system worked, only to find out at the same time that Sabre 4 doesn't need it.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 12/02/2015 07:20 amThank you for noticing the difference between a launch vehicle manufacturer and a launch services provider There isn't a difference. They are one in the same. Space launch does not follow the aircraft manufacturer and airline COP. And likely will never. ILS is just a broker. Arianespace is really an integrator (with falls under manufacturing). And LSOC/USA still had to employ Rockwell/Boeing for shuttle integration/engineering.
Quote from: Ravenger on 12/02/2015 03:11 pmIf I remember this correctly Sabre 4 has different combustion chambers for airbreathing and rocket modes, rather than the combined combustion chamber of Sabre 3. This adds weight, but means you don't have to cool the air as deeply, so you don't need the frost control mechanism.It's also more fuel efficient so the extra weight is more than traded off by the performance increases. In theory of course It's deeply ironic that we finally found out how the top-secret frost-control system worked, only to find out at the same time that Sabre 4 doesn't need it. I always thought the frost control that Sabre had allowed it to achieve an air breathing performance no one else could match. Does this now mean other companies could design and build their own design to match a Sabre engine, also would this mean the pre-cooler could be reduced in size enabling a reduction in weight and production costs.
Quote from: Hankelow8 on 12/02/2015 10:52 pmQuote from: Ravenger on 12/02/2015 03:11 pmIf I remember this correctly Sabre 4 has different combustion chambers for airbreathing and rocket modes, rather than the combined combustion chamber of Sabre 3. This adds weight, but means you don't have to cool the air as deeply, so you don't need the frost control mechanism.It's also more fuel efficient so the extra weight is more than traded off by the performance increases. In theory of course It's deeply ironic that we finally found out how the top-secret frost-control system worked, only to find out at the same time that Sabre 4 doesn't need it. I always thought the frost control that Sabre had allowed it to achieve an air breathing performance no one else could match. Does this now mean other companies could design and build their own design to match a Sabre engine, also would this mean the pre-cooler could be reduced in size enabling a reduction in weight and production costs.REL's achievement lies in designing a thermodynamically more efficient engine cycle and building an ultralight heat exchanger capable of the task required, an incredibly difficult engineering task built on thirty years of experimentation, and hard fought experience. Other companies are free to try and replicate it but knowing how it works isn't the same as knowing how to build it. Plus it is patented.Also it's not like nobody else has been trying to do this, the Japanese have been trying to build a liquid hydrogen precooled jet engine since the 90's i.e. Atrex, PCTJ.
I was wondering what the first Skylon should be called. I hope this is not too trivial for this forum. Given the difficulties. I was thinking of e.g.Dauntless...or IndomitableBut I am sure you can do better.
There isn't a difference. They are one in the same. Space launch does not follow the aircraft manufacturer and airline COP.
And likely will never.
Not a given. There is no proof that it will happen. Skylon likely will be too complex to be operated many
The Skylon concept presents a freight company model, but the manual makes mention of Launch control, Facilities, Range Safety and Mission ControlDoes anyone have a feel for how these would be sized in relation to those needed for current launch vehicles?