Quote from: tnphysics on 01/30/2012 09:37 pmCan anybody link to that story?http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/Home/News?news_id=369#EngineDevelopment
Can anybody link to that story?
If Skylon were to increase their payload bay from 4.8m to 5m diameter, and the length from 13m to 14m, they could fit the Bigelow 330 module inside. The mass of this module is 20 tonnes - higher than the 15 tonne Skylon payload, but some mass could be offset from the module. Also, Skylon could utilise a suborbital insertion, which would boost the payload a further 1.5 tonnes. Would this be worth doing? I don't imagine the payload penalty would be much, about half a tonne.
The increase to 4.8m in diameter and 15 tonnes capacity was a result of a fairly extensive consultation exercise described in IAC-10.D2.4.7
Which puts Skylon at the same point technically that shuttle was c. 1972-73.
The reality is that until the SABRE engine is proven,
the radical TPS and structure is built and tested at cryo LH2 temperatures
and proven to the point that they can be sure it will not collapse mid-flight or even on the runway awaiting takeoff, they can spec and trade any payload dimensions they want.
Till then, it's all spitballing because noone even knows if its physically buildable.
I do daresay that if an operating RLV is completed, Bigelow along with every other satellite builder will make the payloads fit the RLV, not the other way around. (although there probably is an 8-10 ft minimum dimension for human spaceflight.
What radical TPS and structure? The design is creative, but it doesn't push the technical envelope like Shuttle and VentureStar did.
Your lack of confidence in engineering calculations and modelling seems extreme. They're well into detailed design of the fourth major vehicle revision...
The TPS is looking to be a corrugated rigid Silicon Carbide reinforced glass currently baselined as a French product called PyroSic which AFAIK has never flown in space while the structure, originally unidirectional carbon fibre tubes with Titanium end fittings into hexagon shaped carbon fibre end fittings is now spec'd with SiC fibre reinforced Titanium in a spaceframe. Again not something with any flight experience AFAIK.
Likewise the deeply pre-cooled turbo/ramjet/rocket. Nothing close to this has been inside a wind tunnel since the mid 1960's.
[quote author=john smith 19 link=topic=24621.msg864864#msg864864 Actually, last I checked (Hempsell, Bond, Varvill, & Bond (2011)), they had decided to drop Pyrosic in favour of rebuilding the supply chain for System2.
Also, the struts are currently plastic composite; they've cited a need for more testing before baselining the titanium/SiC tubes, as well as a need to get the manufacturing cost down.Do you have more recent information?
Obviously the engine is fairly ambitious (though, as you note, currently engaged in risk reduction). I was just talking about the rest of the vehicle, which is innovative but doesn't seem as risky as certain past efforts. Maybe I'm being overconfident...?...
It would be cool if they could use AlLi tankage, perhaps with some of that improved/braced MLI that's been in development lately... Right now, they're aiming for an ITAR-free product, so they seem to be actively avoiding any American involvement...
Quote from: flymetothemoon on 03/01/2012 03:09 pmhttp://www.reactionengines.co.uk/faq.htmlThanks. Seems strange though, you'd expect all existing aircraft to have curved engines, if it actually helped with flight.