Author Topic: The Reaction Engines Skylon Master Thread (1)  (Read 698007 times)

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4435
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1355
  • Likes Given: 1153
Re: Skylon
« Reply #20 on: 04/17/2011 10:37 pm »
...Australia bought Saab-fighters, because they couldn't buy the best F-22 version due to ITAR...


Saab Fighters for Australia? Thought they got interim Boeing F18E/F Super Hornets before getting the Lockheed F35 Lighting II.

Offline lkm

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 526
  • Liked: 109
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Skylon
« Reply #21 on: 04/17/2011 10:41 pm »
The question was one of US involvement in Skylon development, whether a big US company could step in as an industrial partner. The problem is that would necessarily involve alot of technology transfer between the US and the EU and ITAR would undoubtedly  block that or at least make it infeasibly expensive and time consuming.
I'm pretty sure I've read qutes from Hempsell or Bond stating as much.
Besides, BAE and Airbus seem like much more natural partners, it's not like there's anyone with more recent SSTO RLV experience across the water. 
« Last Edit: 04/17/2011 10:42 pm by lkm »

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Skylon
« Reply #22 on: 04/17/2011 10:45 pm »
...Australia bought Saab-fighters, because they couldn't buy the best F-22 version due to ITAR...


Saab Fighters for Australia? Thought they got interim Boeing F18E/F Super Hornets before getting the Lockheed F35 Lighting II.

Australia has no Saab built fighters, nor any orders for them last time I checked, which was 10 minutes ago.  They do have orders for F35 and FA18.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Joris

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 366
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Skylon
« Reply #23 on: 04/17/2011 11:02 pm »

Australia has no Saab built fighters, nor any orders for them last time I checked, which was 10 minutes ago.  They do have orders for F35 and FA18.

My bad,

Australia ordered EADS transport helicopters instead of Sikorsky ones.
JIMO would have been the first proper spaceship.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Skylon
« Reply #24 on: 04/18/2011 01:03 am »

Australia has no Saab built fighters, nor any orders for them last time I checked, which was 10 minutes ago.  They do have orders for F35 and FA18.

My bad,

Australia ordered EADS transport helicopters instead of Sikorsky ones.

That I knew about, as my wifes uncle complaining that they didn't get the contract. (He works for Sikorsky)
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 454
Re: Skylon
« Reply #25 on: 04/18/2011 04:03 am »
Reaction Engines have made it clear that ITAR restrictions prevent any US involvement.

This is an example of why ITAR is in it's present form has to go.

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2463
  • South Africa
  • Liked: 804
  • Likes Given: 1466
Re: Skylon
« Reply #26 on: 04/18/2011 07:29 am »

Australia has no Saab built fighters, nor any orders for them last time I checked, which was 10 minutes ago.  They do have orders for F35 and FA18.

My bad,

Australia ordered EADS transport helicopters instead of Sikorsky ones.


South Africa ordered a bunch of Saabs, not Aus. I know we call Australia our 13th province but it's not really true. :)

F-22s are not for export, and have been pretty much killed off.
« Last Edit: 04/18/2011 08:10 am by Lampyridae »

Offline mrhuggy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 637
  • East Yorkshire, UK
  • Liked: 400
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Skylon
« Reply #27 on: 04/18/2011 08:57 am »
I ITAR restrictions are on export of ballistic missile dual use technology. I am not aware of import restrictions, nor on restrictions of import of aircraft, which skylon is.

Australia bought Saab-fighters, because they couldn't buy the best F-22 version due to ITAR.

Now of course Skylon isn't a fighter, but current rockets also aren't ICBM's. And they are ITAR-restricted.

It wasn't Australia that wanted to buy F-22 it was Japan. Now that they have been told they can't have them they are looking to build an equivalent themselves with the F-X program.

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2173
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Skylon
« Reply #28 on: 04/19/2011 01:23 am »

Australia has no Saab built fighters, nor any orders for them last time I checked, which was 10 minutes ago.  They do have orders for F35 and FA18.

My bad,

Australia ordered EADS transport helicopters instead of Sikorsky ones.


Either way, ITAR hasnt' restricted them because such large weapons systems exports to allied countries commonly get export licenses. US military manufacturers export a lot of stuff: F-16 fighters, F-15 fighters, F-18s, etc and a number of countries have been partners in plane development projects, including the AV-8B Harrier II, and the current F-35, both of which involved Britian, which is the home country of Skylon.

Now, I've done a bit of international trade in this area, and I can say that ITAR is intended to prevent hostile countries from getting US strategic technologies: stealth, ICBM tech, nukes, etc. It does not prevent foreign technology from being imported into the US, nor does it prevent joint development agreements with companies in countries we are closely allied with, like Canada, Britain, Australia, etc.

Anybody claiming ITAR about Skylon (or SS2 for that matter) are people who either dont know what they are talking about, or are not interested/too lazy to do the paperwork. The fact that a British company can be closely involved in development of SS2, which is at least as much an example of a similar-IRBM as Skylon is, disproves any ITAR claims about restraints on US involvement in Skylon.
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline Alpha_Centauri

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • England
  • Liked: 335
  • Likes Given: 157
Re: Skylon
« Reply #29 on: 04/19/2011 03:04 am »
Now, I've done a bit of international trade in this area, and I can say that ITAR is intended to prevent hostile countries from getting US strategic technologies: stealth, ICBM tech, nukes, etc. It does not prevent foreign technology from being imported into the US, nor does it prevent joint development agreements with companies in countries we are closely allied with, like Canada, Britain, Australia, etc.

Prevent, maybe not always. Make exhorbitantly expensive due to legal costs, delays etc, most definately.  You may not be aware but a lot of partnerships in the space arena have been affected by it.

http://eandt.theiet.org/magazine/2010/13/itar-regulations.cfm

http://www.space.com/2960-starchaser-racing-virgin-space.html

etc etc

Anybody claiming ITAR about Skylon (or SS2 for that matter) are people who either dont know what they are talking about, or are not interested/too lazy to do the paperwork. The fact that a British company can be closely involved in development of SS2, which is at least as much an example of a similar-IRBM as Skylon is, disproves any ITAR claims about restraints on US involvement in Skylon.

Sorry but even REL's Alan Bond has said this is true which is most appropriate to this thread;

http://www.space-library.com/ASCEND_0912_SIN.pdf

As other posters have said, REL have stated they do not currently forsee worthwhile extensive US cooperation because of ITAR.  Case closed.

Funny you quote SS2 since that has been used as evidence by UK space scientists to lobby the government to challenge ITAR;

http://www.star.le.ac.uk/~dlg/NewBritishSpaceAge.pdf

Offline Alpha_Centauri

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • England
  • Liked: 335
  • Likes Given: 157
Re: Skylon
« Reply #30 on: 04/19/2011 03:15 am »
Anyway, an exciting new article about the upcoming precooler test at space.com;

http://www.space.com/11414-skylon-space-plane-british-engine-test.html

key quotes;

Quote
Private funding is lined up to see it through all stages of development, culminating with the start of commercial operations in 2020. That funding, however, is contingent on Skylon hitting some key milestones along the way, and a big one looms just a few months off.


Quote
If the precooler works, investors will chip in another $350 million, helping take the Skylon project to another level of development. That next phase would likely see vehicle design completion and a full engine demonstration by 2014, Longstaff said.

Funding lined up, $350 mil up front to develop demonstrators?  Sounds like the recent design appraisals have caught some big attention.  Can't wait til june!  ;D
« Last Edit: 04/19/2011 03:21 am by Alpha_Centauri »

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7136
  • Liked: 310
  • Likes Given: 175
Re: Skylon
« Reply #31 on: 04/19/2011 04:02 am »
Indeed; finally demonstrating a liquid-air rocket after all these years would be a Big Deal, if it works.

Offline MikeAtkinson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1980
  • Bracknell, England
  • Liked: 784
  • Likes Given: 117
Re: Skylon
« Reply #32 on: 04/19/2011 06:48 am »
Indeed; finally demonstrating a liquid-air rocket after all these years would be a Big Deal, if it works.

SABRE is not a liquid-air rocket, one of their key realisations was that liquefying the air too too much energy, better to cool the air, then compress it.

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 498
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Skylon
« Reply #33 on: 04/19/2011 06:56 am »
Still a hell of achievement if that works.
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15948
  • Liked: 6165
  • Likes Given: 2695
Re: Skylon
« Reply #34 on: 04/19/2011 06:07 pm »
Here is a video (from August 2010):


Offline RobLynn

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 697
  • Per Molestias Eruditio
  • NZ
  • Liked: 483
  • Likes Given: 213
Re: Skylon
« Reply #35 on: 04/19/2011 07:05 pm »
I've been having a look at skylon over the last week or two, and it does look very promising, excepting the enormous development costs.

However I cannot see why they are so focused on a sabre engine when it seems to me that a ramjet + SSME would be cheaper, lighter and probably higher ISP, with the one drawback that it would need to be accelerated on a launch sled.

A sled seems like a very cheap way to simplify the vehicle, reduce overall costs and improve mass ratios, and anything that can be done to reduce development costs must be a win.  Is the sabre engine really such a big deal or is it more a case of IP leading the development effort instead of best economics?

Also why not integrate the engine into the fuselage?  I don't like the implications of an inflight engine failure in terms of off-axis thrust, and a fuselage integrated solution would eliminate a lot of drag.
The glass is neither half full nor half empty, it's just twice as big as it needs to be.

Offline Cherokee43v6

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1144
  • Garner, NC
  • Liked: 889
  • Likes Given: 226
Re: Skylon
« Reply #36 on: 04/19/2011 07:26 pm »
I think their point is to operate the ship from any airport with a 10k foot runway.  Requiring a 'launch sled' defeats that purpose.

Very much like the people at SpaceX, they have a very specifically designed goal toward which they are striving.  There's no room in that process for side explorations that will distract funding and effort from the stated goal.
"I didn't open the can of worms...
        ...I just pointed at it and laughed a little too loudly."

Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2691
  • Liked: 979
  • Likes Given: 347
Re: Skylon
« Reply #37 on: 04/19/2011 07:42 pm »
Also why not integrate the engine into the fuselage?  I don't like the implications of an inflight engine failure in terms of off-axis thrust, and a fuselage integrated solution would eliminate a lot of drag.

The original hotol had the engines integrated with the fuselage but had major issues with the COG changing as fuel was used. Mounting the engines in the middle and draining tanks fore and aft solves this.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Skylon
« Reply #38 on: 04/19/2011 07:52 pm »
Also why not integrate the engine into the fuselage?  I don't like the implications of an inflight engine failure in terms of off-axis thrust, and a fuselage integrated solution would eliminate a lot of drag.

The original hotol had the engines integrated with the fuselage but had major issues with the COG changing as fuel was used. Mounting the engines in the middle and draining tanks fore and aft solves this.
Also by having them out allows for cleaner airflow during lower atmosphere operation and enables simpler servicing.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline MikeAtkinson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1980
  • Bracknell, England
  • Liked: 784
  • Likes Given: 117
Re: Skylon
« Reply #39 on: 04/19/2011 08:20 pm »
I've been having a look at skylon over the last week or two, and it does look very promising, excepting the enormous development costs.

However I cannot see why they are so focused on a sabre engine when it seems to me that a ramjet + SSME would be cheaper, lighter and probably higher ISP, with the one drawback that it would need to be accelerated on a launch sled.

a good place to start is:
http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/downloads/JBIS_v60_188-196.pdf

I think this is out of date now, IIRC the latest SABRE has been improved further for the D1 configuration.

Quote
A sled seems like a very cheap way to simplify the vehicle, reduce overall costs and improve mass ratios, and anything that can be done to reduce development costs must be a win.  Is the sabre engine really such a big deal or is it more a case of IP leading the development effort instead of best economics?

Also why not integrate the engine into the fuselage?  I don't like the implications of an inflight engine failure in terms of off-axis thrust, and a fuselage integrated solution would eliminate a lot of drag.

See replies from Mark Hempsell for more info:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=profile;u=15949;sa=showPosts

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0