It is possible I am simply miseading it, but the S-ELSE study only appears to consider SABRE and other technology spinout & sale as indirect benefits of the program, rather than as sources of direct income (or as any sort of offset against the estimated €5.3bn SABRE development cost).
With Lockheed announcing the SR-72 and Boeing announcing a hypersonic craft - and assuming either actually amount to anything - either a third party has under complete secrecy developed an air-breathing multi-cycle engine, or there is sufficient industry confidence in the eventual production of SABRE to design vehicles incorporating it, and therefore a market for it beyond just Skylon.
Which is AIUI the point at which a customer (in REL's case an airframe mfg) could come along and say "We need an engine with this thrust fitting in an envelope no bigger than X x Y x Z and weighing no more than W burning fuel F" and REL saying either "Yes we can do this" or "We'd have trouble meeting that parameter for that combination of thrust, weight and fuel. We could do <other list of parameters> if you have no flexibility on this parameter, but if you could change it to <revised value> we can meet the rest of the spec."
Researchers said the catalyst remained stable and effective through more than 40 hours of testing.The new catalyst, they wrote, "proves to be an outstanding bifunctional catalyst for overall water splitting, exhibiting both extremely high OER (oxygen evolution reaction) and HER (hydrogen evolution reaction) activities in the same alkaline electrolyte. Indeed, it sets a new record in alkaline water electrolyzers (1.42 V to afford 10 mA cm-2), while at the commercially practical current density of 500 mA cm-2."
At the Westcott rocket propulsion conference Alan Bond was in the audience and he emphasised that SABRE4 was a family of engines so I presume they want to have a sort of made-to-measure situation. I am not 100% sure but it seemed to me as if they wanted at least some of the components to be the same at for each member of the family but to merely use "more" for a larger engine. I think my understanding is crude at best though. I imagine that the proper sizing of everything to produce a useful range of "steps" in the scale would be critical and you'd want lots of data before you set things in stone.
As a general question is anyone going to Farmborough this year?REL will be there
Quote from: john smith 19 on 07/03/2018 07:14 pmAs a general question is anyone going to Farmborough this year?REL will be thereI might be able to go on the public days. It might be worth getting a list of questions together.
Not sure if this is quite the thread for it, but the excellent Interplanetary Podcast #86 has part 1 of an interview with Alan Bond on his fascinating career. Part one loosely covers up to forming Reaction Engines, originally just with the intent of preserving the technology.https://www.interplanetary.org.uk/episodes
* he's currently working on a design for an air-ionising electric engine capable of reaching 8km/s at 45 km (giving an apogee of 500km, an idea he shelved when HOTOL happened,
coupled with a variable ISP plasma engine running off the same onboard fusion reactor to make an interplanetary, and possibly interstellar, space craft. He started a new company "Mirror Quark Limited" to work on this. It looks like he needs inertial electrostatic fusion reactors to pan out to make it work though.
Quote from: JCRM on 07/08/2018 08:08 am* he's currently working on a design for an air-ionising electric engine capable of reaching 8km/s at 45 km (giving an apogee of 500km, an idea he shelved when HOTOL happened,Can it operate at altitudes lower than 45 km?Nitrogen and Oxygen are a big pain to ionize even just enough to pass currentsufficient for MHD thrust generation. With high temp superconducting magnetsit must still be very power intensive to generate thrust this way. Energy source?
At some point in the last 3 months Orbital Access moved their site to the Wix site builder, and have a roadmap for how they see SABRE being used: