Author Topic: The Reaction Engines Skylon/SABRE Master Thread (7)  (Read 347052 times)

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon/SABRE Master Thread (7)
« Reply #740 on: 01/28/2023 07:56 am »

As stated in the article the guy who took charge of Nokia declared the company a "burning platform" and then proceeded to make decisions that destroyed Nokia, resulting in chunks of it it being sold off to Microsoft (his former employer) for a pittance. A commonly held position at the time was that this could only be explained as deliberate corporate sabotage.

"History never repeats itself, but it does often rhyme." - Mark Twain

Do we think RR is going to replicate Nokia's tailspin into obscurity, followed by an undignified death of a thousand cuts?
Depends. In Nokia's case hiring a person from a business that could be viewed as a major competitor, which had a history of anti-competitive behaviour seemed a bit dumb.

This guy spent 20 years at a major oil company and then something called "Global Asset Partners" but he's both a BSc and an MA in Economics and an MBA.

On that basis his former employers would want a viable RR building more engines to use their products, but you have to wonder would be be looking to sell it off to one of their competitors instead? I hope not but time will tell  as we see what his "cunning plan" turns out to be.  :(
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline t43562

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 298
  • UK
  • Liked: 164
  • Likes Given: 101
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon/SABRE Master Thread (7)
« Reply #741 on: 01/30/2023 07:05 pm »
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FnbkMVYXkAItMlS?format=jpg&name=large
I wonder what effect the change of management at Rolls-Royce is going to have.

As stated in the article the guy who took charge of Nokia declared the company a "burning platform" and then proceeded to make decisions that destroyed Nokia, resulting in chunks of it it being sold off to Microsoft (his former employer) for a pittance. A commonly held position at the time was that this could only be explained as deliberate corporate sabotage.

"History never repeats itself, but it does often rhyme." - Mark Twain

Do we think RR is going to replicate Nokia's tailspin into obscurity, followed by an undignified death of a thousand cuts?


This man seems to have made a very public criticism of the company which will presumably affect the share price - perhaps he is preparing it for a takeover (softening the price a bit possibly)? It's not the thing a leader does when he wants to lead people out of danger because that would be 90% vision and hope and only 10% doom.

At Nokia the"burning platform" was Symbian OS which I was working on at the time. "That Person" maligned it in a memo which was leaked and helped to terminate the sales of the handsets which we had just released.   So I'm not delighted with him.  But the whole thing was he replaced European (British at the core but only a small core) software with an American developed system that had no chance whatsoever either.  i.e. one burning platform replaced with another at great cost.  I think this was great for Nokia shareholders who got to dump their big problem division on Microsoft. Maybe not so good for Microsoft.

Rolls Royce is in some different kind of trouble perhaps. It's not competing on trying to be the world standard operating system against software giants with enormous/endless revenue from other products.

It's investing (heavily?) in its next generation Ultrafan technology but perhaps it has nothing much to show for it at the moment?

The more I thought about everything that was wrong with Nokia the more I think it was years of accumulated bad cultural drift but that was really because it was trying to make the wrong products and it was confused about who its customers were.  At Nokia I think people forget the little old user because ultimately they get used to not selling to them. They sold to phone operators and not the user and so they were not "on the side of the little guy" and spent all their effort on features aimed at helping to fleece him(her).   It was almost trivially easy to attack this stupid configuration but the Matrix organisation of Nokia made it nearly impossible to respond.    Every possible incentive internally was to ignore the threat or pretend that we could "kick ass AND chew gum" which we couldn't.  Can't make release 20 phone models at a time and have each one be really good.  Can't be cheap on components and make people happy with the result.  Software cannot make up for bad hardware with bugs in the GPU or a totally inadequate amount of RAM.

I don't know what the situation is at Rolls but it would be easy to imagine an ossified situation with many people who each think they understand why and almost all of them being equally wrong.

Hence I don't know how you get out of it.  Apple did, I suppose.

For Reaction Engines I'd say it was goodbye RR  - no freebies and a sale of the investment at the first chance. It's just not core and might never make money......unless..... someone at REL has worked out how to make a more efficient jet engine or cheaper jet engine in some category that's got growth.
« Last Edit: 01/30/2023 07:14 pm by t43562 »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon/SABRE Master Thread (7)
« Reply #742 on: 01/30/2023 07:59 pm »

Hence I don't know how you get out of it.  Apple did, I suppose.

For Reaction Engines I'd say it was goodbye RR  - no freebies and a sale of the investment at the first chance. It's just not core and might never make money......unless..... someone at REL has worked out how to make a more efficient jet engine or cheaper jet engine in some category that's got growth.
I guess you missed the part where Richard Varville described the T/W ratio of SABRE as about 15:1 ?

Which is very poor by kerelox standards (around 150:1) or even SSME at about 59:1 at sea level.

But 50% better than any jet engine I'm familar apart from an experimental RR unit designed to provide vertical lift in clusters for combat aircraft (incorporated in a German VTOL fighter of the mid 60's IIRC)

But SABRE is designed to run continuously

So yes, they kind of have found a way to do exactly what you're suggesting.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline lkm

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 541
  • Liked: 117
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon/SABRE Master Thread (7)
« Reply #743 on: 01/30/2023 08:20 pm »

As stated in the article the guy who took charge of Nokia declared the company a "burning platform" and then proceeded to make decisions that destroyed Nokia, resulting in chunks of it it being sold off to Microsoft (his former employer) for a pittance. A commonly held position at the time was that this could only be explained as deliberate corporate sabotage.

"History never repeats itself, but it does often rhyme." - Mark Twain

Do we think RR is going to replicate Nokia's tailspin into obscurity, followed by an undignified death of a thousand cuts?
Depends. In Nokia's case hiring a person from a business that could be viewed as a major competitor, which had a history of anti-competitive behaviour seemed a bit dumb.

This guy spent 20 years at a major oil company and then something called "Global Asset Partners" but he's both a BSc and an MA in Economics and an MBA.

On that basis his former employers would want a viable RR building more engines to use their products, but you have to wonder would be be looking to sell it off to one of their competitors instead? I hope not but time will tell  as we see what his "cunning plan" turns out to be.  :(

If they are aiming for an acquisition or merger would the UK government allow them to be purchased by anyone other than BAE Systems? The security restrictions are going to be onerous for anyone else.

Compared to GE and P&W, RR is the only one not owned by a substantially larger conglomerate and so when it comes to investment it must have a higher cost of money and be at a substantial disadvantage so a merger could make sense given the large investments needed for the energy transition in the next decade. The question is, is the UK interested in having an industrial policy?


Offline JCRM

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 526
  • Great Britain
  • Liked: 320
  • Likes Given: 451
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon/SABRE Master Thread (7)
« Reply #744 on: 01/31/2023 10:50 am »
If they are aiming for an acquisition or merger would the UK government allow them to be purchased by anyone other than BAE Systems? The security restrictions are going to be onerous for anyone else.

A competent Government, or the current one?

They let ARM be bought by the Chinese Japanese.
« Last Edit: 02/01/2023 02:15 pm by JCRM »

Offline lkm

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 541
  • Liked: 117
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon/SABRE Master Thread (7)
« Reply #745 on: 01/31/2023 12:28 pm »
If they are aiming for an acquisition or merger would the UK government allow them to be purchased by anyone other than BAE Systems? The security restrictions are going to be onerous for anyone else.

A competent Government, or the current one?

They let ARM be bought by the Chinese.
?
ARM was bought by Softbank, which is Japanese. So given we're building Tempest with them they better be an ally.

Rolls is an integral part of the UK nuclear deterrent but also through RR America would have a US government veto over ownership. I would imagine.

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2836
  • Liked: 1084
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon/SABRE Master Thread (7)
« Reply #746 on: 02/01/2023 02:04 am »
Considering how wedded at the hip Rolls and Airbus are due to engine exclusivity for a number of Airbus aircraft, a potential acquirer could be Airbus. Which might have been mostly acceptable before Brexit...

The descriptions of how Rolls got sandbagged by Tent 1000 warranty work, Trent XWB unexpected low lifetime, and how they basically gave up on bread and butter MRO work through International Aero Engines for the V2500 and follow-on engine paints a sad story, but makes it clear Airbus should at least consider bringing their primary engine supplier in-house for vertical integration.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon/SABRE Master Thread (7)
« Reply #747 on: 02/01/2023 05:58 am »
?
ARM was bought by Softbank, which is Japanese. So given we're building Tempest with them they better be an ally.
True, but it misses the overall point. Basicall the UK Govt has never (with the sole exception of BAE) ever cared who ownes British industry. A significant difference with other countries in Europe, as well as Japan and the US.

Rolls is an integral part of the UK nuclear deterrent but also through RR America would have a US government veto over ownership. I would imagine.
RR America does own various parts of the US aerospace industry but I was unaware that it mfgs any of the US Navy's nuclear reactors. I thought they mostly came from Babcock & Wilcox (part of why they got a lot of the DoD NTR project work).
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon/SABRE Master Thread (7)
« Reply #748 on: 02/01/2023 06:02 am »

Compared to GE and P&W, RR is the only one not owned by a substantially larger conglomerate and so when it comes to investment it must have a higher cost of money and be at a substantial disadvantage so a merger could make sense given the large investments needed for the energy transition in the next decade. The question is, is the UK interested in having an industrial policy?
That's  a very good point, but I think P&W were independent for quite a lot of their history.

RR sybolises the UK industrial history of centres-of-excellence but no network either as a parent or as a subsidary, of companies that can draw on it, or it can draw on not just for finance but also specialist skills for complex problem solving.  :(
« Last Edit: 02/01/2023 07:31 pm by john smith 19 »
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline lkm

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 541
  • Liked: 117
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon/SABRE Master Thread (7)
« Reply #749 on: 02/01/2023 11:47 am »
?
ARM was bought by Softbank, which is Japanese. So given we're building Tempest with them they better be an ally.
True, but it misses the overall point. Basicall the UK Govt has never (with the sole exception of BAE) ever cared who ownes British industry. A significant difference with other countries in Europe, as well as Japan and the US.
I think it's fairer to say it periodically cares, every couple of decades  maybe, and the question is will this be one of those times.

Rolls is an integral part of the UK nuclear deterrent but also through RR America would have a US government veto over ownership. I would imagine.
RR America does own various parts of the US aerospace industry but I was unaware that it mfgs any of the US Navy's nuclear reactors. I thought they mostly came from Babcock & Wilcox (part of why they got a lot of the DoD NTR project work).

I wasn't thinking specifically of US nuclear work, although it does do some (https://www.bwxt.com/news/2022/06/09/BWXT-to-Build-First-Advanced-Microreactor-in-United-States), but LibertyWorks is involved clasified projects, hypersonics, directed energy etc. Beyond that RR is a key supplier to the F-35 etc.


Compared to GE and P&W, RR is the only one not owned by a substantially larger conglomerate and so when it comes to investment it must have a higher cost of money and be at a substantial disadvantage so a merger could make sense given the large investments needed for the energy transition in the next decade. The question is, is the UK interested in having an industrial policy?
That's  a very good point, but I think P&W were independent for quite a lot of their history.

RR sybolises the UK industrial history of centres-of-excellence but no network either as a parent or as a subsidary, of companies that can draw on it, or it can draw on not just for finance but also specialist skills for complext problem solving.  :(

Surprisingly I don't think P&W has ever been really been independent. It went PWMT, UTAC then UAC, UTC and now Raytheon. It's always had a parent with a checkbook.

If the UK cares then BAE could merge with RR and GKN (also in need of rescue from PE) and become  a $50 billion aerospace company a decade before everyone has to buy new planes. If it doesn't care Safran might be an interesting fit.


Offline JCRM

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 526
  • Great Britain
  • Liked: 320
  • Likes Given: 451
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon/SABRE Master Thread (7)
« Reply #750 on: 02/01/2023 02:15 pm »
If they are aiming for an acquisition or merger would the UK government allow them to be purchased by anyone other than BAE Systems? The security restrictions are going to be onerous for anyone else.

A competent Government, or the current one?

They let ARM be bought by the Chinese.
?
ARM was bought by Softbank, which is Japanese. So given we're building Tempest with them they better be an ally.

Yes, I got muddled by the  ARM China thing, but as JS19 poind out, that wasn't the case I was making.


Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2836
  • Liked: 1084
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon/SABRE Master Thread (7)
« Reply #751 on: 02/01/2023 11:18 pm »
?
ARM was bought by Softbank, which is Japanese. So given we're building Tempest with them they better be an ally.
True, but it misses the overall point. Basicall the UK Govt has never (with the sole exception of BAE) ever cared who ownes British industry. A significant difference with other countries in Europe, as well as Japan and the US.
I think it's fairer to say it periodically cares, every couple of decades  maybe, and the question is will this be one of those times.

Rolls is an integral part of the UK nuclear deterrent but also through RR America would have a US government veto over ownership. I would imagine.
RR America does own various parts of the US aerospace industry but I was unaware that it mfgs any of the US Navy's nuclear reactors. I thought they mostly came from Babcock & Wilcox (part of why they got a lot of the DoD NTR project work).

I wasn't thinking specifically of US nuclear work, although it does do some (https://www.bwxt.com/news/2022/06/09/BWXT-to-Build-First-Advanced-Microreactor-in-United-States), but LibertyWorks is involved clasified projects, hypersonics, directed energy etc. Beyond that RR is a key supplier to the F-35 etc.


Compared to GE and P&W, RR is the only one not owned by a substantially larger conglomerate and so when it comes to investment it must have a higher cost of money and be at a substantial disadvantage so a merger could make sense given the large investments needed for the energy transition in the next decade. The question is, is the UK interested in having an industrial policy?
That's  a very good point, but I think P&W were independent for quite a lot of their history.

RR sybolises the UK industrial history of centres-of-excellence but no network either as a parent or as a subsidary, of companies that can draw on it, or it can draw on not just for finance but also specialist skills for complext problem solving.  :(

Surprisingly I don't think P&W has ever been really been independent. It went PWMT, UTAC then UAC, UTC and now Raytheon. It's always had a parent with a checkbook.

If the UK cares then BAE could merge with RR and GKN (also in need of rescue from PE) and become  a $50 billion aerospace company a decade before everyone has to buy new planes. If it doesn't care Safran might be an interesting fit.

Rolls merging with Safran is an interesting idea. Rolls is doing Ultrafan work, while Safran is active in propfan work. Couple this with upcoming Tempest and FCAS development, it would solidify a lot of engine work into a EU powerhouse. (plus the implication EU can really only support one major engine manufacturer now on cost basis). Even with an expected large amount of military development in the wake of equipment replacement from Ukraine donations and redefinition of military force structures leading to new vehicle purchases, it's still a tough economic environment.

But that puts a large focus on subsonic/low sonic engine work. Euro hypersonic work is sadly not as large as the US, which means added burdens to develop SABRE. With ESA facing commercial realities for Vega and Ariane 6, europe is at a crossroads in major space vehicle development. If ESA does slip towards preferring something like "Le Starship" (something small-ish like Maiaspace, or something big like EHLL), funding SABRE work or Skylon is basically over for Rolls at least.

Offline lkm

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 541
  • Liked: 117
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon/SABRE Master Thread (7)
« Reply #752 on: 02/03/2023 10:43 pm »
?
ARM was bought by Softbank, which is Japanese. So given we're building Tempest with them they better be an ally.
True, but it misses the overall point. Basicall the UK Govt has never (with the sole exception of BAE) ever cared who ownes British industry. A significant difference with other countries in Europe, as well as Japan and the US.
I think it's fairer to say it periodically cares, every couple of decades  maybe, and the question is will this be one of those times.

Rolls is an integral part of the UK nuclear deterrent but also through RR America would have a US government veto over ownership. I would imagine.
RR America does own various parts of the US aerospace industry but I was unaware that it mfgs any of the US Navy's nuclear reactors. I thought they mostly came from Babcock & Wilcox (part of why they got a lot of the DoD NTR project work).

I wasn't thinking specifically of US nuclear work, although it does do some (https://www.bwxt.com/news/2022/06/09/BWXT-to-Build-First-Advanced-Microreactor-in-United-States), but LibertyWorks is involved clasified projects, hypersonics, directed energy etc. Beyond that RR is a key supplier to the F-35 etc.


Compared to GE and P&W, RR is the only one not owned by a substantially larger conglomerate and so when it comes to investment it must have a higher cost of money and be at a substantial disadvantage so a merger could make sense given the large investments needed for the energy transition in the next decade. The question is, is the UK interested in having an industrial policy?
That's  a very good point, but I think P&W were independent for quite a lot of their history.

RR sybolises the UK industrial history of centres-of-excellence but no network either as a parent or as a subsidary, of companies that can draw on it, or it can draw on not just for finance but also specialist skills for complext problem solving.  :(

Surprisingly I don't think P&W has ever been really been independent. It went PWMT, UTAC then UAC, UTC and now Raytheon. It's always had a parent with a checkbook.

If the UK cares then BAE could merge with RR and GKN (also in need of rescue from PE) and become  a $50 billion aerospace company a decade before everyone has to buy new planes. If it doesn't care Safran might be an interesting fit.

Rolls merging with Safran is an interesting idea. Rolls is doing Ultrafan work, while Safran is active in propfan work. Couple this with upcoming Tempest and FCAS development, it would solidify a lot of engine work into a EU powerhouse. (plus the implication EU can really only support one major engine manufacturer now on cost basis). Even with an expected large amount of military development in the wake of equipment replacement from Ukraine donations and redefinition of military force structures leading to new vehicle purchases, it's still a tough economic environment.

But that puts a large focus on subsonic/low sonic engine work. Euro hypersonic work is sadly not as large as the US, which means added burdens to develop SABRE. With ESA facing commercial realities for Vega and Ariane 6, europe is at a crossroads in major space vehicle development. If ESA does slip towards preferring something like "Le Starship" (something small-ish like Maiaspace, or something big like EHLL), funding SABRE work or Skylon is basically over for Rolls at least.

Well the implication of the report is that RE have been working with ArianeGroup since 2018, so Safran already has a relationship there.
As I understand it RE would be outsourcing the rocket and turbines from SABRE so if Safran bought RR they would most likely become the main partner on the engine. On top of that with Airbus as the airframer then it would rapidly become le Skylon which is perhaps why CNES has been studying it.

Apparently (https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/01/european-launch-chief-insists-there-be-no-competition-with-ariane-rockets/) at the https://spaceconference.eu/  Arianespace chief executive Stéphane Israël said:

"We need a reusable heavy launcher," Israël said. "Full stop. This is what we need. And I do not believe that Europe can afford two, three, or four big or heavy, reusable launchers. It will, for sure, [require] a lot of public money, industrial excellency, and I am more confident than ever that it will [require] solidarity in Europe to make it happen."

That to my optimistic Skylon loving ear sounds like a plan to spend a lot of money on building Skylon in a big Concorde like project.

Offline Kiwi53

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 146
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 152
  • Likes Given: 214
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon/SABRE Master Thread (7)
« Reply #753 on: 02/05/2023 12:11 am »
Rolls merging with Safran is an interesting idea.
It is an interesting idea, but one to which the pro-Brexit faction that currently rules the English government would almost certainly 'Just Say No'. The idea that Rolls Royce, or even the jet/gas turbine engine division if the nuclear bits were separated, might become a minor subsidiary of a French company would almost certainly make them choke on the Full English Breakfast.

Offline lkm

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 541
  • Liked: 117
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon/SABRE Master Thread (7)
« Reply #754 on: 02/05/2023 01:07 pm »
Rolls merging with Safran is an interesting idea.
It is an interesting idea, but one to which the pro-Brexit faction that currently rules the English government would almost certainly 'Just Say No'. The idea that Rolls Royce, or even the jet/gas turbine engine division if the nuclear bits were separated, might become a minor subsidiary of a French company would almost certainly make them choke on the Full English Breakfast.

The problem is if RR is up for sale just say no isn't really an answer.
Obviously if the UK had an actual Industrial policy if RR is no longer viable on its own then it (and GKN aerospace) would go under BAE Systems. However that requires:
a) This government to have an industrial policy
b) BAE Systems to reverse it's twenty year divestment of doing aerospace and having civilian customers.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon/SABRE Master Thread (7)
« Reply #755 on: 02/05/2023 02:13 pm »

But that puts a large focus on subsonic/low sonic engine work. Euro hypersonic work is sadly not as large as the US, which means added burdens to develop SABRE. With ESA facing commercial realities for Vega and Ariane 6, europe is at a crossroads in major space vehicle development. If ESA does slip towards preferring something like "Le Starship" (something small-ish like Maiaspace, or something big like EHLL), funding SABRE work or Skylon is basically over for Rolls at least.
There is nothing "small-ish" about Starship.  :(
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon/SABRE Master Thread (7)
« Reply #756 on: 02/05/2023 02:22 pm »
Well the implication of the report is that RE have been working with ArianeGroup since 2018, so Safran already has a relationship there.
As I understand it RE would be outsourcing the rocket and turbines from SABRE so if Safran bought RR they would most likely become the main partner on the engine. On top of that with Airbus as the airframer then it would rapidly become le Skylon which is perhaps why CNES has been studying it.
What CNES has studied is a semi- reusable vehicle with an expendable US.
Quote from: lkm
Apparently (https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/01/european-launch-chief-insists-there-be-no-competition-with-ariane-rockets/) at the https://spaceconference.eu/  Arianespace chief executive Stéphane Israël said:

"We need a reusable heavy launcher," Israël said. "Full stop. This is what we need. And I do not believe that Europe can afford two, three, or four big or heavy, reusable launchers. It will, for sure, [require] a lot of public money, industrial excellency, and I am more confident than ever that it will [require] solidarity in Europe to make it happen."

That to my optimistic Skylon loving ear sounds like a plan to spend a lot of money on building Skylon in a big Concorde like project.
which ironically is what the core team at RE didn't want, as they'd experience of the Concorde project.

How it took 3 iterations for the French side to finally concede it needed an aircraft carrying a 100 passengers and with at least trans-atlantic range to be viable.

The single builder/operator model is BAU and a receipe for failure.  :(

Airbus broke the Boeing monopoly for large commercial aircraft sales and benefited the whole world. A fully reusable SSTO, that can be bought and sold like a (large) aircraft would change the entire industry and give on-demand launch to almost anyone who wanted it.

Ariane 6 is VTO TSTO ELV.

Ariane 7 might be something very different. [EDIT and if "Europe" wants to caputure some section of the global market it had better be.  :( . When no one offered even semi reusability it was (sort of) a level playing field. That's gone and it's very hard to justify a fully expendable LV now. Reaction offers a clear vision of what that vehicle could look like. It innovates where necessary. Remember there have been less than 100 orbital capable rocket designs, but there have been 1000s of successful aircraft designs. Reaction leverages that history. Europe knows a lot more about building aircraft than rockets and has the unique expeience of operating a commercial supersonic airliner for profit (and in the British case, succeeded in making a profit) ]
« Last Edit: 02/06/2023 07:00 am by john smith 19 »
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon/SABRE Master Thread (7)
« Reply #757 on: 02/05/2023 02:25 pm »
Rolls merging with Safran is an interesting idea.
It is an interesting idea, but one to which the pro-Brexit faction that currently rules the English government would almost certainly 'Just Say No'. The idea that Rolls Royce, or even the jet/gas turbine engine division if the nuclear bits were separated, might become a minor subsidiary of a French company would almost certainly make them choke on the Full English Breakfast.
The British Government has shown remarkably little interest in stopping anyone from owning anything, except BAE, for a very long time.  :(

Given that the car part of RR is now owned by BMW I doubt they care.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2836
  • Liked: 1084
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon/SABRE Master Thread (7)
« Reply #758 on: 02/06/2023 01:15 am »

But that puts a large focus on subsonic/low sonic engine work. Euro hypersonic work is sadly not as large as the US, which means added burdens to develop SABRE. With ESA facing commercial realities for Vega and Ariane 6, europe is at a crossroads in major space vehicle development. If ESA does slip towards preferring something like "Le Starship" (something small-ish like Maiaspace, or something big like EHLL), funding SABRE work or Skylon is basically over for Rolls at least.
There is nothing "small-ish" about Starship.  :(

Various organizations have been suggesting Starship-style planform TSTO RLV's of various sizes though (though the shapes obviously deform a bit as the thrust levels and structural mass fraction change). Musk himself says in retrospect, a slightly small starship might have been easy from a logistics standpoint (crane size/strength, SPMT's, etc). Most of the pseudo-clones proposed have less than Raptor thrust, which puts a serious dent into payload however.

Offline JCRM

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 526
  • Great Britain
  • Liked: 320
  • Likes Given: 451
Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon/SABRE Master Thread (7)
« Reply #759 on: 02/07/2023 09:03 am »
The announcement of a Department of Science, Innovation and Technology seems to, prima facie, be a good thing, SABRE fitting at least two of those aspects.

Of course, if it's just deck chair shuffling, and no money, it'll be business as usual.



 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0