Only air-breathing tests will be carried out at Westcott no lox will be used at the site. Full rocket tests will be carried out at a more remote site like Spadeadam.
The only other question I would have liked to have answered was wheather this is going to demonstrate the E/D nozzle, or wheather that's one of the modules that's not needed.
Quote from: Hankelow8 on 04/14/2018 10:23 pmOnly air-breathing tests will be carried out at Westcott no lox will be used at the site. Full rocket tests will be carried out at a more remote site like Spadeadam.That's a bit of a spanner in the works: it means that Wescott cannot host a full systems cycle test of SABRE. In order to test the transition from air-breathing to rocket operation and back again, a new test site would be needed with the same equipment as Wescott plus the ability to test the rocket portion. It's possible RE intend to test a non-rocket SABRE engine in flight first (a product that has some existing demand), before looking at a combined cycle version.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 04/16/2018 12:28 pmThe only other question I would have liked to have answered was wheather this is going to demonstrate the E/D nozzle, or wheather that's one of the modules that's not needed. I think I added it to my notes on the earlier talk, but the E-D nozzle testing ('Demo-R') is no longer going to be public, and is behind Demo A in priority. E-D development is mainly going on in university partnerships rather than internally to RE.
However while it has a pre-burner in the loop it will always need a LOX supply to operate.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 04/16/2018 04:14 pm However while it has a pre-burner in the loop it will always need a LOX supply to operate.That would make testing at Westcott tricky. All the SABRE diagrams with preburners show air being used in airbreathing mode.
Read an article today in Flight International today about this additional investment and it was stated in it that the initial applications will be in space, so I sure did get that wrong thinking it would be military first. Though they also mentioned the application of the technology in non space & aviation industries.
Quote from: Star One on 04/18/2018 01:29 pmRead an article today in Flight International today about this additional investment and it was stated in it that the initial applications will be in space, so I sure did get that wrong thinking it would be military first. Though they also mentioned the application of the technology in non space & aviation industries.Yes it seems you did.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 04/18/2018 04:02 pmQuote from: Star One on 04/18/2018 01:29 pmRead an article today in Flight International today about this additional investment and it was stated in it that the initial applications will be in space, so I sure did get that wrong thinking it would be military first. Though they also mentioned the application of the technology in non space & aviation industries.Yes it seems you did.Well that’s because I am more likely to take the word of a professionally written article in well respected publication than some random individual online.
Read an article [stating] the initial applications will be in space, so I sure did get that wrong thinking it would be military first.
Though they also mentioned the application of the technology in non space & aviation industries.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 04/07/2018 07:35 pmQuote from: john smith 19 on 03/29/2018 07:36 pmQuote from: ChrisWilson68 on 03/29/2018 05:59 pmNo, it doesn't.The real effect on budget depends on many factors. You're just taking one factor and ignoring the rest.If each vehicle has more margin, each can be far cheaper to develop than a single vehicle. And the two can potentially have commonality. And one or the other can re-use some existing technology. It's not just a "fully ready to go upper stage to drop in" or nothing -- there's a whole range of possibilities. And the combined size of the two vehicles can potentially be smaller for the same payload to orbit when staging is used.I fear I have not been explicit enough. I was talking about the development budget. You seem to be talking about the manufacturing budget.No, I was talking about the development budget.So by your thinking the more alike the two (or three) stages are the cheaper they will be?Because that's exactly the thinking behind the Bi or Triamese, as GD/Convair proposed for STS and BAC with MUSTARD. Identical stages with identical engines. Except no one has ever gone that way.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 03/29/2018 07:36 pmQuote from: ChrisWilson68 on 03/29/2018 05:59 pmNo, it doesn't.The real effect on budget depends on many factors. You're just taking one factor and ignoring the rest.If each vehicle has more margin, each can be far cheaper to develop than a single vehicle. And the two can potentially have commonality. And one or the other can re-use some existing technology. It's not just a "fully ready to go upper stage to drop in" or nothing -- there's a whole range of possibilities. And the combined size of the two vehicles can potentially be smaller for the same payload to orbit when staging is used.I fear I have not been explicit enough. I was talking about the development budget. You seem to be talking about the manufacturing budget.No, I was talking about the development budget.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 03/29/2018 05:59 pmNo, it doesn't.The real effect on budget depends on many factors. You're just taking one factor and ignoring the rest.If each vehicle has more margin, each can be far cheaper to develop than a single vehicle. And the two can potentially have commonality. And one or the other can re-use some existing technology. It's not just a "fully ready to go upper stage to drop in" or nothing -- there's a whole range of possibilities. And the combined size of the two vehicles can potentially be smaller for the same payload to orbit when staging is used.I fear I have not been explicit enough. I was talking about the development budget. You seem to be talking about the manufacturing budget.
No, it doesn't.The real effect on budget depends on many factors. You're just taking one factor and ignoring the rest.If each vehicle has more margin, each can be far cheaper to develop than a single vehicle. And the two can potentially have commonality. And one or the other can re-use some existing technology. It's not just a "fully ready to go upper stage to drop in" or nothing -- there's a whole range of possibilities. And the combined size of the two vehicles can potentially be smaller for the same payload to orbit when staging is used.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 04/08/2018 08:44 amQuote from: ChrisWilson68 on 04/07/2018 07:35 pmQuote from: john smith 19 on 03/29/2018 07:36 pmQuote from: ChrisWilson68 on 03/29/2018 05:59 pmNo, it doesn't.The real effect on budget depends on many factors. You're just taking one factor and ignoring the rest.If each vehicle has more margin, each can be far cheaper to develop than a single vehicle. And the two can potentially have commonality. And one or the other can re-use some existing technology. It's not just a "fully ready to go upper stage to drop in" or nothing -- there's a whole range of possibilities. And the combined size of the two vehicles can potentially be smaller for the same payload to orbit when staging is used.I fear I have not been explicit enough. I was talking about the development budget. You seem to be talking about the manufacturing budget.No, I was talking about the development budget.So by your thinking the more alike the two (or three) stages are the cheaper they will be?Because that's exactly the thinking behind the Bi or Triamese, as GD/Convair proposed for STS and BAC with MUSTARD. Identical stages with identical engines. Except no one has ever gone that way.No. Again, not what I said, and not what I meant.
The implication is that 2 complete vehicles will cost less than 1 complete vehicle to design, develop, test and mfg despite the fact one of those vehicles will cover the whole operating range of the single vehicle anyway and they will interact with each other (as well as both interacting with the environment) as they fly the trajectory.
Not only is it the implication, it has thus far been the reality. Every orbital launcher since the beginning of the space age has used 2 (or more) complete vehicles to achieve orbit and their designers, from many different nations and political and economic systems, have concluded that this would "cost less than 1 complete vehicle to design, develop, test and mfg despite the fact one of those vehicles will cover the whole operating range of the single vehicle anyway and they will interact with each other (as well as both interacting with the environment) as they fly the trajectory."
Not only is it the implication, it has thus far been the reality. Every orbital launcher since the beginning of the space age has used 2 (or more) complete vehicles to achieve orbit and their designers, from many different nations and political and economic systems, have concluded that this would "cost less than 1 complete vehicle to design, develop, test and mfg despite the fact one of those vehicles will cover the whole operating range of the single vehicle anyway and they will interact with each other (as well as both interacting with the environment) as they fly the trajectory."Are you suggesting that everyone has had it wrong since the '50s?
The return of a secret British rocket siteWestcott Venture Park was once the centre of the UK’s Cold War rocket research. Left idle for years, it’s now enjoying a second wind as British firms unveil new 21st Century designs.By Paul Marks19 April 2018
When agreements are being signed with USAF, and the company's web site talks of "hypersonic mission applications," then not considering the military aspects of the technology would be a shocking oversight. It's certainly not certain whether the first application will be civilian or military -- even if the path to Skylon is REL's focus.
With Reaction Engines Inc themselves explicitly stating that they are developing a two-stage-to-orbit design because it is cheaper and more achievable than an SSTO design, I'm going to take them at their word as they're the ones who have to actually do it!
Would you get in your car if I could guarantee somewhere in every 50-100 engine starts the car will explode?tl;dr No, rocket designers have done the best they could within the limits of the existing technology. SABRE opens those limits a lot. "Game changer" is a cliche. But it does change the rules you have to play by to win "the game".