Quote from: Alpha_Centauri on 07/12/2016 05:00 pmAt this rate perhaps we should Brexit more often... Anyway I don't know if this has been discussed previously but the Beeb has more about a tie-up with small-sat launcher project Orbital Access Limited to get flight data with scaled down versions of SABRE.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36773074Edit; the article above appears to have been edited, it previously mentioned that "The Sabre/Prestwick feasibility study is receiving a £250,000 grant from the UKSA."http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36773074I've never heard of Orbital Access Limited before. And I'm very surprised that they think SABRE is scalable down to that sort of size. IIRC the big issue remains the LH2 pump due to the still high chamber pressure needed, although SABRE 4 seems to offer a possible much lower pressure chamber for the pure rocket mode.This opens possibilities. Keep in mind that due to its nature REL will probably need to consider the whole nacelle carrying it as well. That strongly suggests work in fibre reinforced SiC or some kind of RCC, of which there are a number of mfg in Europe, notably in Germany.
At this rate perhaps we should Brexit more often... Anyway I don't know if this has been discussed previously but the Beeb has more about a tie-up with small-sat launcher project Orbital Access Limited to get flight data with scaled down versions of SABRE.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36773074Edit; the article above appears to have been edited, it previously mentioned that "The Sabre/Prestwick feasibility study is receiving a £250,000 grant from the UKSA."http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36773074
At this rate perhaps we should Brexit more often... Anyway I don't know if this has been discussed previously but the Beeb has more about a tie-up with small-sat launcher project Orbital Access Limited to get flight data with scaled down versions of SABRE.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36773074QuoteBut because the engine technology is considered scalable, Reaction Engines announced at Farnborough that it is also joining a consortium to look at the feasibility of putting reduced-sized power units on smaller vehicles that could run out of Prestwick airport.Orbital Access Limited is the company behind the effort to turn the Scottish aviation centre into a spaceport. It is already working with BAE Systems - a major shareholder in REL - to turn a DC10 into a flying platform from which to launch rocket-carrying satellites.It is keen to see if it is possible to piggyback additional launch services on some of the future test flight models that Reaction Engines will build to further develop Sabre."What this study aims to do is to look at those vehicle concepts and evaluate which sorts of configurations can yield commercial payload capabilities," explains Orbital's CEO Stuart McIntyre."If you take a Sabre test engine, put wings on it and go fly it, all you'll get is some engineering answers. But if we do these flight tests in a certain way, where you plug a top stage to these vehicles, it may then be possible for REL to get their air test data and for us to launch payloads." Edit; the article above appears to have been edited, it previously mentioned that "The Sabre/Prestwick feasibility study is receiving a £250,000 grant from the UKSA."http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36773074
But because the engine technology is considered scalable, Reaction Engines announced at Farnborough that it is also joining a consortium to look at the feasibility of putting reduced-sized power units on smaller vehicles that could run out of Prestwick airport.Orbital Access Limited is the company behind the effort to turn the Scottish aviation centre into a spaceport. It is already working with BAE Systems - a major shareholder in REL - to turn a DC10 into a flying platform from which to launch rocket-carrying satellites.It is keen to see if it is possible to piggyback additional launch services on some of the future test flight models that Reaction Engines will build to further develop Sabre."What this study aims to do is to look at those vehicle concepts and evaluate which sorts of configurations can yield commercial payload capabilities," explains Orbital's CEO Stuart McIntyre."If you take a Sabre test engine, put wings on it and go fly it, all you'll get is some engineering answers. But if we do these flight tests in a certain way, where you plug a top stage to these vehicles, it may then be possible for REL to get their air test data and for us to launch payloads."
Quote from: john smith 19 on 07/12/2016 07:33 pmQuote from: Alpha_Centauri on 07/12/2016 05:00 pmAt this rate perhaps we should Brexit more often... Anyway I don't know if this has been discussed previously but the Beeb has more about a tie-up with small-sat launcher project Orbital Access Limited to get flight data with scaled down versions of SABRE.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36773074Edit; the article above appears to have been edited, it previously mentioned that "The Sabre/Prestwick feasibility study is receiving a £250,000 grant from the UKSA."http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36773074I've never heard of Orbital Access Limited before. And I'm very surprised that they think SABRE is scalable down to that sort of size. IIRC the big issue remains the LH2 pump due to the still high chamber pressure needed, although SABRE 4 seems to offer a possible much lower pressure chamber for the pure rocket mode.This opens possibilities. Keep in mind that due to its nature REL will probably need to consider the whole nacelle carrying it as well. That strongly suggests work in fibre reinforced SiC or some kind of RCC, of which there are a number of mfg in Europe, notably in Germany. Me neither, it's a new outfit that is intending to be the operator running out of a future Prestwick Spaceport, apparently they are sourcing a DC-10 for an air-launch system.http://www.orbital-access.com/our-projects.htmlRemember the work done by Strathclyde on alternative Skylon designs?
THE FSPLUK PROJECTConscious that future systems will need to employ the new technologies that are in development the FSPLUK project is a collaboration led by Orbital Access Limited that combines Reaction Engines Limited's SABRE technology with BAE Systems aero-design capability and the leading hypersonic research and trajectory design and optimisation capabilities of Glasgow and Strathclyde Universities to define a road map of new vehicle developments to provide next generation small payload launch vehicles and the air test vehicles required to finesse the development of the SABRE engine. The project also incorporates the UK's leading small satellite manufacturers SSTL and Clyde Space and incorporates their future needs as a primary design imperative for the roadmap. As such the FSPLUK project defines Orbital Access's product development pipeline and integrates the UK industrial base required to realise that product roadmap. The specific outputs targeted by the project is an initial horizontal small payload launch system in service by 2020 with a fully reusable system in service by 2030. The technical and operational learning from these system developments will lay the foundation for the delivery of Skylon in the long term.
As for the spaceports, recently there was a disappointing change in policy where the government will only license spaceports rather than patronising a particular site.
ESA on SABRE:http://tinyurl.com/zuerv9z (was a massive ESA URL, so shortened it).
Maybe it's just me, but that announcement rubs me the wrong way. It's "ESA did this", "ESA did that". Poor ol' REL are lucky to be in the presence of such giants! /s I honestly have no idea of ESA's real level of contribution to the project till now, but it just sorta gives the impression that it's ESA who got it to where it is now, and REL have made some minor contribution. You know, like all the actual engineering!
I shouldn't be so churlish though. At least there's progress
Quote from: oddbodd on 07/13/2016 04:08 amMaybe it's just me, but that announcement rubs me the wrong way. It's "ESA did this", "ESA did that". Poor ol' REL are lucky to be in the presence of such giants! /s I honestly have no idea of ESA's real level of contribution to the project till now, but it just sorta gives the impression that it's ESA who got it to where it is now, and REL have made some minor contribution. You know, like all the actual engineering!First rule of PR.The organisation that writes the press release emphasises it's work. Actually by getting ESA involved to act as a monitor they have done something which (AFAIK) no other newspace company (that does not have an independent backer) have succeeded in doing. Getting the technical arm of a recognized space agency to look in detail at their design and confirm it will do what they say it will do. This is one of the key problems with getting commercial funding, sometimes known as "My cousin at NASA," because "My cousin says if it was that good NASA would be doing it."Readers of this site should be well aware there are in fact many reasons why major space agencies will not support anything outside the mainstream with anything more than the most limited funding. QuoteI shouldn't be so churlish though. At least there's progress If you want to be churlish blame the UK govt and the EU for taking 3 years from George Osbornes announcement. At that point it was going to be a loan which had to be repayed. In the meantime BAE have bought up a significant chunk of the company for a fairly low cost. Had the money come through faster REL might have remained more independent.
Just hope Brexit doesn't blow this whole project off course.
How much does this feed back into the AFRL work, considering the USAF may be interested in TSTO (see XS-1)? Is BAE effectively going to sell Orbital Access Ltd's TSTO as a manufacturer?Is REL now resigned to doing an reduced NTV-esqe vehicle with the associated non-transferrable LH2 pump work, in order to get operational experience at altitude?An interesting byproduct of such a smallsat TSTO is that it would effectively cement the UK as the leader as far as a vertically integrated marketplace, with smallsat parts manufacturers, whole smallsat manufacturers, and launch services as ITAR unrestricted brands would be backing such a marketplace.
Quote from: Asteroza on 07/12/2016 11:20 pmHow much does this feed back into the AFRL work, considering the USAF may be interested in TSTO (see XS-1)? Is BAE effectively going to sell Orbital Access Ltd's TSTO as a manufacturer?Is REL now resigned to doing an reduced NTV-esqe vehicle with the associated non-transferrable LH2 pump work, in order to get operational experience at altitude?An interesting byproduct of such a smallsat TSTO is that it would effectively cement the UK as the leader as far as a vertically integrated marketplace, with smallsat parts manufacturers, whole smallsat manufacturers, and launch services as ITAR unrestricted brands would be backing such a marketplace. I think REL is resign to what it always wanted to be a engine maker. I think BAE will now take over the design of any vehicles that use the engines REL produces, and we won't see any new work from Reaction Engine on Skylon, that will either all come out of BAE or another company or consortium at a later date.
So, on Friday Richard Varvill will deliver a Skylon Update to the BIS conference. What are they likely to say, and what would you want them to say?
What's with this Orbital Access deal? How can it possibly help them? Surely it would have to take full scale SABRE engines since they can't be made smaller?
...enable the development of a ground based demonstrator of SABRETM, a new class of aerospace engine which is highly scalable with multiple potential applications in hypersonic travel and space access.
...Chief Operating Officer & Engineering Director, with responsibility for operational leadership, improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the business through integration, collaboration and operational best practices.
Quote from: JCRM on 07/20/2016 08:29 amSo, on Friday Richard Varvill will deliver a Skylon Update to the BIS conference. What are they likely to say, and what would you want them to say?Want them to say?"we secured (X) customers who have put refundable deposits on our books so we can finally move towards airframe maker selection & speed up ground testing. We will deliver on schedule."jokes aside, I would like them to develop over recent remarks that the ground test article is going to be "much cheaper originally expected". Is it due to cutting on costs, or is it due to early conservative estimates?if the latter, is there any hope that (1) the already-confirmed cost reductions for the ground test articles are applicable to the real engines, and that (2) the overall cost estimates are equally conservative?
QuoteWhat's with this Orbital Access deal? How can it possibly help them? Surely it would have to take full scale SABRE engines since they can't be made smaller?If you look at reaction engines update it quite clearly states the engine is highly scalable ..
Describing something as "highly scalable" doesn't preclude a minimum size. The current SABRE design is based around the Skylon D1 requirements, which are larger than the C2, those larger than the C1. the D2 requirements are driven by a commercial launch sweet spot, so while a desktop SABRE is not practical, a half-size one may be.
It's my understanding the sub-scale demonstrator they are now proposing rather than being a full working engine, demonstrates the full cycle - e.g by being pressure fed instead of having the final engines fuel pumps
Quote from: Soundbite on 07/20/2016 12:35 pmQuoteWhat's with this Orbital Access deal? How can it possibly help them? Surely it would have to take full scale SABRE engines since they can't be made smaller?If you look at reaction engines update it quite clearly states the engine is highly scalable ..That is not at all what we have been told in the past - the typical issue that gets brought up being the cost of designing small hydrogen pumps. So that would need clarification too.
IMHO I think that Alan Bond and Reactions Engines had originally planned for a 'Rolls Royce' Development programme, but reality is now setting in and they have to go for the cheapest development programme they can get away with that proves what they need to prove.
I have always thought that a £12 Bn development programme was just too expensive. TBH I think the cost of the design and development should be halved to £6 Bn.
There are a whole new bunch of technologies that should help them reduce the cost since they first calculated the programme cost.... much more detailed and accurate advanced design & simulation software... 3D printing etc.... It is obvious to me that, that is why they have employed Mark Wood to focus on reducing costs Quote...Chief Operating Officer & Engineering Director, with responsibility for operational leadership, improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the business through integration, collaboration and operational best practices.