Quote from: john smith 19 on 06/21/2017 11:52 am...Skylon requires a lot of money and good engineering.A full reusable VTO TSTO needs several breakthroughs in physics which may (or may not) happen. ...Wha..? I don't even know where to start. The rest of your rant makes little sense,
...Skylon requires a lot of money and good engineering.A full reusable VTO TSTO needs several breakthroughs in physics which may (or may not) happen. ...
Reusable SSTO, VTVL or otherwise, doesn't require any fundamental breakthroughs. The question is economic, since you need a larger vehicle for the same payload.
1) SX can't do 2nd stage return from orbit. In 2011 they thought they could. Then in 2014 they said it was off the table for all F9 derived hardware. Now they are saying it may be possible after all.'
This is not engineering. This is science. The truth is they don't know if it will work, or if it will ever work with Kerolox, although they seem more confident that it will work with Methalox. Probably. we will find out when FH launches (when is that now?)
Oh, look at that, a super ceramic :-)http://www.manchester.ac.uk/discover/news/chances-of-hypersonic-travel-heat-up-with-new-materials-discovery/https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15836I wonder what that could be useful for :-D
A further £4m is going to Wescott in Buckinghamshire where rocket motors are built and tested.
but also:QuoteA further £4m is going to Wescott in Buckinghamshire where rocket motors are built and tested.At least I assume it's a new £4m, govt funding has a habit of being announced more than once ...
Quote from: oddbodd on 07/10/2017 06:19 amOh, look at that, a super ceramic :-)http://www.manchester.ac.uk/discover/news/chances-of-hypersonic-travel-heat-up-with-new-materials-discovery/https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15836I wonder what that could be useful for :-DUHTC have been under research since the early 60's. This stuff does not look like it's been on the usual list of materials studied. What's interesting is its much higher resistance to surface layer damage by high speed air flow and its ability to survive in an oxygen atmosphere. The other interesting thing is the use of "pack cementation" which is a relatively low tech (atmospheric pressure) way to infuse surface coatings, rather than say vapour deposition, which is usually done in very low pressures, which are a PITA to maintain. That said this tech is still probably decades away from being incorporated in an actual vehicle and is unnecessary for the Skylon concept, given SiC reinforced glass is already available and well characterized.
Nothing new from the talk apart from again confirming Skylon is well and truly on the back burner, he seemed to suggest at least 10/15 years away.
They are also exploring new areas of use for the heat exchanger and aim to set up a separate company to handle this development. They are also looking for further funding in the not too distant future.At the UK Space Conference I spoke to a Reaction Engines employee and he said the reduced size engine would run at mach 4.4/4.8, this would significantly reduce thermal stresses on the engine over a longer period of flight.This would allow the engine to run for longer periods with the ability to have short boost periods in rocket mode if needed, looking more and more like an engine for a high-speed reconnaissance aircraft.
Yes, I did question him on the use of the engine for long periods within the atmosphere.Although not referring to a high altitude aircraft using the engine, he did say running for long periods within theatmosphere would suit a lower Mach no ie 4.5/4.8, this would reduce thermal and stress loads on the engine.
Of course, the lapcat Scimitar engine was supposed to be able to cruise at Mach 5 for long periods of flight, could well be they now feel this reduced Mach no is better suited for multiple flights without major maintenance needed, who knows!.
There is already a discussion on Skylon (now on thread 6):https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40846.0
QuoteThere is already a discussion on Skylon (now on thread 6):https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40846.0I' not talking about Skylon. I'm talking about Skylon engineering breakthroughs into engine these days allowing for space planes, rocket/plane combo and single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO)Where in the past engine where just not powerful enough for space planes, rocket/plane combo and single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO).This is off topic for that thread.