Umm... yes.LVs are also the only transport systems I am aware of that expose their cargo to multiple g's of acceleration during most of the transport time and Skylon will be no exception to this, won't it?
Also, all other transport systems I'm aware of tend to require you to surround your sensitive cargo with extensive packaging which is usually there to mitigate the effects of even much more benign transport conditions and from which the cargo is then carefully being unwrapped after shipment.
So it occurs to me that Skylon will still look much more in common with traditional LVs than with traditional air transport if it comes to cargo interfaces.
The shuttle mounting was very configurable - trunion mounts and keel points could be bolted between (almost?) any pair of ribs. The Skylon concept has a forward mounting position and a rear mounting position, in both cases the three trunion mount design will have a very clearly defined specification of what you can put in it.
One area of the SKYLON airframe that was refined as part of the S-ELSO Study was the payload interfaces. There were two reasons for reconsidering at the interface design. The first reason was that pre- study work by 42 Technology Limited suggested the previous design as defined in Issue 1 of the SKYLON Users’ Manual could be optimised to both reduce mass and reduce the load coupling. This design goal of the interface only carrying the payload inertial loads was considered important as it was hoped that the need for coupled structure analysis of payload and launcher could be eliminatedThey are a problem if one is trying to adopt a airline-like operational model.
I think that was more a problem than a strength. The mounting hardware in the different locations was unique, multiplying the number of simulation runs needed to see if a certain set of payloads would be OK, or if they would interact badly.
Interesting choice of phrase since it neatly excludes all carrier landings and take offs. AFAIk the Grumman C2 Greyhound subjects it's payload (about 4 tonnes of passengers and cargo) to about 2.25g for about 3 secs without any special design.
Except accleration is one of those things you can't shield the insides of the payload from, so packaging has limited use.
As always with these questions it's a matter of how much Skylon resembles an ELV and how much it resembles an aircraft.
The simple answer is it resembles an aircraft a lot more than Shuttle did and it's very unlike an ELV.
No your comments were a bizarre strawman argument involving supporting the drum in a washing machine, that somehow didn't need supporting when being thrown around on top of a rocket.
A shipping container is the standardised form factor for flying things in a plane. The three trunion mount is the standardised form factor for flying things in Skylon. The SPLC concept is intented to allow existing bus designs to be flown with little modification, by acting as an adaptor.
It appears to have a dust cover. It appears to be mounted to the container by the same interface the launch vehicle will use. No signs of extensive packaging to me.
The LEO facility that straps them to a Fluyt to get them where they're going
The claim made was that packaging wouldn't be used to support the internals of a payload (the context being of a launch vehicle payload that wouldn't be processed on orbit)
But absolutely, the payload has to be designed to handle the load environment. For a washing machine being moved when not in use this involves removable spacers.
Seriously LV's are the only transport systems that often require the cargo to be redesigned multiple times because it could be shaken to bits, or cause it's carrier can be shaken to bits by the resonance it can excite back into the carrier vehicle.
I don't expect it to visually look like a shipping container, I expect it to look like three trunions - but I expect the operations around it to resemble the operations around a shipping container, i.e. a well understood form factor with reasonable tolerences and defined load environment that is easy to handle in a routine and automated way.
the launch vehicle interface appears to be on the front-right side in the second picture - and it appears to me that that is where the spacecraft is being secured to the base. As the picture shows the cover being lowered I'm not sure there are any further restraints - there might be some on what would be the top when it is vertical, but I'd be surprised if that was designed to be load bearing.
There are further restraints and not just on LV interface. One on end opposite of the LV interface and at the base of the container.Been around many spacecraft and containers.
1. I'm curious. Do people load payload propellant on the pad anymore? 2. I know OMS/RCS loading for Shuttle was mandated that way but AIUI the propellant systems for payloads are designed to eliminate any leak path from the tanks or vapors getting into the system to corrode it before launch with an actual barrier in the flow path that needs to be punctured by a pyrovalve to allow flow to start. [EDIT Likewise AIUI once the system is filled it's fill points are also sealed ] 3. Since Skylon has no hypergols in it's design I'd wonder just how "hazardous" would such an area be, although if people are using solids there's always a risk of unexpected ignition.
1. There are still a few and the upper stages load ACS propellant at the pad.2. It is not a puncture and not all are pyro.3. There are still leak paths and precautions are taken around fueled spacecraft no matter where they are.
1. Interesting. I'll note Skylon COP is built built around using the Skylon Upper Stage for BEO missions. It would probably have propellant loading done at the fueling apron along with the main tanks. IIRC it's ACS is designed to go with GH2/GO2 propellants. The problem would then be if a customer insisted on using a storable upper stage which was not delivered to the payload loading area fueled. I'd be very surprised at anyone wanting to do this. 2. Personally I'm glad some builders are moving away from pyro systems if possible. I understand they're reliability record is excellent but the shock signatures hammer everything in their immediate vicinity and depending on range rules you could end up installing them on the pad, which looks like a PITA. I still find it hard to believe Shuttle had 300 of them. 3. However it's done it was my understanding that SOP for hypergolic systems is that there is a physical barrier between the tanks and the rest of the system, and possibly another one just upstream of the thrust chambers to prevent any sort of atmospheric attack during long term storage.
Quote from: t43562 on 08/01/2015 06:56 amIt seems to me that there could be a chance for REL to develop something which would not be economically worthwhile if done by themselves but might be militarily worthwhile to the USAF.How could one turn up one's nose at a chance to try out some aspects of Skylon/Sabre without needing to go directly to a $10 billion SSTO? It could be a godsend.That might control what aspects the engine demonstrator has to be most realistic about, how much money has to be spent on it and where.That's my view why turn down money to develop technology that may eventually help you achieve your commercial aims.My only fear is the USAF 'locking up' some vital technology for their use only.
It seems to me that there could be a chance for REL to develop something which would not be economically worthwhile if done by themselves but might be militarily worthwhile to the USAF.How could one turn up one's nose at a chance to try out some aspects of Skylon/Sabre without needing to go directly to a $10 billion SSTO? It could be a godsend.That might control what aspects the engine demonstrator has to be most realistic about, how much money has to be spent on it and where.
1. It's the spacecraft with all the hyperbolas
2. Spacecraft still use a lot of them and the range doesn't require them to installed at the pad. Don't know where you got that info.
3. Yes,they are called valves.
think contrarian....who says the USAF doesn't have this technology ? Maybe the USAF needs a way to bring the tech out to the public without compromising the program.
Quote from: Prober on 12/12/2015 04:27 pmthink contrarian....who says the USAF doesn't have this technology ? Maybe the USAF needs a way to bring the tech out to the public without compromising the program.What a very special view of the world you do have. This is not physics, it's engineering. Anyone could have most of this technology if they were willing to spend the time and money (and by USAF the money was tiny) to develop it.But nobody has and the USAF and spent billions on the X30 programme instead, which was 3x bigger han REL's entire projected next phase budget and delivered nothing in return IE yet another SCRamjet engine attempt.
Quote from: Jim on 12/11/2015 12:08 am1. It's the spacecraft with all the hyperbolasThat doesn't make sense. Can you explain it further?2. Mostly thinking of the Shuttle launch procedure. I just remembered Ariane does not mandate this and I guess outside of NASA it's not that common.
1. One point of the Skylon concept, as I understand it, is avoidance of hypergols and other similarly difficult fluids. 2. Whether installation or activation, individual manual work on pyrotechnics is bad for quick and affordable launch. On that point an electro-mechanical release that doesn't need personal attention for each launch has a great advantage.