Next Gen Shuttle-Capable vehicle interest as secret effort to save orbiters ends

[Namechange User]

There was also this little clue.  I was watching to see if anyone would ask any further questions on the matter.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24479.msg837509#msg837509

[Chris Bergin]

Well spotted! Yes, that didn't break any embargo, but also avoided me lying to my readership for the past few months.

Obviously I don't have to use it anymore, as they are 100 percent retired, no more last ditch attempts.

You mean 100% from any flight service?

Yep. Unless you count flying on the back of the SCA

[RocketmanUS]

The U.S. should have plans again private or goverment funded for a U.S. space plane , whether single or two stage to orbit.

Why?

Low cost , fast turn around, build LEO infrastructure for LEO, GSO, and BEO operations.

Why would the U.S.A want to be left behind? Should we not want low cost and rapid space access? And America has the ability to make it happen too! Is it not time finally the human race reaches for space well beyond LEO? Lots of plans out there, time to put them in action without all the debats every time we turn around. Once we have multiple cheap and rapid access to LEO then things can pick up if the same old politics stays out of the way.

It cost more to spread plans over a long period of time. It just seems lower because of the lower per year cost to set up , develop. The longer it takes to build something , then the longer it takes to start getting a return on that investment. And how often it is used.

[Jim]

The U.S. should have plans again private or goverment funded for a U.S. space plane , whether single or two stage to orbit.

Why?

Low cost , fast turn around, build LEO infrastructure for LEO, GSO, and BEO operations.

A space plane does not guarantee any of those.  Also, there is not the flight rate to support one.

[RocketmanUS]

The U.S. should have plans again private or goverment funded for a U.S. space plane , whether single or two stage to orbit.

Why?

Low cost , fast turn around, build LEO infrastructure for LEO, GSO, and BEO operations.

A space plane does not guarantee any of those.  Also, there is not the flight rate to support one.

Then why would people be trying to build the Skylon?

[astrobrian]

Yep. Unless you count flying on the back of the SCA

We'll count that!  Just say from on orbit ops instead.........

[paycom]

Further to the business case assumption: I think there is enough of an indication now that there is a market for space, in whatever form that may take: industrial R&D, aeronautics reasearch, specialized manufacturing, bio-chemical & bio-medical testing, military (including and above the aforementioned), and lastly: tourism (very small market comparably)

NASA offers experiment capabilities to US companies in the scope of the ISS National Lab Program, but a lot of the capabilities are not used.
On the Russian side OKA-T was delayed because there were not enough commercial customers

[Namechange User]

NASA offers experiment capabilities to US companies in the scope of the ISS National Lab Program, but a lot of the capabilities are not used.

That's because of the regulations that one is required to overcome to do business on ISS.  In order to spur true commercial activity, the first thing NASA should have done is reduce this red-tape in order to help the commercial companies that are trying to do commercial vehicles do not just become a government contract only hauling a crew or two every year. 

CASIS was *supposed* to be that in many respects but it has been slow to implement, somewhat later than it should have been and is likely consumed with politics.  We'll see how that goes but I am not holding my breath. 

[93143]

Since when is Skylon more than powerpoint?

Since 2009 (IIRC) when the development program started in earnest.  Even before that they had a fairly detailed design, but lately they've been testing a subscale precooler in a Viper rig, and last month they finished building the modules for their precooler tech demonstration programme.  They're also working on the D1 design revision, which is supposed to be a full-fledged detailed design.  An ESA review found no impediments to a successful program, and sufficient investment is lined up pending positive test results.  Skylon is way more than just powerpoint.

[Lars_J]

Since when is Skylon more than powerpoint?

Since 2009 (IIRC) when the development program started in earnest.  Even before that they had a fairly detailed design, but lately they've been testing a subscale precooler in a Viper rig, and last month they finished building the modules for their precooler tech demonstration programme.  They're also working on the D1 design revision, which is supposed to be a full-fledged detailed design.  An ESA review found no impediments to a successful program, and sufficient investment is lined up pending positive test results.  Skylon is way more than just powerpoint.

Any sources?

[aga]

Since when is Skylon more than powerpoint?

Since 2009 (IIRC) when the development program started in earnest.  Even before that they had a fairly detailed design, but lately they've been testing a subscale precooler in a Viper rig, and last month they finished building the modules for their precooler tech demonstration programme.  They're also working on the D1 design revision, which is supposed to be a full-fledged detailed design.  An ESA review found no impediments to a successful program, and sufficient investment is lined up pending positive test results.  Skylon is way more than just powerpoint.

Any sources?

REL page contains some info:
eg. news section of the page: http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/news_nov11.html
then skylon section: http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/skylon.html

and quite a lot of information is here, on the forum, in skylon thread with Mark Hempsell (Future Programmes Director from REL) participating and answering: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24621.435

i'm sure i've forgotten some links and sources, but hopefully this is enough for start...

[ukrocketman]

Since when is Skylon more than powerpoint?

Since 2009 (IIRC) when the development program started in earnest.  Even before that they had a fairly detailed design, but lately they've been testing a subscale precooler in a Viper rig, and last month they finished building the modules for their precooler tech demonstration programme.  They're also working on the D1 design revision, which is supposed to be a full-fledged detailed design.  An ESA review found no impediments to a successful program, and sufficient investment is lined up pending positive test results.  Skylon is way more than just powerpoint.

Any sources?

I've never quite understood the way people refer to the work on SKYLON as a "powerpoint project" when there are plenty of photographs of hardware on the Reaction Engines website.

The work I have been involved with is first referenced here:

http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/news_dec08.html

although bending metal started earlier in 2007. If that is a powerpoint slide, you're welcome to put your hand in the rocket exhaust :-)

That is merely one of the development programmes underway, and was completed by July 2011, as shown here:

http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/news_jul11.html

Again, if you want to come and put your hand in the exhaust to check if it is a powerpoint slide, I'm sure something can be arranged (as long as you sign a waiver of course ;-)  )

The first heat exchanger tests were undertaken in the mid 1990s. That is real, hardware heat exchanger tests, not powerpoint slides. I'm not involved in the heat exchanger side of the engine, so all I can do is direct you to this:

http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/news_sep11.html

Again, hardly a powerpoint slide. A lot of work has gone into the manufacture of those heat exchanger modules, and testing has been undertaken on this:

http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/news_jun11.html

Now these are just some examples of the hardware that has been developed over the years. There is far more hardware development that I don't know about (my involvement has been on the rocket end so to speak), but I can think of the testing that was carried out on the Oxygen cooled test rocket engine as another area that was certainly not a powerpoint slide.

The most recent news shows the last heat exchanger module being delivered...

http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/news_nov11.html

So, in terms of sources, apart from the fact that some of the team read and post to NASAspaceflight.com (most notably myself and Mark Hempsell), there are a whole bunch of what are quite clearly photos rather than powerpoint slides listed in the links above.

As I said to start, I really don't understand where this idea that the project is just powerpoint slides has come from, when photos are openly published on the Reaction Engines website. It is also frustrating for those of us who have worked long hours on the hardware.

[93143]

It was not my intention to imply that no hardware work had been done before '09 (or whenever the development timer started; I can't remember where I heard the date and can therefore not check it).  However, I wanted to make allowance for the fact that before adequate funding and support was secured to move the project forward into this phase, it could be argued that Lars_J had something resembling a point, in that the concept appeared to be stuck in the "interesting concept no one wants to pay for" phase.

My apologies if I've misrepresented anything here.

[ukrocketman]

It was not my intention to imply that no hardware work had been done before '09 (or whenever the development timer started; I can't remember where I heard the date and can therefore not check it).  However, I wanted to make allowance for the fact that before adequate funding and support was secured to move the project forward into this phase, it could be argued that Lars_J had something resembling a point, in that the concept appeared to be stuck in the "interesting concept no one wants to pay for" phase.

My apologies if I've misrepresented anything here.

Oh gosh no. My point was to Lars_J regarding the powerpoint comments. Reading your comments, I am always impressed at how well informed you are on Reaction Engines developments. Really good comments.

In terms of hardware development, when I first got involved in 2007, the low speed cryogenic wind tunnel was in one of their labs and I believe had been in operation since 2001, I remember a completed precooler module already manufactured in the lab, and a great deal of work had gone on previously with the jet engine which was used for testing various aspects for SABRE, aswell as the Hydrogen heat exchanger. I'd guess that these hadn't happened overnight, but the development and test work even at that point had happened over several previous years - the B9 test facility is of reasonable size.

I'll ask Mark Hempsell, but not on the 26th of December, because he'll probably shoot me if I phone him up the day after Christmas :-)

[SimonShuttle]

Would probably say you're best to remember this is a massive site, and one person, who's known for being against anything that isn't SpaceX, is not something you'd need to react to (no pun intended)

But maybe this site should cover your vehicle some more. After all Chris is English

[Lars_J]

Since when is Skylon more than powerpoint?

Since 2009 (IIRC) when the development program started in earnest.  Even before that they had a fairly detailed design, but lately they've been testing a subscale precooler in a Viper rig, and last month they finished building the modules for their precooler tech demonstration programme.  They're also working on the D1 design revision, which is supposed to be a full-fledged detailed design.  An ESA review found no impediments to a successful program, and sufficient investment is lined up pending positive test results.  Skylon is way more than just powerpoint.

Any sources?

...
As I said to start, I really don't understand where this idea that the project is just powerpoint slides has come from, when photos are openly published on the Reaction Engines website. It is also frustrating for those of us who have worked long hours on the hardware.

Thanks for the links, urocketman! The 'powerpoint' comment was uncalled for - sorry about that - but I guess it comes from a point of skepticism after hearing about this project for so many years.

I realize you are funding starved, which leads to a chicken&egg "what came first" predicament (can't attract funding without progress, no progress without funding). But when no flyable hardware is in sight after so long, one starts to get skeptical.

But best of luck!

[jongoff]

NASA offers experiment capabilities to US companies in the scope of the ISS National Lab Program, but a lot of the capabilities are not used.

That's because of the regulations that one is required to overcome to do business on ISS.  In order to spur true commercial activity, the first thing NASA should have done is reduce this red-tape in order to help the commercial companies that are trying to do commercial vehicles do not just become a government contract only hauling a crew or two every year. 

CASIS was *supposed* to be that in many respects but it has been slow to implement, somewhat later than it should have been and is likely consumed with politics.  We'll see how that goes but I am not holding my breath. 

+1

[Jim]

It is also telling that Marshall and Johnson have not seen similar losses. It is clear that KSC will be a ghost town for the next five years while development is done elsewhere.

Not true, Commercial Crew and LSP are doing well.

[RocketJack]

It is also telling that Marshall and Johnson have not seen similar losses. It is clear that KSC will be a ghost town for the next five years while development is done elsewhere.

Not true, Commercial Crew and LSP are doing well.

$80 million for LSP. Maybe $400 million for Comm Crew (which is a flow through) - small potatoes...

[HIP2BSQRE]

Why did the company start so late in doing due diligence in regard to the shuttle?  It has been known for years that they were going to be retired approx 2011???  Why did they not contact NASA in January 2011 and ask about the status of the shuttle???  Are there any market conditions that have changed in the last year that anyone can see that we need a shuttle that a capsule cannot be used??   Lets assume the company can fly a shuttle for $200 million per flight as cost--what new/existing market(s) can you generate enough revenue to cover your costs and make some profit?? Remember this company was prepared to spend billions of dollars on the shuttle with it flying 4 times a year.  Remember the reason they are not going foward is not so technical but infrastructure is not now available due to SLS.

Lots of questions...very few answers...