Quote from: francesco nicoli on 11/29/2015 11:38 amCouldn't skylon carry a weapon optimized for re-entry up to orbit, and release the warhead just above target?In just the same way as any other launch vehicle could?
Couldn't skylon carry a weapon optimized for re-entry up to orbit, and release the warhead just above target?
I'm definetively not an expert, but with a 15 T payload, Couldn't skylon carry a weapon optimized for re-entry up to orbit, and release the warhead just above target?
I meant that it that it couldn't both be true the Skylon could be successful in providing point to point transport and at same time fail to provide the lowest priced orbital launch and that the logical conclusion of success at point to point transport is in the long term development of dedicated hypersonic air transport using the same Skylon derived technology which for the reasons stated means that it really can't be true that Sklyon derived systems could prove superior at revolutionising air travel but fail to be better at orbital launch than staged reusable rockets, i.e. the statement doesn't make any sense.
It could be true if Falcon ends up cheaper at a moderately high flight rate than Skylon does at a very high flight rate. That doesn't seem especially likely to me, but we don't actually know yet...
Quote from: francesco nicoli on 11/29/2015 11:38 amI'm definetively not an expert, but with a 15 T payload, Couldn't skylon carry a weapon optimized for re-entry up to orbit, and release the warhead just above target?True, but as others have pointed out it's a very expensive way to carry out this task and if you have the skills (and funding) to do it anyway you already have the means to carry much more cost effective forms of warfare. Quote from: lkm on 11/27/2015 04:19 pmI meant that it that it couldn't both be true the Skylon could be successful in providing point to point transport and at same time fail to provide the lowest priced orbital launch and that the logical conclusion of success at point to point transport is in the long term development of dedicated hypersonic air transport using the same Skylon derived technology which for the reasons stated means that it really can't be true that Sklyon derived systems could prove superior at revolutionising air travel but fail to be better at orbital launch than staged reusable rockets, i.e. the statement doesn't make any sense.Yes I'd agree with that. REL's focus has been orbital launch. It seems to believe they would succeed at something that was not their core focus, but fail at their core goal.Quote from: 93143 on 11/27/2015 09:23 pmIt could be true if Falcon ends up cheaper at a moderately high flight rate than Skylon does at a very high flight rate. That doesn't seem especially likely to me, but we don't actually know yet...Good point. But let's keep in mind the Skylon consortium will sell Skylons. It's up to the operators what the launch rate is
Quote from: john smith 19 on 11/29/2015 05:45 pmQuote from: francesco nicoli on 11/29/2015 11:38 amI'm definetively not an expert, but with a 15 T payload, Couldn't skylon carry a weapon optimized for re-entry up to orbit, and release the warhead just above target?True, but as others have pointed out it's a very expensive way to carry out this task and if you have the skills (and funding) to do it anyway you already have the means to carry much more cost effective forms of warfare. Quote from: lkm on 11/27/2015 04:19 pmI meant that it that it couldn't both be true the Skylon could be successful in providing point to point transport and at same time fail to provide the lowest priced orbital launch and that the logical conclusion of success at point to point transport is in the long term development of dedicated hypersonic air transport using the same Skylon derived technology which for the reasons stated means that it really can't be true that Sklyon derived systems could prove superior at revolutionising air travel but fail to be better at orbital launch than staged reusable rockets, i.e. the statement doesn't make any sense.Yes I'd agree with that. REL's focus has been orbital launch. It seems to believe they would succeed at something that was not their core focus, but fail at their core goal.Quote from: 93143 on 11/27/2015 09:23 pmIt could be true if Falcon ends up cheaper at a moderately high flight rate than Skylon does at a very high flight rate. That doesn't seem especially likely to me, but we don't actually know yet...Good point. But let's keep in mind the Skylon consortium will sell Skylons. It's up to the operators what the launch rate isAn if the Skylon operator is truly ruthless they will massively undercut SpaceX prices , drive them into bankruptcy and then raise their prices to cover the cost of launches and buying new Skylons. It the ruthless, no prisoner approach to the space business. Whether this is entirely possible depends on whether the US military would use such an skylon operator even if they are based in the US and under US management. We have seen the US military go the expensive option even where are cheaper ones available just so they could keep their friends in employment. An wouldn't put it pass congress from banning Skylon from US airspace to protect US rocket manufacturers or banning Skylon operators from being able to bid on US military satellite contract either.
Talking about decimating SpaceX? Skylon is over a decade away from being operational, if it even flies at all.
Quote from: JCRM on 11/29/2015 12:06 pmQuote from: francesco nicoli on 11/29/2015 11:38 amCouldn't skylon carry a weapon optimized for re-entry up to orbit, and release the warhead just above target?In just the same way as any other launch vehicle could?Yes. Russia, the USA, and a few other countries already have several thousand of these.The ICBM killed off the strategic nuclear bomber 50 years ago. Skylon won't bring it back.
“This is a really versatile propulsion system that we’re developing. It is an air-breathing rocket engine that can go from zero to five times the speed of sound and for the space-access variant, 25 times the speed of sound, and has a huge range of operation. The other advantage of this engine is that it’s highly scaleable.”The ability to up or down-size the concept is undoubtedly a trump card.
New article on Skylon.Interestingly, Mark Thomas emphasizes that the SABRE engine is highly scalable, and continues the trend of inviting the press to talk about vehicle concepts in addition to Skylon...Quote“This is a really versatile propulsion system that we’re developing. It is an air-breathing rocket engine that can go from zero to five times the speed of sound and for the space-access variant, 25 times the speed of sound, and has a huge range of operation. The other advantage of this engine is that it’s highly scaleable.”The ability to up or down-size the concept is undoubtedly a trump card.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/engineering/12023867/British-technology-company-to-transform-air-and-space-travel-with-pioneering-new-engine-design.html
Quote from: knowles2 on 11/30/2015 09:04 pmQuote from: john smith 19 on 11/29/2015 05:45 pmQuote from: francesco nicoli on 11/29/2015 11:38 amI'm definetively not an expert, but with a 15 T payload, Couldn't skylon carry a weapon optimized for re-entry up to orbit, and release the warhead just above target?True, but as others have pointed out it's a very expensive way to carry out this task and if you have the skills (and funding) to do it anyway you already have the means to carry much more cost effective forms of warfare. Quote from: lkm on 11/27/2015 04:19 pmI meant that it that it couldn't both be true the Skylon could be successful in providing point to point transport and at same time fail to provide the lowest priced orbital launch and that the logical conclusion of success at point to point transport is in the long term development of dedicated hypersonic air transport using the same Skylon derived technology which for the reasons stated means that it really can't be true that Sklyon derived systems could prove superior at revolutionising air travel but fail to be better at orbital launch than staged reusable rockets, i.e. the statement doesn't make any sense.Yes I'd agree with that. REL's focus has been orbital launch. It seems to believe they would succeed at something that was not their core focus, but fail at their core goal.Quote from: 93143 on 11/27/2015 09:23 pmIt could be true if Falcon ends up cheaper at a moderately high flight rate than Skylon does at a very high flight rate. That doesn't seem especially likely to me, but we don't actually know yet...Good point. But let's keep in mind the Skylon consortium will sell Skylons. It's up to the operators what the launch rate isAn if the Skylon operator is truly ruthless they will massively undercut SpaceX prices , drive them into bankruptcy and then raise their prices to cover the cost of launches and buying new Skylons. It the ruthless, no prisoner approach to the space business. Whether this is entirely possible depends on whether the US military would use such an skylon operator even if they are based in the US and under US management. We have seen the US military go the expensive option even where are cheaper ones available just so they could keep their friends in employment. An wouldn't put it pass congress from banning Skylon from US airspace to protect US rocket manufacturers or banning Skylon operators from being able to bid on US military satellite contract either.Talking about decimating SpaceX? Skylon is over a decade away from being operational, if it even flies at all.
While I agree Skylon would not be used as a bomber, we have to get our facts straight. ICBMs did not kill off the strategic nuclear bomber 50 years ago. Russia and the US still have strategic bombers today that carry nuclear weapons.
Rather than banning Skylons from US, they will attempt to prevent unfriendly countries from acquiring them!
Quote from: RonM on 12/01/2015 04:01 amWhile I agree Skylon would not be used as a bomber, we have to get our facts straight. ICBMs did not kill off the strategic nuclear bomber 50 years ago. Russia and the US still have strategic bombers today that carry nuclear weapons.Then the question would then be how many current B52 and B2 missions are flying nuclear weapons?My guess is few or none, just as the USN stopped carriers carrying nuclear bombs
Quote from: Robotbeat on 11/26/2015 07:14 pmSkylon's biggest market potential is point-to-point transport. I know that's not how it's designed, but it dwarfs the orbital launch market (which they're probably going to lose to the likes of SpaceX and Blue Origin anyway).Do not forget the potential market for point to point delivery of 200lb warheads. While it might be nice to imagine investors looking towards space, I'm sure investors BAE is looking at Skylon and thinking 'mach 5 cruise missile' or '150,000ft bomber'. If the engine works, and can be made to work on something a little more practical, like methane (which it supposedly can) then that is something they can sell to a lot of customers, whether the space business works out or not.
Skylon's biggest market potential is point-to-point transport. I know that's not how it's designed, but it dwarfs the orbital launch market (which they're probably going to lose to the likes of SpaceX and Blue Origin anyway).
Quote from: ANTIcarrot on 11/28/2015 09:50 pmIf the engine works, and can be made to work on something a little more practical, like methane (which it supposedly can) Do you have a source for that? To the best of my knowledge the cryogenic aspect is an essential part of the design, both as a form of stored energy (in addition to the calorific value) and as a heat sink
If the engine works, and can be made to work on something a little more practical, like methane (which it supposedly can)
by the way, Reuters had a story on Skylon as well yesterdayhttp://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/30/us-rocket-engine-space-plane-idUSKBN0TJ19U20151130
60 million pounds ($.4 million USD)
up to 20 times the speed of sound if it's going into orbit
high-vacuum braise