The Skylon concept presents a freight company model, but the manual makes mention of Launch control, Facilities, Range Safety and Mission ControlDoes anyone have a feel for how these would be sized in relation to those needed for current launch vehicles?
To keep operations costs down you need to minimize the expense of ground facilities and crew relative to the number of vehicles flying. There will be a massive reduction from STS in ground crew for a vehicle, as well as turn around time, or Skylon will be a failure economically.
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. ...Of course, if a mystery launch provider could somehow do this, then SpaceX (backed by Google, or perhaps from constellation revenue) could do the same thing....except it's preposterous and clearly violates WTO rules, for either SpaceX or some mystery Skylon operator. Sounds like a very good way to lose billions of dollars for basically no gain (countries maintain independent launch capability for national security purposes, so one provider will never be able to totally drive everyone else out and develop a monopoly).
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. ...
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
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...
I was wondering what the first Skylon should be called. I hope this is not too trivial for this forum. Given the difficulties. I was thinking of e.g.Dauntless...or IndomitableBut I am sure you can do better.
Or no one will buy a Skylon because they'll be taking a huge risk.Reaction Engines and their partners will necessarily HAVE to operate Skylon for quite a while before they'll sell any.
Skylon operation would be closer to the normal airport style of working with shared facilities between different carriers/operatorsThe airport and facilities including traffic control, range safety, etc. would probably be owned by a separate company, with the operators leasing hangars and facilities and paying fees for take off and landing slots, like how existing airports operate.It'll be interesting to see how mission control is implemented as each mission profile would be unique to each Skylon launch. Perhaps mission control would be run by the space-port, with the help of operator specialists and representatives for each mission. Alternately if mission control is only a few people, then each carrier could have one, with spaceport traffic control just authorising take-offs and landings and parking/refuelling slots.
While I might expect to have such facilities I doubt they would be on the scale of any a conventional launch system.
there is a difference in theory, and there is a difference for Skylon according with REL own plans. You might not like them, you might believe they are unrealistic and that "reality" today is different, but then again if anything that differs from how things are done today is unrealistic for the simple fact that they are not done today, why do you even bother about Skylon?
REL's achievement lies in designing a thermodynamically more efficient engine cycle
Quote from: john smith 19 on 12/03/2015 02:09 pmWhile I might expect to have such facilities I doubt they would be on the scale of any a conventional launch system. They very likely will be on the same scale. Hangars, propellant storage, payload processing facilities would be the same.
Quote from: lkm on 12/02/2015 11:19 pmREL's achievement lies in designing a thermodynamically more efficient engine cycle What "achievement"? They yet to build one much operate one.
Quote from: francesco nicoli on 12/02/2015 11:01 pmthere is a difference in theory, and there is a difference for Skylon according with REL own plans. You might not like them, you might believe they are unrealistic and that "reality" today is different, but then again if anything that differs from how things are done today is unrealistic for the simple fact that they are not done today, why do you even bother about Skylon? You are right. I shouldn't bother since there is too much nonsense, unsupported conjecture and flat out just wrong statements on this thread. Much of it should be in the scifi section because it isn't reality or come close to it.
Did I say they had built one? I said they had designed an engine cycle and built a heat exchanger which they indisputably have done and which multiple institutions such as ESA, AFRL, DSTL, UKSA, BAE and DLR seem to recognize as an achievement worth noting and/or funding, you may not consider it an achievement warranting praise but clearly these things have been achieved by the company and praise is not a necessary condition of achievement.