The Reaction Engines Skylon/SABRE Master Thread (6)

[john smith 19]

they still seem interested in doing a flight vehicle, which I'm pretty curious about, given how tough a single engine LH2 fueled vehicle is.

What's (particularly) tough about a single hydrogen engine test vehicle? Center of mass can be handled by ballast (or ballast tanks if dynamic control is needed)

Single engines make balance difficult. Cryogenic propellants make wing tanks virtually impossible (although that would be a great X plane).  the DRACO study I referred to in  advanced concepts for a skylon FV wrapped a LO2 tank around the engine duct.  LH2 would be much harder.

[CrewtaiL]

New presentation, I believe

https://www.airpower.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Dr-Robert-Bond-presentation.pdf

[Archibald]

Now that's funny. Alan Bond has just retired, and there come another Bond. Unbelievable. They should really rebrand Skylon as... Moonraker 

[john smith 19]

Now that's funny. Alan Bond has just retired, and there come another Bond. Unbelievable. They should really rebrand Skylon as... Moonraker 

I think you'll find that's Alan's son.

Given the Moonraker in the novel was a LF2 fueled ICBM I'd say not. 

[Star One]

Now that's funny. Alan Bond has just retired, and there come another Bond. Unbelievable. They should really rebrand Skylon as... Moonraker 

I think you'll find that's Alan's son.

Given the Moonraker in the novel was a LF2 fueled ICBM I'd say not. 

I automatically assumed it was probably his son because of the surname.

[JCRM]

New presentation, I believe

https://www.airpower.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Dr-Robert-Bond-presentation.pdf

Unsurprisingly defence focused, given the audience.

Now that's funny. Alan Bond has just retired, and there come another Bond.

He's been on the board for 10 years, and co-authored the 2011 progress on Skylon paper. Hardly a new arrival.

[Hermit]

Dr. Robert Bond is not his son. Purely coincidence.

[CrewtaiL]

From https://www.theengineer.co.uk/leading-rolls-royce-polishing-jewel/

"Back with propulsion technologies, Rolls-Royce recently announced that it was among a group of investors taking stakes in Reaction Engines, the Oxfordshire-based company developing an air-breathing hybrid engine that can act like a jet in atmosphere and a rocket in space. This is an example of technology going full circle, Stein commented, as technology originated with thermodynamicist Alan Bond as part of a project called Hotol some 30 years ago. The company is working with Reaction Engines on developing “quite a large number of technologies,” Stein said."

[john smith 19]

From https://www.theengineer.co.uk/leading-rolls-royce-polishing-jewel/

"Back with propulsion technologies, Rolls-Royce recently announced that it was among a group of investors taking stakes in Reaction Engines, the Oxfordshire-based company developing an air-breathing hybrid engine that can act like a jet in atmosphere and a rocket in space. This is an example of technology going full circle, Stein commented, as technology originated with thermodynamicist Alan Bond as part of a project called Hotol some 30 years ago. The company is working with Reaction Engines on developing “quite a large number of technologies,” Stein said."

Well there's an intriguing throwaway comment.

Dr. Robert Bond is not his son. Purely coincidence.

Odd, as I'm sure someone had said they'd hired his son.

[john smith 19]

Reaction Engines will be at Farmborough this year
https://www.reactionengines.co.uk/farnborough-international-air-show-2018/

Monday, 16th July 2018  until: Sunday, 22nd July 2018

Hall 4 and the Space Zone. (Hall 1?)

Is it too early to ask if anyone will be attending?

[Soundbite]

I don't know if anyone has noticed this, but Alain Charmeau CEO of Ariane Group was interviewed by Der Spiegel on the 18 May 2018 and complained that SpaceX is being subsidised by NASA and US Government contracts see https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/8kbgvj/alain_charmeau_chief_of_ariane_group_the/ and https://www.nasdaq.com/article/europe-complains-spacex-rocket-prices-are-too-cheap-to-beat-cm972488. It appears as if he doesn't see how Ariane 6 or any future reusable rocket can compete with SpaceX prices.

And then I noticed this https://twitter.com/reactionengines?lang=en and scroll down to May 15 where there are two pictures of the presentation documents for Space Propulsion 2018. At the bottom of the picture showing the Sabre engine is a list of partners working with Reaction Engines.  Apart from the expected ones like ESA, UK Space Agency, Airborne Engineering, Rolls Royce and BAe Systems etc... There is ARIANE GROUP... Interesting!!

[john smith 19]

I don't know if anyone has noticed this, but Alain Charmeau CEO of Ariane Group was interviewed by Der Spiegel on the 18 May 2018 and complained that SpaceX is being subsidised by NASA and US Government contracts see https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/8kbgvj/alain_charmeau_chief_of_ariane_group_the/ and https://www.nasdaq.com/article/europe-complains-spacex-rocket-prices-are-too-cheap-to-beat-cm972488. It appears as if he doesn't see how Ariane 6 or any future reusable rocket can compete with SpaceX prices.

Charmeau's comments have been widely discussed on the ESA forum, although it's now locked.

His point was he couldn't see how there was a business case at the present launch volume.  If you do the math you can see why, given the cost of development under BAU for a European LV.

And then I noticed this https://twitter.com/reactionengines?lang=en and scroll down to May 15 where there are two pictures of the presentation documents for Space Propulsion 2018. At the bottom of the picture showing the Sabre engine is a list of partners working with Reaction Engines.  Apart from the expected ones like ESA, UK Space Agency, Airborne Engineering, Rolls Royce and BAe Systems etc... There is ARIANE GROUP... Interesting!!

"Partners" can mean many things.   

Obviously if you're looking to design a full RLV input from someone who operates current ELV's can help you understand what the real issues of a design are in terms of maintainability, operability etc.

Arianspace's A5 pad team was viewed as an industry leader in terms of small size and fast turnaround. Since SABRE is currently expected to be a LOX/LH2 engine (as is Vulcain 1, 2 and Vinci) they would be relevant people to talk to regarding handling issues (things they do well, and things they'd like to see made easier).

Beyond that, sadly, A6 is a done deal.

[Soundbite]

Obviously if you're looking to design a full RLV input from someone who operates current ELV's can help you understand what the real issues of a design are in terms of maintainability, operability etc.

Arianspace's A5 pad team was viewed as an industry leader in terms of small size and fast turnaround. Since SABRE is currently expected to be a LOX/LH2 engine (as is Vulcain 1, 2 and Vinci) they would be relevant people to talk to regarding handling issues (things they do well, and things they'd like to see made easier).

Beyond that, sadly, A6 is a done deal.

I understand that and I recognise that A6 is a done deal. I also recognise that they are talking to Ariane Group to use one of their turbopumps for TF1. However, if Ariane Group CEO is being told by his engineers that they won't be able to match SpaceX prices even if they go down the reusability route (e.g. prometheus rocket engine), it would be remiss of him not to direct some of his staff to look for alternative routes to launcher profitability.

[JCRM]

And then I noticed this https://twitter.com/reactionengines?lang=en and scroll down to May 15 where there are two pictures of the presentation documents for Space Propulsion 2018. At the bottom of the picture showing the Sabre engine is a list of partners working with Reaction Engines.  Apart from the expected ones like ESA, UK Space Agency, Airborne Engineering, Rolls Royce and BAe Systems etc... There is ARIANE GROUP... Interesting!!

ESA, Beyern-Chemie, Boeing, UKSA, Rolls-Royce, BAS Systems, ArianeGroup, Air Liquide, Frazer-Nash Consultancy, DARPA, Airborne Engineering, ITP Aero

[JCRM]

However, if Ariane Group CEO is being told by his engineers that they won't be able to match SpaceX prices even if they go down the reusability route (e.g. prometheus rocket engine), it would be remiss of him not to direct some of his staff to look for alternative routes to launcher profitability.

Skylon is unlikely to be available for a decade, if ever, and would be a high up front cost - the facilities for Skylon would cost Arianespace over a billion Euros - but that would be dwarfed by the 8 billion each Skylon price (assuming an initial orderbook of 4 and a prior 5 billion research subsidy). At 10 launches a year it would be a long time before it was profitable. This isn't where they should be looking now.
^{figures from "A Business Analysis of a SKYLON-based European Launch Service Operator" Hempsel et al,  65th International Astronautical Congress (IAC 2014)}

[john smith 19]

I understand that and I recognise that A6 is a done deal. I also recognise that they are talking to Ariane Group to use one of their turbopumps for TF1. However, if Ariane Group CEO is being told by his engineers that they won't be able to match SpaceX prices even if they go down the reusability route (e.g. prometheus rocket engine), it would be remiss of him not to direct some of his staff to look for alternative routes to launcher profitability.

Good point about the turbopump. I suspect it's from Vinci, not vulcain and REL will supply operating data back to Ariane Group. Partners contributing resources and sharing the results. 

I think what he actually said was reusaiblity was not profitable at the flight rate he expects.

This is the key issue of the single mfg/single operator model. I suspect if say Boeing also operated the aircraft it built (and had to fund the development programme from ticket sales) they would have built many fewer aircraft.

But Ariane 7 could be a very different beast.

[Star One]

However, if Ariane Group CEO is being told by his engineers that they won't be able to match SpaceX prices even if they go down the reusability route (e.g. prometheus rocket engine), it would be remiss of him not to direct some of his staff to look for alternative routes to launcher profitability.

Skylon is unlikely to be available for a decade, if ever, and would be a high up front cost - the facilities for Skylon woud cost Arianespace over a billion Euros - but that would be dwarfed by the 8 billion each Skylon price (assuming an initial orderbook of 4 and a prior 5 billion research subsidy). At 10 launches a year it would be a long time before it was profitable. This isn't where they should be looking now.

Please provide some sources for these cost figures?

[john smith 19]

Skylon is unlikely to be available for a decade, if ever, and would be a high up front cost - the facilities for Skylon would cost Arianespace over a billion Euros -

You're talking about an orbital capable runway that would probably be shared by all Skylon operators.

but that would be dwarfed by the 8 billion each Skylon price (assuming an initial orderbook of 4 and a prior 5 billion research subsidy). At 10 launches a year it would be a long time before it was profitable. This isn't where they should be looking now.
^{figures from "A Business Analysis of a SKYLON-based European Launch Service Operator" Hempsel et al,  65th International Astronautical Congress (IAC 2014)}

Perhaps we should see what the abstract from the people who led the study says

https://londoneconomics.co.uk/blog/publication/a-business-analysis-of-a-skylon-based-european-launch-service-operator-january-2016/
Highlights
    An architecture for a European launch service based on Skylon was created.
    Study used ESA׳s market model for Next Generation Launch system.
    Separate business models for Skylon manufacturer and operator were produced.
    Low internal rates of return from manufacturer suggest a Public Private Partnership.
    Internal rates of return from operator indicate a commercial venture is possible.

Between 2012 and 2014 an industrial consortium led by Reaction Engines conducted a feasibility study for the European Space Agency with the objective to explore the feasibility of SKYLON as the basis for a launcher that meets the requirements established for the Next Generation European Launcher. SKYLON is a fully reusable single stage to orbit launch system that is enabled by the unique performance characteristic of the Synergetic Air-Breathing Rocket Engine and is under active development. The purpose of the study which was called “SKYLON-based European Launch Service Operator (S-ELSO)” was to support ESA decision making on launch service strategy by exploring the potential implications of this new launch system on future European launch capability and the European industry that supports it. The study explored both a SKYLON operator (S-ELSO) and SKYLON manufacturer as separate business ventures. In keeping with previous studies, the only strategy that was found that kept the purchase price of the SKYLON low enough for a viable operator business was to follow an “airline” business model where the manufacturer sells SKYLONs to other operators in addition to S-ELSO. With the assumptions made in the study it was found that the SKYLON manufacturer with a total production run of between 30 and 100 SKYLONs could expect an Internal Rate of Return of around 10%. This was judged too low for all the funding to come from commercial funding sources, but is sufficiently high for a Public Private Partnership. The S-ELSO business model showed that the Internal Rate of Return would be high enough to consider operating without public support (i.e. commercial in operation, irrespective of any public funding of development), even when the average launch price is lowered to match the lowest currently quoted price for expendable systems.

IOW the numbers you  are quoting are very much a worst case scenario.

The problem with the "aircraft" model is that no current launch services provider is independent of its supplier. The nature of BTO TSTO bases LV's suggests they never will be.
So their development and build costs are intimately linked to their launch prices.

In contrast the aircraft construction industry concentrates on building aircraft that fulfill a market sector.
The "traffic model" is entirely down to the aircraft operators AKA the "Airlines" as to how they fill those vehicles, what classes of service they offer, what routes they operate etc.

The world does not need yet another ELV.
What it wants (but has so far not been offered ) is a self contained, fully reusable launch system under the control of the nations (or corporations, or individuals) who want this capability.

Skylon uses breakthroughs in technology to leverage breakthroughs in operations to give breakthroughs in pricing

That's the difference between building a better horse buggy (in a world of horse buggies) and a Ford Model T.

[JCRM]

Skylon is unlikely to be available for a decade, if ever, and would be a high up front cost - the facilities for Skylon would cost Arianespace over a billion Euros -

You're talking about an orbital capable runway that would probably be shared by all Skylon operators.

but that would be dwarfed by the 8 billion each Skylon price (assuming an initial orderbook of 4 and a prior 5 billion research subsidy). At 10 launches a year it would be a long time before it was profitable. This isn't where they should be looking now.
^{figures from "A Business Analysis of a SKYLON-based European Launch Service Operator" Hempsel et al,  65th International Astronautical Congress (IAC 2014)}

Perhaps we should see what the abstract from the people who led the study says

https://londoneconomics.co.uk/blog/publication/a-business-analysis-of-a-skylon-based-european-launch-service-operator-january-2016/
Highlights
    An architecture for a European launch service based on Skylon was created.
    Study used ESA׳s market model for Next Generation Launch system.
    Separate business models for Skylon manufacturer and operator were produced.
    Low internal rates of return from manufacturer suggest a Public Private Partnership.
    Internal rates of return from operator indicate a commercial venture is possible.

With the assumptions made in the study it was found that the SKYLON manufacturer with a total production run of between 30 and 100 SKYLONs could expect an Internal Rate of Return of around 10%. This was judged too low for all the funding to come from commercial funding sources,

IOW the numbers you  are quoting are very much a worst case scenario.

No, the worst case scenario is the 18 billion per Skylon, for a 2 unit production run with no research subsidy. The S-ELSO "pessimistic", "nominal" and "optimistic" cases all call for two Skylons - I had to reach for the "Growth" case for a four Skylon price, assuming a second operator would acquire the other two. (IOW I was being more optimistic than Arianespace shold be - 4 suggests 40 Skylon launches per year - which would pretty much saturate the current market (given the existing fly American rules).

But let's be a little more optimistic, and look at S-ELSO4, the most optimistic of the sole-operator cases presented - an order of 10 Skylons (100 launches a year), the price drops to 3.4 billion Euros, so 1 billion for the runway, 7 billion for a pair of skylons, at ten launches a year for 10 years thats still 80 million per launch in assets alone - and doesn't include the 1.8 billion Euros for a second launch facility.

The study shows, even at the pessimisticrate, a profit can be made at 41.5 billion per launch over 20 years.

Skylon uses breakthroughs in technology to leverage breakthroughs in operations to give breakthroughs in pricing

Operations will allow a higher flight rate which will allow lower prices, but only if the flight rate increases.

I think Skylon (or something better, it's a baseline after all) is the right way to go, but it doesn't make business sense for Arianespace to pursue it at this time. Somebody has got to build it first, and that's where ESA might have come in.

[Star One]

Skylon is unlikely to be available for a decade, if ever, and would be a high up front cost - the facilities for Skylon would cost Arianespace over a billion Euros -

You're talking about an orbital capable runway that would probably be shared by all Skylon operators.

but that would be dwarfed by the 8 billion each Skylon price (assuming an initial orderbook of 4 and a prior 5 billion research subsidy). At 10 launches a year it would be a long time before it was profitable. This isn't where they should be looking now.
^{figures from "A Business Analysis of a SKYLON-based European Launch Service Operator" Hempsel et al,  65th International Astronautical Congress (IAC 2014)}

Perhaps we should see what the abstract from the people who led the study says

https://londoneconomics.co.uk/blog/publication/a-business-analysis-of-a-skylon-based-european-launch-service-operator-january-2016/
Highlights
    An architecture for a European launch service based on Skylon was created.
    Study used ESA׳s market model for Next Generation Launch system.
    Separate business models for Skylon manufacturer and operator were produced.
    Low internal rates of return from manufacturer suggest a Public Private Partnership.
    Internal rates of return from operator indicate a commercial venture is possible.

With the assumptions made in the study it was found that the SKYLON manufacturer with a total production run of between 30 and 100 SKYLONs could expect an Internal Rate of Return of around 10%. This was judged too low for all the funding to come from commercial funding sources,

IOW the numbers you  are quoting are very much a worst case scenario.

No, the worst case scenario is the 18 billion per Skylon, for a 2 unit production run with no research subsidy.

ESA's decisions tend to be conservative, so I chose 4 as that suggests 40 Skylon launches per year - which would pretty much saturate the current market (given the existing fly American rules).

But let's be a little more optimistic - an orderbook of 10 Skylons (100 launches a year), the price drops to 3.4 billion Euros, so 1 billion for the runway, 7 billion for a pair of skylons, at ten launches a year for 10 years thats still 80 million per launch in assets alone - and doesn't include the 1.8 billion Euros for a second launch facility.

Skylon uses breakthroughs in technology to leverage breakthroughs in operations to give breakthroughs in pricing

Operations will allow a higher flight rate which will allow lower prices, but only if the flight rate increases.

I think Skylon (or something better, it's a baseline after all) is the right way to go, but it doesn't make business sense for Arianespace to pursue it at this time. Somebody has got to build it first, and that's where ESA might have come in.

ESA do not build launchers.