The Reaction Engines Skylon/SABRE Master Thread (6)

[Archibald]

Wasn't US reuse only a secondary goal in the general architecture chronology, up to complete BFR pivot?
And how long have we been waiting for Skylon to materialize?

1989, when REL was funded. Or spring 1982 when Alan Bond started designing HOTOL.

[john smith 19]

Wasn't US reuse only a secondary goal in the general architecture chronology, up to complete BFR pivot?
And how long have we been waiting for Skylon to materialize?

No.
Regarding SX Musk stated from day one that he felt "I would have failed if I built a successful launch company but didn't achieve full reusability."
So it's been there since the founding. And SX released the full reuse of F9 video in 2011, which suggested they had a plan to do full reuse. Turns out they didn't.
They expect BFR will have full reuse because it's been a design priority since day one, although they'd clearly like to have full reuse of F9 in case BFR development isn't done by 2022.

[Lar]

(mod) Pretty sure this isn't a SpaceX thread. Or even a SpaceX vs. REL thread. So maybe not so much of that?

[JCRM]

I don't see why that's relevant. Building a runway is a solved problem, and there is demonstrable demand. An interest point is REL have been fishing for that big 10, 12, 15, 20 billion funding for 20 years.

It's relevant because large projects can get private funding on a large scale.

Do you know that as a fact, or are you just assuming it? Can they, even where it involves solved problems with proven demand, for an operation the state won't allow to fail

Now where did your  numbers for 15 and 20 billion come from, and in what currency were they quoted in?

various REL sources, various currencies.

I would also expect the consortium would have accumulated data necessary for leasing companies

how would leasing companies be able to gauge the demand for launches and thus make a judgement on the likelihood of a leaseholder being able to make their payments? If that's not what you meant why did you say "end user sales" not "operator sales" ?

You'd have to ask the leasing companies how they'd work out if this was a business they would want to get into.

following the airline model the information they need is demand. You claimed the leasing companies would gain the data they needed from the testing, but you claim that the testing wouldn't be used to demonstrate demand. So you need to answer that, or admit you made it up. What data did you think the testing would provide to the leasing companies?

Yes, and they do a market study to determine the demand of their proposed transport system, before working out production rates and amortisation of development costs over production run if they are doing it on a commercial basis. This is precisely what REL did in the S-ELSO paper, looking at a number of scenarios.

Actually it wasn't. This study might look that way but it was done soley from the PoV of European

No it wasn't. The S-ELSO scenarios were, but the commercial scenarios were not.

The "traffic model" which ELV companies obsess endlessly (because the mfg is also the sole operator) makes very little sense in Skylon mfg.

Once developed, the manufacturer doesn't care about traffic. But without a traffic to support the operators to generate the (pre)sales needed to repay the investment, getting a commercial investor to bite will prove difficult

Why exactly are you talking about Concorde? Is there a point your'e trying to make?

I'm sorry you weren't able to follow it, I'll try to make it simpler.

This is the point I was making about Concorde:

* For financial reasons, BA and Airfrance were very careful to make a loss on Concorde for a fixed period.

* Concorde gained a reputation for being loss making.

* There were no further orders for Concorde.

* There was no further development of supersonic airliners.

This is how it was relevant to a commercial Skylon developer:

* You said an oversupply of launchers wouldn't be a problem, because if a company went bust its Skylons could be sold at a discount to other operators.

* This would lead to further undercutting and further liquidations of the early adopters who could now no longer compete with the cheaper Skylons.¹
* If this came to pass Skylon would gain a reputation of being loss making.

* If Skylon gained a reputation as loss making it would not generate further sales.

¹Potential early adopters would not want to be caught like this, so would not buy Skylons if there was going to be an oversupply

Secondly early adopters will probably price at the going market rate or just below for expendable or semi expendable vehicles.

Well, duh. that's why the 70 million launch cost was used. That's roughly the current F9R price.
Wrong. IIRC SX are claiming reused F9 booster F9 are at $50m, about 41m Euros.

That's a very recent change. It was still being reported as 62 million earlier this year - with customers paying for extras not included in the "standard" deal

The question was wheather or not Skylon could continue to compete.and yes it can.

Do you know that for a fact, or are you just assuming it? having to compete at that lower price means operators need to sell 10 flights per Skylon per year, instead of the 3 they needed at $70m.

Maybe, maybe not. This boils down to "If you build it they will come."

Which is pretty much the argument around SLS and BFR as well. The difference is of course that BFR is currently funded [and] SLS is funded as a government jobs programme. .

Exactly,  BFR is currently funded [by the US government] [and] SLS is funded [by the US government]

You're more optimistic than REL, they have a 1/10,000 LOM goal

1 in 20 000.

OK, factor of two error. Hardly changes the argument.

How about it not being an ELV, so it can be test-flown, then once in-service inspected and maintained, and results of those processes being fed back into design improvements.

I see, you think VTO TSTO are not inherently unrelaible, it's just no one's been able to diagnose what's wrong with the US design because they've never had one back for study.

But VTO TSTO's have 3 events that have to work or the payload is destroyed. Stage separation, upper stage engine ignition and landling leg deployment. They are all dynamic events that have lots of parts that have to work each time, every time and they cannot be designed out. Any of them fail and the vehicle (and any payload on board) is toast.

REL have a 1 in 2000 LOV target. I guess cargo bay door actuation, undercarriage deployment and re-entry trim are all dynamic events that have lots of parts that have to work each time, every time and they cannot be designed out. Any of them fail and the vehicle (and any payload on board) is toast.

Noise won't be an issue as it won't be operated (except in emergency) from regular airports. [.quote]
SpaceX get away with sonic booms a few times a month, can you say that will still be the case when there are multiple flights a day?

Isn't that a question for SX to answer?

You were the one claiming noise wasn't a problem, not SpaceX, so you would need to answer it, or admit you made it up.

And which of those say you don't have to be able to sell enough flights at a high enough cost over the lifetime of the vehicle to pay for it, and make a profit.

The ones that say you should get first get a large USG contract to bankroll your development plans of course. That should be obvious.

Ah, OK, not commercial, Government. Good luck with doing that and remaining ITAR free, unless selling to non-US operators is no longer a goal.

I find it fascinating how the ELV delopment process has so infected people world view they simply cannot conceive of what a free market in launches would actually look like. where the USG doesn't just have a choice between Boeing and LM (the original plan behind EELV) but half a dozen?

Without the payloads, operators will fail, and the market will be reduced to a monopoly or strategically maintained duopoly and government backed suppliers. Just like the Airliner market. Just like the current launcher market until NASA started funding start-ups (which means it's not currently a free market)

Are you still thinking of 20 or more Skylons a year rolling off the prodution line to flood the market? You really need to get that idea out of your head. 

I already disproved that strawman. You really need to stop lying about what I said.

Just to be clear, you accept looking to develop Skylon will not resolve AraineGroup's issue of their flight rate not supporting reusability.

Isn't Arianegroup the manufacturer and Arianespace the launch services provider?

yes. It was them saying reusability wasn't sustainable, that started this thread you're having difficulty with.

Building Skylon would solve that problem. Turning out one or two a year (and maintaining the gradually increasing fleet) should keep the team employed.

Do you know that, or are you just assuming? continuing to produce ELVs is the cheaper in any budget cycle and far less risky choice for ArianeGroup, or do you somehow know more about the business than the head of ArianeGroup?

Arianespace would then become Europes "National carrier." I could see the French wanting one (independent access) and the British (because they are no longer part of Europe). 

Except ArianeSpace and ArianeGroup are already set up to maintain France's independent access, and the British remain part of ESA. Thatcher couldn't push a launch vehicle through so the current rabble have no chance.

Funny, airlines and freight haulers tend to lease their vehicles.

As I said, REL got a specialist in the aircraft leasing business to look at the market. I would expect them to be quite knowledgable on forecasting.

but somehow you know better,

it was a much more detailed study of the costs, from a position of more knowledge than the earlier estimate, took into account 10 years of inflation and being audited to make sure things weren't hand waved or missed out. Nobody forced REL to publish these figures.

Do you know this for a fact, or are you assuming this to be true?

I know that's what REL claimed.
You've repeatedly pointed out that when funded REL deliver what they say they will, when they say they will. Are you now claiming they, when funded to do the study, instead of putting in an accurate assessment of their costs decided to grossly over-estimate when putting in what effectively was their pitch for the next generation European launch system? Are you claiming the other work from that study A Technical Overview of a SKYLON-based European Launch Service Operator is also a fabrication?
If you can't trust what REL publish, why do you believe the preecoolers work?

I quite agree. A clue you should treat all cost models with a substantial amount of scepticism.

In both directions, SLS for example.

An operator needs to sell 3 flights a year at 70 million to make an acceptable to investors 10% profit. With 30 Skylons operating that's 90 launches a year - the current market isn't a third of that. What lease company or investor is going to finance the purchase of the tenth Skylon, let alone the thirtieth?

Again you seem to be talking in terms of RLV's but thinking in terms of ELV's. Can you simply not help yourself? You can't understand the difference between a factory productin a couple of RLV's a year versus a factory churning out ELV's to be used once and thrown away?

You simply don't understand that with a lifespan of 20 years and 200 flights, producing 2 Skylons a yea means that in the 15th year there are 30 operational Skylons needing each needing to fly 10 times a year. (because you moved the goalpost to making a profit at 41m Euros per launch instead of 70)

Again 30 Skylons is the number after decades of production.
Why are you so intent on this Doomsday, big bang scenario of the market being suddenly saturated with Skylons?

If there are 70 orbital launches a year, at two Skylons constructed per year it they have saturated the market after only 4 years, assuming the two exisiting suppliers with fully reusable launchers already in development just roll over. Just how elastic do you believe the market is?

Another strawman:

construction rate of two a year

And this time it's yours. You're starting to sound quite like a troll.[/quote]Where's my strawman? I just pointing out I said "two a year" on the 6th of June. You're the one who chose to wilfully interpret "sales of 20" when discussing a 200 flight test program to mean "sales of 20 Skylons" not "sales of 20 flights" - which could have been a failure of understanding, except you continued to repeat the strawman after I pointed out that was not what I meant.

Where are you getting this 30 Skylons from? Why do you think it? IIRC REL were talking about mfg that number over a 10-20 year period, allowing the market to adjust to the increased capability.

30 is the S-ELSO "commercial 1" case, also used by REL elsewhere. At two Skylons a year, that's 15 years - slap bang in the middle of your 10-20 years. Why are you trying to make it seem I suggested a ridiculous construction rate?

even if he had other customers at a modest construction rate of two a year would mean he needed to be servicing launch operators dealing in a market of 60 [extra] launches a year by his third year of construction. Skylon does not answer Alain Charmeau's issue with reusability, QED.

So we are not looking at 30 Skylons made within a year of production starting then?
I hear the sound of goal posts being dug up and moved.

liar. I never said 30 Skylons made within a year. Look at the date on the piece you quoted, 6th of June - you started misrepresenting me on the 25th of June, and you repeated it on the 27th of June after I pointed out you had misinterpreted what I'd said when you claimed you though I meant sales of 20 a year.

Could you make a point instead of implying it?

the point is your claims of 20 or 30 Skylons built or sold in a year is a strawman

What is the question?

There is no question, I'm pointing out your dishonesty

Who is going to buy the 10th Skylon when their competitors already have 5 years operating experience, has had the opportunity to retire their infrastructure costs at higher launch prices and so will be able to undercut the new companies costs? There has to be enough launch demand that race to the bottom pricing isn't inevitable.

You're other mistake is seeming to assume the launch market is 1 single playing field, despite all evidence that it's not.
I'd expect the later purchasers would be those who've watched others prove Skylon works but want on-demand space access under their control.

Is that the sound of goalposts being dug up and moved. You claimed the business model was to get contractually bound sales in to persuade the investor - how could that happen if they were waiting to see other operators fly?

Skylon gives you a country a LV under their control at a viable price without committing to a massive supply chain and long development programme. It gives them something infinitly better than than they would likely be able to achieve on their own.

but for 1.5 billion they could buy 30 launches, which is enough to see the country into it's next budget cycle, or if Musk is to be believed develop their own ELV stimulating their own economies technology.
But yes, selling to such governments is part of the commercial models in S-ELSO, (which for some reason you claim is European only)

BTW I'd expected Skylon funding per vehicle to be supplied by customers in stages, like other LV's or other large capital expenditures are paid for.

Oh, so suddenly it's NOT "Just like every other mfg of transport systems "

Wrong. It's like every other transport system of comparable or bigger size.

Right, so its not "Just like every other mfg of transport systems" glad that's sorted"

  (and even space launches) are all paid for in stages.

At what part of the development program do you expect potential operators to start handing over money? and how much? 30 customers paying 100 million up front wouldn't even pay for the SABRE development costs.

They haven't delivered on upper stage recovery or reuse and IRL the BFR is 8-10 years away and it's payload is 7.5x bigger than F9 to LEO.

SpaceX don't need to deliver on upper stage reuse to get their costs down to the point that they could undercut fledgling Skylon operators. They haven't delivered on block 5 reuse levels yet but given there's nothing particularly new it is likely enough they will achieve those that the risk/reward proposition for Skylon is made worse. That BFR is touted as being able to launch for less than Skylon adds enough risk to make the reduced reward insufficient for investment

Skylon operators can do things SX can't, and probably never will.
1) On demand launch. If you own a Skylon you launch on your schedule, not in 6, or 12 or more months time.

Yet SpaceX aims to be able to relaunch within 24 hours and have an airline like operations

2) If you don't and you have several operators you can choose one, based on availabiliity and what level of added value they supply (funny how an actual free market works is it not?)

there is already a choice of operators, designing for a common envelope is common practice

3) You don't have the USG as a partner due to ITAR restrictions.
For quite a lot of people those are benefits (and many other ELV providers) cannot ever provide.

Is that the sound of goalposts being dug up and moved? earlier you said getting serious US Government funding was a good route

As for SX's repeated claims they can do something I'll keep waiting for US reuse, just I've been waiting since 2011.

You do realise how stupid that looks in a topic about Skylon, right?

[JCRM]

And now for something completely different

[Chris Bergin]

It's both funny and wrong this particular subject is so rowdy. And I really don't get the SpaceX element to all of this.

Look, there have been a few times I've wanted to shut this down, but I simply can't as I've loved Skylon since back in my Shuttle days. Heck, I go back as far as Hotol. We've (UK) always been a bit tinpot with space vehicles and while we're now doing well on the satellite side, this subject would absolutely make the world stand up if we starting flying with it.

So, I really, REALLY want everyone to put down their handbags and just accept some people are going to have different opinions. I'm not even going to trim this thread and other members will see handbags swinging and the only person who will come off badly will be that person posting such things.

I'm going to lock this thread and start a new one. And I don't care if you're a 12 year old kid, a lifetime L2 member, someone working on SABRE, or Boris Johnson (heh - buffon), if you breach the forum rules on civility and conduct, it'll be your last post on here.

Are we all clear on that? Good.

New thread:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45914.0