The Reaction Engines Skylon/SABRE Master Thread (6)

[john smith 19]

A few years back I mentioned that they should test a "scaled down" engine as was done with with NASA/Lockheed Martin Linear Aerospike SR-71 Experiment (LASRE) and was told that it was not needed. I'm glad the Air Force agrees with me. Hopefully it will lead to an inflight test as well...
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/history/pastprojects/SR71/Lasre/index.html

There is no indication that the USAF is with you. They are talking about the first stage of a 2 stage launch system, not a prototype test of anything.

NASA were never able to get LASRE to ignite in flight.  It was another part of the X33 programme they could not get to work.

I think we all want an inflight test.

[adrianwyard]

http://m.aviationweek.com/technology/reaction-engines-refines-hypersonic-engine-demonstrator-plan

There’s a lot of interesting new info in this article, and as many points are supported by Mark Thomas quotes, it's authoritative. To summarize it would probably require a post that’s just as long but here are a few highlights:

+ REL are no longer working on a full size SABRE test engine - this F135-sized demonstrator is it. 44Klb of thrust.
+ They considered an even smaller demonstrator, but decided this is the sweet-spot - the sort of thing that could fit in an F35 or X-plane.
+ The graphical depiction of this small engine has precooler, plumbing, and a single nozzle, i.e no bypass burner, but this may be artistic license as the bypass is mentioned in the description of test plans.
+ They are embracing the concept of modularity rather than scaling. So if an application needs more thrust, add more engines.
+ Construction and some testing will be done in the UK, but quoting Thomas on ITAR: “Designing and making an article here in the UK for testing may result in that article remaining in the U.S., and we are fine with that. If that gets the job done and puts results in the hands of decision-makers, that is a price we would be willing to pay.” 
+ There is mention of the methanol/anti-icing technology which IIRC means it will be closer to SABRE 3 than SABRE 4.

This is all very exciting indeed for REL and the technology itself, but something else is implicit: Skylon/SSTO is no longer the focus for Reaction Engines. in fact judging from this article alone, I’d guess that Skylon is effectively dead, or at least won't be looked at again until the early 2020s. And those commenters who predicted military applications of SABRE would come to the foreground have been proven right.

[Star One]

http://m.aviationweek.com/technology/reaction-engines-refines-hypersonic-engine-demonstrator-plan

There’s a lot of interesting new info in this article, and as many points are supported by Mark Thomas quotes, it's authoritative. To summarize it would probably require a post that’s just as long but here are a few highlights:

+ REL are no longer working on a full size SABRE test engine - this F135-sized demonstrator is it. 44Klb of thrust.
+ They considered an even smaller demonstrator, but decided this is the sweet-spot - the sort of thing that could fit in an F35 or X-plane.
+ The graphical depiction of this small engine has precooler, plumbing, and a single nozzle, i.e no bypass burner, but this may be artistic license as the bypass is mentioned in the description of test plans.
+ They are embracing the concept of modularity rather than scaling. So if an application needs more thrust, add more engines.
+ Construction and some testing will be done in the UK, but quoting Thomas on ITAR: “Designing and making an article here in the UK for testing may result in that article remaining in the U.S., and we are fine with that. If that gets the job done and puts results in the hands of decision-makers, that is a price we would be willing to pay.”
+ There is mention of the methanol/anti-icing technology which IIRC means it will be closer to SABRE 3 than SABRE 4.

This is all very exciting indeed for REL and the technology itself, but something else is implicit: Skylon/SSTO is no longer the focus for Reaction Engines. in fact judging from this article alone, I’d guess that Skylon is effectively dead, or at least won't be looked at again until the early 2020s. And those commenters who predicted military applications of SABRE would come to the foreground have been proven right.

As to your last point in my mind this was utterly inevitable as soon as BAE took a stake in REL. It's been clear for a little while that they have little to no interest in Skylon at this time or the near future, their eyes have been firmly set on the USAF.

[CrewtaiL]

+ Construction and some testing will be done in the UK, but quoting Thomas on ITAR: “Designing and making an article here in the UK for testing may result in that article remaining in the U.S., and we are fine with that. If that gets the job done and puts results in the hands of decision-makers, that is a price we would be willing to pay.”

Could you expand a little on what this means, please. Not sure I've grasped the implications (of ITAR) vis-a-vis technology transfer in a situation as described above by Thomas.

[Rocket Science]

A few years back I mentioned that they should test a "scaled down" engine as was done with with NASA/Lockheed Martin Linear Aerospike SR-71 Experiment (LASRE) and was told that it was not needed. I'm glad the Air Force agrees with me. Hopefully it will lead to an inflight test as well...
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/history/pastprojects/SR71/Lasre/index.html

There is no indication that the USAF is with you. They are talking about the first stage of a 2 stage launch system, not a prototype test of anything.

NASA were never able to get LASRE to ignite in flight.  It was another part of the X33 programme they could not get to work.

I think we all want an inflight test.

All I'm speaking about John is a "scaled down" engine "size wise" as was LASRE... nothing more... Engine worked good on the ground.   I'm looking forward to the scaled ground test as the engine fascinates me technically... I still hope the USAF is with me though in protecting it's citizens...

[john smith 19]

As to your last point in my mind this was utterly inevitable as soon as BAE took a stake in REL. It's been clear for a little while that they have little to no interest in Skylon at this time or the near future, their eyes have been firmly set on the USAF.

While anything that gets to a flight demonstration is better than nothing this will do little, if anything to lower the cost of launch to orbit, which was a key part of the Skylon business model. The recurring cost will converge on the refurb cost + upper stage new build cost of the US, just like any other design based on this architecture. 

[adrianwyard]

+ Construction and some testing will be done in the UK, but quoting Thomas on ITAR: “Designing and making an article here in the UK for testing may result in that article remaining in the U.S., and we are fine with that. If that gets the job done and puts results in the hands of decision-makers, that is a price we would be willing to pay.”

Could you expand a little on what this means, please. Not sure I've grasped the implications (of ITAR).

ITAR is Internation Traffic in Arms Regulations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations

It's complicated, so others may chime in, but in essence: since SABRE has clear military/missile applications, ITAR means once the US is involved 'exports' are prohibited, even to the UK, and even if it originated there.

EDIT:
It's not clear to me what would happen to test data gathered in the US. Would that be restricted to REL's US subsidiary?

[CrewtaiL]

ITAR is Internation Traffic in Arms Regulations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations

It's complicated, so others may chime in, but in essence: since SABRE has clear military/missile applications, ITAR means once the US is involved 'exports' are prohibited, even to the UK, and even if it originated there.

EDIT:
It's not clear to me what would happen to test data gathered in the US. Would that be restricted to REL's US subsidiary?
[/quote]

Thanks for your reply.

I still don't understand the statement made by Mr Thomas. He says that an article designed and made in the UK may result in permanent relocation to the US and that that's a price worth paying. What exactly is he referring to by the word 'price' and why would it be worth paying? And what would this mean for transfer of proprietary knowledge?

I realise these are pretty basic, if not outright stupid, questions but it's driving me nuts trying to parse his words sans a proper grasp of ITAR/the industry.

Also, as this is only my second post, I'd just like to thank everybody for their contribution to this forum and thread - been a reader for a while.

[john smith 19]

It's complicated, so others may chime in, but in essence: since SABRE has clear military/missile applications, ITAR means once the US is involved 'exports' are prohibited, even to the UK, and even if it originated there.

Indeed. The classic case was in the early 90's when the former USSR shipped over a couple of (inert) space reactors and the US would not "export" IE return them to the country that sent them in the first place.

EDIT:
It's not clear to me what would happen to test data gathered in the US. Would that be restricted to REL's US subsidiary?

That's likely to be tricky too. There's nothing like ITAR to make any foreign national in such a meeting feel like they have suddenly become North Korean. 

[adrianwyard]

ITAR is Internation Traffic in Arms Regulations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations

It's complicated, so others may chime in, but in essence: since SABRE has clear military/missile applications, ITAR means once the US is involved 'exports' are prohibited, even to the UK, and even if it originated there.

EDIT:
It's not clear to me what would happen to test data gathered in the US. Would that be restricted to REL's US subsidiary?

Thanks for your reply.

I still don't understand the statement made by Mr Thomas. He says that an article designed and made in the UK may result in permanent relocation to the US and that that's a price worth paying. What exactly is he referring to by the word 'price' and why would it be worth paying? And what would this mean for transfer of proprietary knowledge?

I realise these are pretty basic, if not outright stupid, questions but it's driving me nuts trying to parse his words sans a proper grasp of ITAR/the industry.

Also, as this is only my second post, I'd just like to thank everybody for their contribution to this forum and thread - been a reader for a while.

I think he's just saying if testing had to be done in the US to convince the USAF to continue involvement and/or funding, then the 'price' of dealing with ITAR restrictions would be worth it. The price would not be in terms of cash but rather the hassle - and perhaps REL Ltd not even being able to see the results of tests performed on REL supplied hardware.

[Asteroza]

ITAR is all about dual-use technology "contamination" from a US export perspective, irrespective of origin.

It's why a NASA presentation on martian balloons had to be censored. It's why there are mercs sometimes guarding cubesat payloads outside the US.

 It's also why there is an entire space hardware industry around ITAR-free tagged hardware, because once a part becomes contaminated, the entire vehicle comes under ITAR administration. And contamination includes transfer of technical information.

Which means a test article sent to the US effectively can not return, and there is the distinct possibility that the test result data itself will be governed under ITAR, meaning it will be unavailable to REL UK (at least without backtainting REL UK work). It really is gambling with the devil.

There is a distinct economic interest in SABRE not becoming ITAR tainted, on a european and a general/global basis.

[adrianwyard]

The window for substantial European investment has been open for decades, so can we really blame REL for taking the USAF/ITAR gamble?

[john smith 19]

The window for substantial European investment has been open for decades, so can we really blame REL for taking the USAF/ITAR gamble?

And REL have resisted choosing it for decades, until BAE became an investor.

[Turbomotive]

The window for substantial European investment has been open for decades, so can we really blame REL for taking the USAF/ITAR gamble?

Agree - ESA could have conceivably been more enthusiastic about Skylon as the next-gen launch system. Instead, CNES ensured it would be Ariane 6.

It's hard to say this, but my interest in this topic has waned since the military-industrial complex got on board. C'est la vie.

[john smith 19]

Agree - ESA could have conceivably been more enthusiastic about Skylon as the next-gen launch system. Instead, CNES ensured it would be Ariane 6.

I think ESA's as supportive as they could have been given they have a mandate to ensure European space access to members payloads.

SABRESkylons problem was always funding. As engineers they are very reluctant to sell what they don't have, unlike the computer industry, where this has been a regular occurrence.

[Alpha_Centauri]

I'm sorry but the belief someone is just going to hand over $12 Billion-odd to develop the whole industrial chain for some vapourware is delusional in the extreme.

For Skylon to ever happen then the steps need to be reduced both in cost and risk. There needs to be an industrial chain working on hypersonic SABRE-based vehicles. Working on a more sensible scale grows that industry and makes the jump to Skylon less steep.

[john smith 19]

I'm sorry but the belief someone is just going to hand over $12 Billion-odd to develop the whole industrial chain for some vapourware is delusional in the extreme.

And yet that's pretty much what LM are looking to do with the SR72.

However that was never REL's belief, as anyone who'd looked into them for more than five minutes would know.

REL have never been "given" funding. They have earned it because when fully funded they have delivered what they promised, roughly when they promised it.  Unlike the Chairman of BAE the Chairman of REL could not walk into the Prime Ministers office and ask how the application for government funding was going, nor could they threaten to close a factory unless they got the contract for some new piece of military kit which would perform with the usual level of efficiency for which BAE's products are justly known. 

For Skylon to ever happen then the steps need to be reduced both in cost and risk.

What did you think the point of the full size pre cooler module demonstration was for exactly? The same question would apply to all the other side projects they have been involved in relating to other parts of the engine. 

There needs to be an industrial chain working on hypersonic SABRE-based vehicles.

Actually there is, it's just not specific to Skylon (how could it be ?)

Working on a more sensible scale grows that industry and makes the jump to Skylon less steep.

Something like the "sensibly" sized ITS perhaps?

[Lars-J]

Working on a more sensible scale grows that industry and makes the jump to Skylon less steep.

Something like the "sensibly" sized ITS perhaps?

Yes, but at least there the company has experience in developing launch vehicles, *and* have landed boosters. It is no larger jump really than the one from F1 to F9.

REL never did their F1.

[knowles2]

Sadly it lack of ambition from UK investors means this engine and technology is likely end up buried in black programs and US secrecy. 

[knowles2]

ITAR is Internation Traffic in Arms Regulations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations

It's complicated, so others may chime in, but in essence: since SABRE has clear military/missile applications, ITAR means once the US is involved 'exports' are prohibited, even to the UK, and even if it originated there.

EDIT:
It's not clear to me what would happen to test data gathered in the US. Would that be restricted to REL's US subsidiary?

Thanks for your reply.

I still don't understand the statement made by Mr Thomas. He says that an article designed and made in the UK may result in permanent relocation to the US and that that's a price worth paying. What exactly is he referring to by the word 'price' and why would it be worth paying? And what would this mean for transfer of proprietary knowledge?

I realise these are pretty basic, if not outright stupid, questions but it's driving me nuts trying to parse his words sans a proper grasp of ITAR/the industry.

Also, as this is only my second post, I'd just like to thank everybody for their contribution to this forum and thread - been a reader for a while.

I think he's just saying if testing had to be done in the US to convince the USAF to continue involvement and/or funding, then the 'price' of dealing with ITAR restrictions would be worth it. The price would not be in terms of cash but rather the hassle - and perhaps REL Ltd not even being able to see the results of tests performed on REL supplied hardware.

Let just hope they get planning permission for their new test facility, if a larger one is needed then the neccessary money to build one in somewhere like South Africa or Australia if there isn't the space in the UK.

Hopefully in a ideal world Rel in a couple of years can turn around to USAF and say if they want an engine to test they have to buy one, cost plus contracts, with a lot plus added on top to help Rel keep developing the technology.