Hello, this is my first post in this forum. I've been following this thread for years now, just reading. It accompanied me along my physics studies. I was thrilled by the Skylon idea. I would like to thank the participants of this discussion, I have learned a lot from you. I must confess that I'm a little Bit sad that the Skylon project seems to have come to an end. Does anyone see a silver lining on the horizon? I mean, I'm not working for the aerospace industry, but I was always hoping for a regular space access in my lifetime. Sorry for this quite emotional post. Greetings from Germany
It must be because I am from the southern hemisphere or something but to be honest some naughty pejoratives (is that the word?) keep springing to mind about the attitude towards "things not being perfectly as I'd like them" that some from the mother country seem to have. Up till now Skylon has been dead because they haven't been able to do anything about it other than talk and demonstrate some tubes. I thought the 360 million (+-) that they claimed ot have lined up was likely to turn into crap because money that's promised is never to be counted on for more than microseconds and I was depressed when that deficit became obvious about a year ago or slightly more because that really seemed like an end. Now is when it starts to live. To me it seems the opposite way around - now their technology will step up the TRL levels and an SSTO becomes more likely rather than less. I do like seeing the committed fans of other systems considerately holding your hands and directing you to the exit - that is really funny. :-)
Quote from: t43562 on 09/29/2016 12:39 pmIt must be because I am from the southern hemisphere or something but to be honest some naughty pejoratives (is that the word?) keep springing to mind about the attitude towards "things not being perfectly as I'd like them" that some from the mother country seem to have. Up till now Skylon has been dead because they haven't been able to do anything about it other than talk and demonstrate some tubes. I thought the 360 million (+-) that they claimed ot have lined up was likely to turn into crap because money that's promised is never to be counted on for more than microseconds and I was depressed when that deficit became obvious about a year ago or slightly more because that really seemed like an end. Now is when it starts to live. To me it seems the opposite way around - now their technology will step up the TRL levels and an SSTO becomes more likely rather than less. I do like seeing the committed fans of other systems considerately holding your hands and directing you to the exit - that is really funny. :-)Yes, with research money from the USAF, SABRE technology will be tested. That brings us closer to Skylon or something like it in the future.Some people might be upset that SABRE has been sold out to the "American Empire" but who other than the Pentagon could afford to do this? Last time I checked the US was still an ally of the UK.
There's no way the UK would be stupid enough to give this technology to another country, even one as friendly as the US, especially post-Brexit.
The same way the US refuses to sell the F22 to allies, instead offering the F35, and even then without access to the software code/proprietary knowledge, the UK should make available, say, the Sabre 2/3 variant only, and preclude all transfer of technical know-how.
Quote from: CrewtaiL on 09/29/2016 04:08 pmThere's no way the UK would be stupid enough to give this technology to another country, even one as friendly as the US, especially post-Brexit. "The UK" is the British Government. They did not develop this technology and they barely (belatedly) part funded it, with AFAIK no control of the IP. They cannot therefor stop it happening. When Bond developed the original cycle while working for Rolls Royce the UK Govt of the time classified it so it could not be talked about and RR could not get non British partners. REL spent a lot of effort designing around the patent, making it much more efficient in the process.QuoteThe same way the US refuses to sell the F22 to allies, instead offering the F35, and even then without access to the software code/proprietary knowledge, the UK should make available, say, the Sabre 2/3 variant only, and preclude all transfer of technical know-how.The mfg process for the pre cooler is very complex and is a critical technology. Designing a heat exchanger to extract X watts in a size of Y Kg is fairly easy. Implementing it is much tougher.
The Wright brothers tried to get the US government interested in their aircraft and finally said fine we'll take it to Europe. France was really interested and you know what? The first American pilots flew French planes as America had no top line fighters, just training aircraft in WWI...
Quote from: Rocket Science on 09/29/2016 08:26 pmThe Wright brothers tried to get the US government interested in their aircraft and finally said fine we'll take it to Europe. France was really interested and you know what? The first American pilots flew French planes as America had no top line fighters, just training aircraft in WWI...The US aviation situation was a direct result of the Wright's patent litigations, (specifically the fight with Curtiss but also a general attempt to gain a 10 year monopoly through those patents) That fell flat outside the US with most nations refusing to pursue the numerous Wright "patent infringement" cases against their own innovators. And the reason the Army was less than thrilled with the Wright flier and requested significant changes, and upgrades but the Wrights were not interested in "improving" the flier until they had the patents and monopoly and did not pursue significant changes until after numerous other American innovators had done so.Meanwhile anyone who produced or flew an "aircraft" in the United States was taken to court by the Wright company, (often as an extension and supplement to the on-going Curtis-Wright cases) and in fact Europeans who came to the US or shared information were legally attacked as well.The case has been set out a number of times that the Wright's managed to be the recognized 'first to fly' and then spent the next 10 years ensuring the US aviation technology would be decades behind the rest of the world.This lesson was learned again here in the US during early rocket work where the various groups and individuals involved not only had differing ideas on what the future of US rocketry should look like they also spent great amounts of time and effort patenting (and fighting patent battles) as much of their work as possible while simultaneously criticizing everyone else's ideas and work, yet trying to 'cooperate' so they could see what everyone else was working on. It only got slightly better during WWII when the military forced cooperation and sharing of information because of the prior experience with the Wright's and aviation.How does this relate to Skylon, SABRE, REL and Europe or the US? It really doesn't, but actually the basic heart of the situation is that new technology, new methods, and new concepts are quite often not fully understood or appreciated at the time or place they are introduced. The reasons can be varied and numerous and can come from any number of places but in the end perseverance and demonstration tend to be the biggest determining factors which drive recognition and thence acceptance. REL seems on the right track since they have a lot of bias and doubt to overcome.Randy
