The Reaction Engines Skylon/SABRE Master Thread (6)

[RanulfC]

We already talked about this a a few months back, so no need for the history lesson... My point is to those who feel upset that the technology project is going to the US. The fact is if your home nation won't back you would you rather see your hard work never take flight on a point of pride...

Those who do not learn from history... and all that But it's a general point that there are a LOT of various concepts and technologies out there that have been at the same point as Skylon/SABRE/REL that still haven't gone anywhere not only because the 'home' nation isn't interested but because the work has been classified or otherwise restricted. In many cases it is simply that knowledge isn't well known or documented in any open places which means even if someone else was willing to work in it you still have to start from scratch.

It's frustrating to the extreme but you are very correct in asking how much you're willing to put up with to see the technology in use. However, I'd point out the cautionary tales of OTRAG and Gerald Bull

Back to topic.

If you want the tech developed, you have to take it where there will be the money and backing to get it developed. SpaceX is where it is thanks to NASA and the USAF. Blue Origin is no exception, and they still have a relationship with NASA and a big one with the USAF.

But I can understand the hesitancy since they also have a point that once in the system in the US it becomes much more complicated to extract and share the subsequent knowledge due to things like ITAR and security concerns. In addition there is the concern about loosing control or participation as the program morphs due to outside influences you no longer have control over. (In the case of SABRE seeing it attached to some SCramjet requirements due to some arcane inserted requirement is a very real possibility should the program move towards flight status. Having the engine use in a TSTO design is no guarantee of such an addition not being forced on the concept at a later date)

Randy

[Rocket Science]

Come-on Randy, is the U.S. some rogue government in you eyes now?

[john smith 19]

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.

And now they call it ITAR... 

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.

Indeed.

It's frustrating to the extreme but you are very correct in asking how much you're willing to put up with to see the technology in use. However, I'd point out the cautionary tales of OTRAG and Gerald Bull

Quite.

If you want the tech developed, you have to take it where there will be the money and backing to get it developed. SpaceX is where it is thanks to NASA and the USAF. Blue Origin is no exception, and they still have a relationship with NASA and a big one with the USAF.

And they would have an equally large task if they decided they wanted to operate anywhere outside the US.

But I can understand the hesitancy since they also have a point that once in the system in the US it becomes much more complicated to extract and share the subsequent knowledge due to things like ITAR and security concerns. In addition there is the concern about loosing control or participation as the program morphs due to outside influences you no longer have control over. (In the case of SABRE seeing it attached to some SCramjet requirements due to some arcane inserted requirement is a very real possibility should the program move towards flight status. Having the engine use in a TSTO design is no guarantee of such an addition not being forced on the concept at a later date)

True, despite no evidence SCramjets are anywhere  near viable for anything except a missile system. I note that its T/W is as good as the J58 inside its nacelle on the SR71 but this ignores the fact the J58's could fly the whole mission without a large rocket motor to accelerate them to operating speed. With that weight factored in I'd guess their T/W is maybe 1.5:1 or less. And of course it's a one shot system.

[francesco nicoli]

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.

And now they call it ITAR... 

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.

Indeed.

It's frustrating to the extreme but you are very correct in asking how much you're willing to put up with to see the technology in use. However, I'd point out the cautionary tales of OTRAG and Gerald Bull

Quite.

If you want the tech developed, you have to take it where there will be the money and backing to get it developed. SpaceX is where it is thanks to NASA and the USAF. Blue Origin is no exception, and they still have a relationship with NASA and a big one with the USAF.

And they would have an equally large task if they decided they wanted to operate anywhere outside the US.

But I can understand the hesitancy since they also have a point that once in the system in the US it becomes much more complicated to extract and share the subsequent knowledge due to things like ITAR and security concerns. In addition there is the concern about loosing control or participation as the program morphs due to outside influences you no longer have control over. (In the case of SABRE seeing it attached to some SCramjet requirements due to some arcane inserted requirement is a very real possibility should the program move towards flight status. Having the engine use in a TSTO design is no guarantee of such an addition not being forced on the concept at a later date)

True, despite no evidence SCramjets are anywhere  near viable for anything except a missile system. I note that its T/W is as good as the J58 inside its nacelle on the SR71 but this ignores the fact the J58's could fly the whole mission without a large rocket motor to accelerate them to operating speed. With that weight factored in I'd guess their T/W is maybe 1.5:1 or less. And of course it's a one shot system.

Or maybe all this will work as a wake-up call for Britain and the EU to stop discussing about meaningless stuff because the world out there is not waiting for them to sort out whether polish medics should be able to heal british patients or not.
Honestly, our leadership and a great share of our population is so much taken by silly stuff that if we end up losing this technology, we totally deserved it. Instead of partnering up to open the skyes, we have spent our energy, time and money in building brickwalls & ideological barriers. We play the 19th century game and not the 21st one. Thererfore, we got precisely what we deserve.

[RanulfC]

Come-on Randy, is the U.S. some rogue government in you eyes now?

What do you mean "now"?
(And lest we forget I've worked for 'them' for almost my entire adult life so I may be speaking a bit from experience )

And not in that way, no. But the US actually has a history of being quite A-Retentive about technology both internally and externally with the "we invented everything" and the "not invented here" as co-existing paradigms.

The military are no angels but they do tend to favor practicality over theory when it doesn't come directly to funding depending on the latest and greatest. it's not a question of 'rouge' really but of historic relevance issues. On the main the US isn't that bad but it CAN and has been in the past so it is understandable why some would be disappointed that they may in fact be the saviors of their dreams

Randy

[RanulfC]

Or maybe all this will work as a wake-up call for Britain and the EU to stop discussing about meaningless stuff because the world out there is not waiting for them to sort out whether polish medics should be able to heal british patients or not.
Honestly, our leadership and a great share of our population is so much taken by silly stuff that if we end up losing this technology, we totally deserved it. Instead of partnering up to open the skyes, we have spent our energy, time and money in building brickwalls & ideological barriers. We play the 19th century game and not the 21st one. Thererfore, we got precisely what we deserve.

Going to point out that IF it is considered a 'meaningful' issue with a large segment of the population then it is going to be a 'meaningful' issue with the politicians by default.

Space access, exploration, and all what most of us here consider 'meaningful' is not so with the majority of the population and forgetting that we tend to see other issues as meaning-less for that reason. There is no arguing that a large majority of the populations around the world are always going to see closer, and more immediate 'issues' as priorities and therefore their politicians will as well.

This won't shift much, (if at all) until something makes space a more significant issue and frankly it that happens it will probably be too late for it to be a game changing issue. (By definition a looming threat of say an civilization ending asteroid impact that significantly focus' civilizations attention will occur at time when it will be far to late to do much of anything about it if you don't already have the means to deal with it)

But on subject it simply means that neither Europe nor England have enough internal cohesion and resources to get Skylon and/or SABRE to the point of practical demonstration where as the US does in fact have both IF you can avoid the various obstacles that dealing with the US presents.

REL while admitting they think their concept is better at least realizes this situation provides them with opportunities they can't get 'at home' and is willing to take their chances. I can't say as I disagree with them on this.

Randy

[Asteroza]

Whether we ever go full Skylon ...

AFRL: Never go full Skylon...

[Star One]

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.

And now they call it ITAR... 

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.

Indeed.

It's frustrating to the extreme but you are very correct in asking how much you're willing to put up with to see the technology in use. However, I'd point out the cautionary tales of OTRAG and Gerald Bull

Quite.

If you want the tech developed, you have to take it where there will be the money and backing to get it developed. SpaceX is where it is thanks to NASA and the USAF. Blue Origin is no exception, and they still have a relationship with NASA and a big one with the USAF.

And they would have an equally large task if they decided they wanted to operate anywhere outside the US.

But I can understand the hesitancy since they also have a point that once in the system in the US it becomes much more complicated to extract and share the subsequent knowledge due to things like ITAR and security concerns. In addition there is the concern about loosing control or participation as the program morphs due to outside influences you no longer have control over. (In the case of SABRE seeing it attached to some SCramjet requirements due to some arcane inserted requirement is a very real possibility should the program move towards flight status. Having the engine use in a TSTO design is no guarantee of such an addition not being forced on the concept at a later date)

True, despite no evidence SCramjets are anywhere  near viable for anything except a missile system. I note that its T/W is as good as the J58 inside its nacelle on the SR71 but this ignores the fact the J58's could fly the whole mission without a large rocket motor to accelerate them to operating speed. With that weight factored in I'd guess their T/W is maybe 1.5:1 or less. And of course it's a one shot system.

Or maybe all this will work as a wake-up call for Britain and the EU to stop discussing about meaningless stuff because the world out there is not waiting for them to sort out whether polish medics should be able to heal british patients or not.
Honestly, our leadership and a great share of our population is so much taken by silly stuff that if we end up losing this technology, we totally deserved it. Instead of partnering up to open the skyes, we have spent our energy, time and money in building brickwalls & ideological barriers. We play the 19th century game and not the 21st one. Thererfore, we got precisely what we deserve.

I don't see this happening being as we look headed for a so called hard Brexit from the EU.

[Ravenger]

I don't see this happening being as we look headed for a so called hard Brexit from the EU.

I'd love to see Skylon adopted by ESA as their preferred launcher, but that's not going to happen due to politics which have absolutely nothing to do with Brexit, which existed before we even considered a referendum.

In any case, ESA is not an EU organisation, though there is some EU involvement in ESA. Countries outside the EU make considerable contributions to ESA, so a 'Hard' (I prefer 'Clean') Brexit shouldn't make much of a difference to ESA involvement. The drop in the pound's value makes our manufacturing more competive anyway.

In fact, EU state aid rules considerably delayed the (minimal) UK government investment in REL, and may have been a factor in REL having to get BAE to buy a stake in the company, and thereby changing the direction of travel towards military rather than civilian applications of SABRE.

Out of the EU the British Government would be able to invest more freely in REL, though I think that's extremely unlikely.

I'm very disappointed in UK investors and the British Government for not investing more highly in REL. It's not surprising that REL are now looking towards the US and the US Military in particular as it's the only way they can get the funding to continue development. Like most of us on here, I'd rather see SABRE fully developed even if it has to go to the US to do it - though it really hurts that it can't be fully funded in the UK or Europe.

[jrc14]

I don't see this happening being as we look headed for a so called hard Brexit from the EU.

Not so long ago, the mods had to prune a whole load of Brexit nonsense out of this thread.  Please do not put them to the trouble again.  I can understand that you want to give the world the benefit of your opinion on this subject, but there are plenty of other places on the internet for you do to that; please use one of them.
And let's keep this forum free for focussed discussion on REL, SABRE and Skylon.

[Star One]

I don't see this happening being as we look headed for a so called hard Brexit from the EU.

Not so long ago, the mods had to prune a whole load of Brexit nonsense out of this thread.  Please do not put them to the trouble again.  I can understand that you want to give the world the benefit of your opinion on this subject, but there are plenty of other places on the internet for you do to that; please use one of them.
And let's keep this forum free for focussed discussion on REL, SABRE and Skylon.

I wasn't the one who brought the EU into this conversation need I remind you. Maybe you should try complaining to the poster who started the drift rather than me?

[jrc14]

I wasn't the one who brought the EU into this conversation need I remind you. Maybe you should try complaining to the poster who started the drift rather than me?

Sorry - I did not mean to imply that you were the only person to blame for bringing 'Brexit' into the conversation - and of course, it is perfectly reasonable to debate, in this thread, the politics around which governments and other organisations might fund REL/SABRE/Skylon.  It's just that I foresee this thread heading back into a Brexit-inspired death-spiral, and that doesn't seem like a smart idea.

[CrewtaiL]

I don't see this happening being as we look headed for a so called hard Brexit from the EU.

I'd love to see Skylon adopted by ESA as their preferred launcher, but that's not going to happen due to politics which have absolutely nothing to do with Brexit, which existed before we even considered a referendum.

In any case, ESA is not an EU organisation, though there is some EU involvement in ESA. Countries outside the EU make considerable contributions to ESA, so a 'Hard' (I prefer 'Clean') Brexit shouldn't make much of a difference to ESA involvement. The drop in the pound's value makes our manufacturing more competive anyway.

In fact, EU state aid rules considerably delayed the (minimal) UK government investment in REL, and may have been a factor in REL having to get BAE to buy a stake in the company, and thereby changing the direction of travel towards military rather than civilian applications of SABRE.

Out of the EU the British Government would be able to invest more freely in REL, though I think that's extremely unlikely.

I'm very disappointed in UK investors and the British Government for not investing more highly in REL. It's not surprising that REL are now looking towards the US and the US Military in particular as it's the only way they can get the funding to continue development. Like most of us on here, I'd rather see SABRE fully developed even if it has to go to the US to do it - though it really hurts that it can't be fully funded in the UK or Europe.

I will bet everything I have the British military is involved with this tech. already. The fact that BAE is in the mix only reinforces my belief.

[lkm]

I don't see this happening being as we look headed for a so called hard Brexit from the EU.

I'd love to see Skylon adopted by ESA as their preferred launcher, but that's not going to happen due to politics which have absolutely nothing to do with Brexit, which existed before we even considered a referendum.

In any case, ESA is not an EU organisation, though there is some EU involvement in ESA. Countries outside the EU make considerable contributions to ESA, so a 'Hard' (I prefer 'Clean') Brexit shouldn't make much of a difference to ESA involvement. The drop in the pound's value makes our manufacturing more competive anyway.

In fact, EU state aid rules considerably delayed the (minimal) UK government investment in REL, and may have been a factor in REL having to get BAE to buy a stake in the company, and thereby changing the direction of travel towards military rather than civilian applications of SABRE.

Out of the EU the British Government would be able to invest more freely in REL, though I think that's extremely unlikely.

I'm very disappointed in UK investors and the British Government for not investing more highly in REL. It's not surprising that REL are now looking towards the US and the US Military in particular as it's the only way they can get the funding to continue development. Like most of us on here, I'd rather see SABRE fully developed even if it has to go to the US to do it - though it really hurts that it can't be fully funded in the UK or Europe.

I will bet everything I have the British military is involved with this tech. already. The fact that BAE is in the mix only reinforces my belief.

Well yeah, it predates AFRL involvement.
http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/news_17aug2015_rel_dstl.html

[john smith 19]

In fact, EU state aid rules considerably delayed the (minimal) UK government investment in REL, and may have been a factor in REL having to get BAE to buy a stake in the company, and thereby changing the direction of travel towards military rather than civilian applications of SABRE.


Out of the EU the British Government would be able to invest more freely in REL, though I think that's extremely unlikely.

I'm very disappointed in UK investors and the British Government for not investing more highly in REL. It's not surprising that REL are now looking towards the US and the US Military in particular as it's the only way they can get the funding to continue development. Like most of us on here, I'd rather see SABRE fully developed even if it has to go to the US to do it - though it really hurts that it can't be fully funded in the UK or Europe.

UK private investors got REL a lot further than companies this side normally get.  The UK corporate sector does not seem to have been very helpful but REL's business plan was always going to be very difficult as effectively they wanted to be a 2nd tier supplier to a vehicle. Engineers tend to have linear minds and this was a problem that needed a non-linear solution. You have a company (REL) that's gearing up to make a part, a substantial market for a vehicle (if you can get it built) and a big hole in between.

Unless REL can solve that "big hole in between" problem this TSTO looks the closest SABRE will get to flight, and note it's still a concept, not a programme yet. This could be left with the USAF providing no further funding and REL so enmeshed in US ITAR regulations they cannot pursue any other funding.

Much as Bond was when the UK Govt classified the original RR 545 design patents, making any conversation with any other investors impossible.

Those familiar with the background may recall BAE and the "Multi Role Capsule" saga and would view BAE's involvement as a very mixed blessing. 

[RanulfC]

If you want the tech developed, you have to take it where there will be the money and backing to get it developed. SpaceX is where it is thanks to NASA and the USAF. Blue Origin is no exception, and they still have a relationship with NASA and a big one with the USAF.

And they would have an equally large task if they decided they wanted to operate anywhere outside the US.

Just so we're clear that was Lampyridae's comment not mine I was quoting him

But I can understand the hesitancy since they also have a point that once in the system in the US it becomes much more complicated to extract and share the subsequent knowledge due to things like ITAR and security concerns. In addition there is the concern about loosing control or participation as the program morphs due to outside influences you no longer have control over. (In the case of SABRE seeing it attached to some SCramjet requirements due to some arcane inserted requirement is a very real possibility should the program move towards flight status. Having the engine use in a TSTO design is no guarantee of such an addition not being forced on the concept at a later date)

True, despite no evidence SCramjets are anywhere  near viable for anything except a missile system. I note that its T/W is as good as the J58 inside its nacelle on the SR71 but this ignores the fact the J58's could fly the whole mission without a large rocket motor to accelerate them to operating speed. With that weight factored in I'd guess their T/W is maybe 1.5:1 or less. And of course it's a one shot system.

Well really that's why suggesting a TSTO makes some sense because there is more chance with an SSTO concept that SOMEONE is going to throw a SCramjet on it. The main problem is the SCramjet SHOULD be rather simple given it is a variant of the ramjet which, (when you get down to the very basics) for intents and purposes is a simple tube after all. The theory is tempting in that you should then be able to use a system that can be both a subsonic and supersonic ramjet in the same "engine" (hence the dual-mode SCramjet designs) to which you only need attach a zero-to-supersonic accelerator and you have what amounts to the "perfect" air breathing engine.

That 'theory' has been running into several 'brick-walls' of reality for over 50 years now and really we should be looking at the bigger picture. Unfortunately if you look at it under the right light and 'squint' really good it would appear that, much like viable nuclear fusion power, SCramjets will obviously be "ready" any year now. The fact that this is based on questionable to say the least assumptions is ignored.

The theory/dream that a SCramjet engine will allow "economical-and-easy" zero to beyond orbital speed is essentially "true" for certain values of the definition of "truth" but really the obvious engineering and practical applications issues that logically follow along that line of thinking which are just as obviously being ignored in order to not fully question the end goal.

Since it is obvious that you do not in fact "require" SCramjet engines to economically propel a surface-to-orbit vehicle the very first requirement would seem to be to NOT assume that a SCramjet is required in the first place, but as I keep pointing out, no one cares what I think

Randy

[RanulfC]

Whether we ever go full Skylon ...

AFRL: Never go full Skylon...

The AF and AFRL have actually considered and studied SSTO vehicles both rocket and combined cycle powered numerous times. There are operational and military advantages to a TSTO system so it's more often at least the initial concept though. Considering that the key interest here is the SABRE and it's cycle going with a TSTO greatly reduces the chances of someone trying to tack on a SCramjet research program onto the system I suspect

So I'd say "never" isn't something to assume since frankly while Skylon is a viable early design I can think of a bunch of operational (both military and commercial) and military design considerations that REL missed because of different initial assumptions.

Randy

[Star One]

I wasn't the one who brought the EU into this conversation need I remind you. Maybe you should try complaining to the poster who started the drift rather than me?

Sorry - I did not mean to imply that you were the only person to blame for bringing 'Brexit' into the conversation - and of course, it is perfectly reasonable to debate, in this thread, the politics around which governments and other organisations might fund REL/SABRE/Skylon.  It's just that I foresee this thread heading back into a Brexit-inspired death-spiral, and that doesn't seem like a smart idea.

Fair enough. You're right in that maybe as much as possible we should keep away from UK domestic politics in this thread.

I suspect UK politics will not be in the driving seat much longer with this project and that it will be very much a US driven item going forward.

[RanulfC]

In fact, EU state aid rules considerably delayed the (minimal) UK government investment in REL, and may have been a factor in REL having to get BAE to buy a stake in the company, and thereby changing the direction of travel towards military rather than civilian applications of SABRE.

This is something that needs to be addressed as it keep popping up, mostly because it is the "Air Force" Research Laboratory that REL is working with.

The "application" of the SABRE has NOT changed a bit, it has always had as much military as civilian application no matter what. It is and always has been a PROPULSION system and by their nature how exactly they are used is literally a "user" decision. The basic fact that SABRE was proposed and designed as a 'surface-to-orbit/space' engine in no way defines its role or use since that mission has both commercial and military applications.

The US Air Force through AFRL is paying to study the use(s) of the SABRE cycle for the same mission(s) they have studied many other propulsion systems which include the Merlin rocket engine and tubro-charger based jet engines. The main suggestion is that any and all of them may have a military purpose but in general the 'job' is to propel an asset and not specifically on a military or commercial mission. Being's it's the Air Force they ARE going to point out the obvious "military" possible missions but in general they correspond to similar commercial applications and/or missions.

I think an obvious 'omission' from the study was any suggestion of using the proposed TSTO for the 'rapid global strike' mission and a focus on orbital delivery would have been a clue that the military aspect was deliberately downplayed in the study.

I'm very disappointed in UK investors and the British Government for not investing more highly in REL. It's not surprising that REL are now looking towards the US and the US Military in particular as it's the only way they can get the funding to continue development. Like most of us on here, I'd rather see SABRE fully developed even if it has to go to the US to do it - though it really hurts that it can't be fully funded in the UK or Europe.

Don't see how this is a supported point of view actually. Private and government investment, (as JS19 points out) was more than received by previous proposals but in-line with what is really a 'high-risk' and unproven system that MAY lead to an SSTO vehicle that may match current market requirements. (As I keep pointing out a Skylon SSTO, by itself, will not meet market requirements and REL has consistently noted this and the various additive requirements to fully meet those requirements. JUST having Skylon is not enough and THAT in and of itself requires a large upfront investment that might not actually 'pay-off' in the first place. Skylon/SABRE is unproven at this point and as JS10 notes there's a large 'gap' that needs to be covered to get the point where it would be as 'atractive' an investment as something already proven and with a known history)

UK private investors got REL a lot further than companies this side normally get.  The UK corporate sector does not seem to have been very helpful but REL's business plan was always going to be very difficult as effectively they wanted to be a 2nd tier supplier to a vehicle. Engineers tend to have linear minds and this was a problem that needed a non-linear solution. You have a company (REL) that's gearing up to make a part, a substantial market for a vehicle (if you can get it built) and a big hole in between.

Unless REL can solve that "big hole in between" problem this TSTO looks the closest SABRE will get to flight, and note it's still a concept, not a programme yet.

That! The thing is a 'working' (even a non-flight model) SABRE significantly increases confidence that the rest of "Skylon" (or other concepts) will be possible and therefor the whole thing may actually be the 'game changer' that it obviously would be.

The thing is the whole 'game changer' idea has been overplayed and the record so far has far less 'successful' than failures and that increase the burden and bar for 'proof' that has to be met.

This could be left with the USAF providing no further funding and REL so enmeshed in US ITAR regulations they cannot pursue any other funding.

I'm pretty sure that REL won't have that problem even if no further support is found in the US. If someone were to try and apply ITAR in a encompassing fashion I'm confident that ITAR will end up loosing that particular battle as REL has a deep patent and 'prior-work' base to draw from in its defense.

Much as Bond was when the UK Govt classified the original RR 545 design patents, making any conversation with any other investors impossible.

Totally different situation actually as the RR545 was designed UNDER a government contract which by definition allows the government to do what it wants with the end-product. In this case SABRE is very much an outside property over which the Air Force and US Government has no claim. As long as there are no significant changes to the cycle or engine, (and I see nothing in the study or has been suggested) then the entire 'interface' is simply plugging the SABRE into a design concept in the same manner as any other 'propulsion' system. Even if the AFRL were to support and build a 'testbed' system they are limited to what they can 'classify' other than in general because the SABRE is an existing and publicly known engine system even if not 'proven' in operation.

And frankly I'm going to have to get up on my high-horse and berate everyone who is 'disappointed' about REL having to work with the US Air Force to move SABRE forward.

Y'all have NO room to complain. Not a single 'leg' to stand on. You have NO idea how frustrating, disappointing, rage-inducing, oh go ahead and throw a thesaurus in here on "let-down-ungentle" concepts while we're at it.

Here's a bit of historic perspective for you all; EVERYTHING that has gone into the SABRE engine concept was INVENTED, STUDIED, and IGNORED in the United States prior to 1965 and while the more advanced heat exchanger itself is highly impressive it was actually NOT required for a working "deep-cooled" air-breathing rocket engine to have been developed and produced no later than the late 1960s with the knowledge and work done and available in the US aerospace community.

We missed it. We literally had ALL the data and because no one was looking for that specific outcome and WERE looking for one slightly different, (liquid air instead of deep cooled) everyone totally missed putting everything together into a viable system. And then SCramjets took over and...

Ok worse than THAT though is we had other equally promising systems that were bench/lab tested and ready for flight testing IF they had money or support and they simply shelved and forgotten because "priorities/missions/requirements" changed and they were no longer needed.

And this is a historically trended "outcome" for and with the United States in many matters. We tend to obsess over something and focus far more time, effort and resources into a single line of work only to look up and find out someone who didn't pursue the 'obvious' direction has managed to find a 'better' answer even if it isn't as "great" as the one we're looking for.

I'm frankly reminded of something Bill Murray said in "Stripes" heavily paraphrase and adapted but the US is really built on a large majority of people who were very full of themselves when they came here and they in turn have built up  huge reserve of hubris, exceptional-ism, and overconfidence that colors everything American's do. The annoying, (to some ) fact that we are in fact occasionally RIGHT being more exception than rule in no way helps either

Randy

[momerathe]

I'm very disappointed in UK investors and the British Government for not investing more highly in REL. It's not surprising that REL are now looking towards the US and the US Military in particular as it's the only way they can get the funding to continue development. Like most of us on here, I'd rather see SABRE fully developed even if it has to go to the US to do it - though it really hurts that it can't be fully funded in the UK or Europe.

I agree with you on an emotional level, but we need to keep in mind the scale of the problem here.

IIRC REL estimated the development cost of Skylon to be of the same order as that of the A380. There's few entities worldwide capable of undertaking that, even fewer if you exclude the US (Previously I'd speculated the list was basically Airbus.. and that's it). The UK government was never going to bankroll it in this age of "austerity", and no investors are going to spaff billions of quid on such a speculative investment. And it's not just money - there's a huge amount of institutional know-how required.

Again, what I'm forced to come back to is this: we'll see a SABRE engine flying. Whether it's a TSTO concept, or a hypersonic bomber or whatever, that's a huge amount of risk reduction to any future programs.