... under the name SABRE the new engine [...] bring[s] many applications from a single and highly defined design originally developed for one purpose [Skylon] - that apparent bonus [...] presents problems as to where to position the SABRE as it slashes through conventional ways of carrying out a multitude of roles.
... no plans to implement a programme of that scale in the immediate future. Supporting the ARFL, Reaction Engines defined plans for a demonstrator based on the broader conclusions drawn up by the Air Force, [as] one component of a two stage satellite launcher
This should speed the process of building and testing and display a better fit with some unexpected applications which the US Air Force is currently examining. [the TSTOs] as well as a hypersonic X-series research craft or even, via an intermediate step, to a combat air vehicle capable of speeds in excess of Mach 4.5
The reduced scale engine will also effect a better fit between the Jet engine and the rocket engine and through a three-step test process could find real applications in the US or Europe in the late 2020s
it is quite possible that the SABRE engine will find its first application as a propulsion system for a Mach 4+ hemispheric strike or intercept system, a role being developed by the US Air Force [...] Only then might it be adopted for a satellite launcher
This month's BIS Spaceflight magazine has a 2 page + pictures piece on SABRE entitled "Hypersonic Strike or Reusable Launch Vehicle?"
So the program is delayed again by another year, I thought the full engine was meant to be going under testing in 2019?
Experience with any of: High pressure fluids and control systems Electrical control systems and instrumentation Rotating machinery, High temperature combustion systems Advanced manufacturing processes i.e. Vacuum brazing, additive manufactureExposure to space or aerospace systems engineering
Knowledge and experience of a broad variety of heat exchangersExperience in the implementation of mechanical design of heat exchangers
So the pre-cooler does this job; simplistically, it takes 1000° air and cools it to -150° in a fraction of a second. To prove that fully we have to take that to a hot wind tunnel which we don't have here regularly here in the UK. That is a big milestone that is coming up for the company in the next 8-10 months.
We have had to invest a lot in manufacturing capability. This is a really impressive piece of kit, a vacuum furnace that we've designed ourselves ... an ultra-clean, ultra- high vacuum facility for joining heat exchangers. So these heat exchangers contain many kms, hundreds, if not thousands kms of tubing that's a mm in diameter, with real thicknesses of less than 30 microns containing high pressure helium, 200 bar pressure helium, and they have to be joined in a completely leak-tight way, and to survive in this very aggressive environment, and it's a difficult alloy to handle, so we needed to make this investment.
So we do a lot of technology development in the program; heat exchangers being a key element. One of the attractions of me joining the company ... I had no intention of leaving Rolls Royce, but Sabre was too good an opportunity to miss in a hi-tech growing company, but the technology, I knew, had wider applications. I can't really tell you what we're pursuing at the moment, specifically, but in terms of heat exchangers, we are working in these territories (graphic). We are not going after the heat exchangers business', it's far too aggresive, it's far too commercial. But we have heat exchangers that are high performance - they're very compact, they're extremely light-weight, because of the space requirements, where 1g saved of a heat exchanger converts to kgs of payload at the top end.So we're looking at things like onboard power generation, the ability to use heat energy in different ways, satellite thermal control, improving aero-engines (mentions Rolls Royce people in the audience), definitely an opportunity to get heat exchangers into aero-engines. Not previously used due to being big and heavy ... also motorsport, hybrid electric vehicles, and novel cycles for power generation ... a very very interesting area.
A lot of people asking about how much SpaceX is a competitor, they see as a potential customer...In his presentation about "new space" he shows how first stage recovery will reduce the cost of space access ... impression is that SABRE will help to reduce by a further order of magnitude (or maybe "just" x5 if booster recovery is routine)
They need more investment, won't say how much, but maybe some billions (joke?). Going to be a company of two parts ... SABRE ... the engine company ... and a seperate spin off technology company. Spin off company needs to make money, SABRE can be more blue skies .... 18/20 can fail. Spin off company needs to be more succesful.
Cost to LEO a moving target .... original aim to be an order of magnitude cheaper ($10k/kg) ... but now re-use might bring that down to $5k/kg ... they're aiming for $1k/kg. He thinks that first stage re-use might reduce cost by half .... I think that's a fair estimate.
Quote from: knowles2 on 05/27/2017 01:35 amSo the program is delayed again by another year, I thought the full engine was meant to be going under testing in 2019?It's interesting to note that when REL has been fully funded they have delivered what they said they could deliver when they said they could deliver it.This may come as a bit of a shock to commercial investors, who are more used to being promised the Earth, Moon and stars. REL don't. Perhaps they should since it seems to be what is expected. REL's concept remains the only design that has the potential to put "on demand" reusable launch into the hands of anyone capable of operating their system. That's probably the only way to achieve the massive cost reductions that will make space access truly affordable, and thereby get those concepts for materials mfg in space out of peoples bottom desk drawers (or their cloud archives) and actually into orbit. :(
QuoteCost to LEO a moving target .... original aim to be an order of magnitude cheaper ($10k/kg) ... but now re-use might bring that down to $5k/kg ... they're aiming for $1k/kg. He thinks that first stage re-use might reduce cost by half .... I think that's a fair estimate.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 06/04/2017 12:01 pmQuote from: knowles2 on 05/27/2017 01:35 amSo the program is delayed again by another year, I thought the full engine was meant to be going under testing in 2019?It's interesting to note that when REL has been fully funded they have delivered what they said they could deliver when they said they could deliver it.This may come as a bit of a shock to commercial investors, who are more used to being promised the Earth, Moon and stars. REL don't. Perhaps they should since it seems to be what is expected. REL's concept remains the only design that has the potential to put "on demand" reusable launch into the hands of anyone capable of operating their system. That's probably the only way to achieve the massive cost reductions that will make space access truly affordable, and thereby get those concepts for materials mfg in space out of peoples bottom desk drawers (or their cloud archives) and actually into orbit. The only concept? If you want to root for Skylon, fine, but don't disparage the alternatives by claiming Skylon is the only one.SpaceX's ITS and Blue Origin's New Glenn both plan to be all these things. Both fully-reusable. Both at least as cheap and easy to operate as Skylon. Both can launch on demand with fast turn-around time. Both plan to change the world with a radical reduction in launch costs.Skylon is not the only game in town.
Quote from: knowles2 on 05/27/2017 01:35 amSo the program is delayed again by another year, I thought the full engine was meant to be going under testing in 2019?It's interesting to note that when REL has been fully funded they have delivered what they said they could deliver when they said they could deliver it.This may come as a bit of a shock to commercial investors, who are more used to being promised the Earth, Moon and stars. REL don't. Perhaps they should since it seems to be what is expected. REL's concept remains the only design that has the potential to put "on demand" reusable launch into the hands of anyone capable of operating their system. That's probably the only way to achieve the massive cost reductions that will make space access truly affordable, and thereby get those concepts for materials mfg in space out of peoples bottom desk drawers (or their cloud archives) and actually into orbit.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 06/14/2017 01:26 amQuote from: john smith 19 on 06/04/2017 12:01 pmQuote from: knowles2 on 05/27/2017 01:35 amSo the program is delayed again by another year, I thought the full engine was meant to be going under testing in 2019?It's interesting to note that when REL has been fully funded they have delivered what they said they could deliver when they said they could deliver it.This may come as a bit of a shock to commercial investors, who are more used to being promised the Earth, Moon and stars. REL don't. Perhaps they should since it seems to be what is expected. REL's concept remains the only design that has the potential to put "on demand" reusable launch into the hands of anyone capable of operating their system. That's probably the only way to achieve the massive cost reductions that will make space access truly affordable, and thereby get those concepts for materials mfg in space out of peoples bottom desk drawers (or their cloud archives) and actually into orbit. The only concept? If you want to root for Skylon, fine, but don't disparage the alternatives by claiming Skylon is the only one.SpaceX's ITS and Blue Origin's New Glenn both plan to be all these things. Both fully-reusable. Both at least as cheap and easy to operate as Skylon. Both can launch on demand with fast turn-around time. Both plan to change the world with a radical reduction in launch costs.Skylon is not the only game in town.Weren't the words "on demand" pretty important there? Isn't the idea that you can launch and turn around quickly part of the idea? It would be interesting to ask if anyone on the SpaceX and New Glen discussions is busy reminding people there that "they're not the only games in town".
