The Reaction Engines Skylon/SABRE Master Thread (6)

[JCRM]

BFR will assume suborbital passenger transportation (killing the sonic boom by flying in space), heavy lift, and Moon / Mars colonization.

a bit off topic, but these things will be noisier than aircraft, and unless they're going to be subsonic most of the way up and down will have sonic booms anyway.

Mildly amused that Musk is developing reusability by... err... adding wings.

[Matthew Ak43]

A sad day.
https://www.reactionengines.co.uk/alan-bond-retires-reaction-engines/

[JCRM]

Johns Scott is dead, AFAIK both Varvill and Bond remain active within the company.

Actually Alan Bond has retired today
https://www.reactionengines.co.uk/alan-bond-retires-reaction-engines/

It wouldn't surprise now me if we don't hear of a full buy out of REL either by BAe or Rolls Royce in the next 12 months.

I'd be surprised. After a successful integrated engine test, maybe. Government subsidy percentages are better for smaller companies. Rolls have walked away from air breathing engines before, not wanting to put their own money into them.

[Star One]

Johns Scott is dead, AFAIK both Varvill and Bond remain active within the company.

Actually Alan Bond has retired today
https://www.reactionengines.co.uk/alan-bond-retires-reaction-engines/

It wouldn't surprise now me if we don't hear of a full buy out of REL either by BAe or Rolls Royce in the next 12 months.

I'd be surprised. After a successful integrated engine test, maybe. Government subsidy percentages are better for smaller companies. Rolls have walked away from air breathing engines before, not wanting to put their own money into them.

BAe already have their hooks in REL so maybe that would be less surprising.

[john smith 19]

Johns Scott is dead, AFAIK both Varvill and Bond remain active within the company.

Actually Alan Bond has retired today
https://www.reactionengines.co.uk/alan-bond-retires-reaction-engines/

It wouldn't surprise now me if we don't hear of a full buy out of REL either by BAe or Rolls Royce in the next 12 months.

I'd be surprised. After a successful integrated engine test, maybe. Government subsidy percentages are better for smaller companies. Rolls have walked away from air breathing engines before, not wanting to put their own money into them.

BAe already have their hooks in REL so maybe that would be less surprising.

Depends on a lot of things, like wheather the management team want to stay independent, and wheather the other investors want to stay in for a potentially bigger pay day or cash out.  My guess is a lot of them didn't get into this for the money, they want to see something British flying to orbit, or powering something to orbit.

BAe has significant technical skills but IIRC they don't own engine makers. Rolls would be the better fit, but then the founders had been here before with HOTOL. It's been interesting how REL have evolved over the years. They seem confident they can handle the whole engine on their own.

Airframe mfg is tough, but that would be true of any other company that REL partnered with to build a vehicle. No one anywhere has experience of this airframe technology. Boeing has the closest, with the X37b, or the team who built Buran, but both are (or where) basically VTO payloads, with only OMS engines for plane change and de-orbit.

I wonder if any Indian or Chinese airframe companies want to take a bold leap into the 21st century.....?

[Star One]

Johns Scott is dead, AFAIK both Varvill and Bond remain active within the company.

Actually Alan Bond has retired today
https://www.reactionengines.co.uk/alan-bond-retires-reaction-engines/

It wouldn't surprise now me if we don't hear of a full buy out of REL either by BAe or Rolls Royce in the next 12 months.

I'd be surprised. After a successful integrated engine test, maybe. Government subsidy percentages are better for smaller companies. Rolls have walked away from air breathing engines before, not wanting to put their own money into them.

BAe already have their hooks in REL so maybe that would be less surprising.

Depends on a lot of things, like wheather the management team want to stay independent, and wheather the other investors want to stay in for a potentially bigger pay day or cash out.  My guess is a lot of them didn't get into this for the money, they want to see something British flying to orbit, or powering something to orbit.

BAe has significant technical skills but IIRC they don't own engine makers. Rolls would be the better fit, but then the founders had been here before with HOTOL. It's been interesting how REL have evolved over the years. They seem confident they can handle the whole engine on their own.

Airframe mfg is tough, but that would be true of any other company that REL partnered with to build a vehicle. No one anywhere has experience of this airframe technology. Boeing has the closest, with the X37b, or the team who built Buran, but both are (or where) basically VTO payloads, with only OMS engines for plane change and de-orbit.

I wonder if any Indian or Chinese airframe companies want to take a bold leap into the 21st century.....?

As to your last suggestion I imagine this would be blocked by both US & UK administrations. The only people allowed to build an airframe for it would either by the US or Europe.

[JCRM]

I wonder if any Indian or Chinese airframe companies want to take a bold leap into the 21st century.....?

As to your last suggestion I imagine this would be blocked by both US & UK administrations. The only people allowed to build an airframe for it would either by the US or Europe.

What mechanism would the Americans use to prevent an UK company selling engines to an Indian company?
Why would the UK government stop a UK company selling engines to an Indian company? They let Rolls-Royce sell engines there.

[Star One]

I wonder if any Indian or Chinese airframe companies want to take a bold leap into the 21st century.....?

As to your last suggestion I imagine this would be blocked by both US & UK administrations. The only people allowed to build an airframe for it would either by the US or Europe.

What mechanism would the Americans use to prevent an UK company selling engines to an Indian company?
Why would the UK government stop a UK company selling engines to an Indian company? They let Rolls-Royce sell engines there.

They aren’t comparable examples as these are not normal engines and who should be allowed to have them I imagine will have a completely different and far more stringent set of considerations accordingly.

[JCRM]

What mechanism would the Americans use to prevent an UK company selling engines to an Indian company?
Why would the UK government stop a UK company selling engines to an Indian company? They let Rolls-Royce sell engines there.

They aren’t comparable examples as these are not normal engines and who should be allowed to have them I imagine will have a completely different and far more stringent set of considerations accordingly.

India and China are nuclear powers with space programs capable of orbiting significant payloads, MCTR wouldn't apply, why would the UK choose to handicap itself on the export front?

[Star One]

What mechanism would the Americans use to prevent an UK company selling engines to an Indian company?
Why would the UK government stop a UK company selling engines to an Indian company? They let Rolls-Royce sell engines there.

They aren’t comparable examples as these are not normal engines and who should be allowed to have them I imagine will have a completely different and far more stringent set of considerations accordingly.

India and China are nuclear powers with space programs capable of orbiting significant payloads, MCTR wouldn't apply, why would the UK choose to handicap itself on the export front?

I’d thought the answer was pretty obvious.

[JCRM]

What mechanism would the Americans use to prevent an UK company selling engines to an Indian company?
Why would the UK government stop a UK company selling engines to an Indian company? They let Rolls-Royce sell engines there.

They aren’t comparable examples as these are not normal engines and who should be allowed to have them I imagine will have a completely different and far more stringent set of considerations accordingly.

India and China are nuclear powers with space programs capable of orbiting significant payloads, MCTR wouldn't apply, why would the UK choose to handicap itself on the export front?

I’d thought the answer was pretty obvious.

What is obvious to one, may not be obvious to another. Could you explain why they would want to restrict sales of an engine to those countries, and what mechanisms you feel they might employ to do so?

[Star One]

It’s a sufficiently revolutionary technology, especially its defence applications that for the time being its use should be restricted to only the US, UK & other NATO members. Which is only similar to the restriction on the sales of certain drones. Not everything should be about the bottom dollar.

[JCRM]

It’s a sufficiently revolutionary technology, especially its defence applications that for the time being its use should be restricted to only the US, UK & other NATO members. Which is only similar to the restriction on the sales of certain drones. Not everything should be about the bottom dollar.

So it's OK to sell Typhoons to Saudi, but not flight weight heat exchangers to India?

The technology isn't particularly revolutionary, and enough details have been published so a country prepared to ignore patent rights and with a tech level capable of attempting to develop a Mach 7 cruise missile could replicate the engines anyway  should there be any useful defence applications.

Edit: undo last minute edit that made it gibberish.

[Star One]

It’s a sufficiently revolutionary technology, especially its defence applications that for the time being its use should be restricted to only the US, UK & other NATO members. Which is only similar to the restriction on the sales of certain drones. Not everything should be about the bottom dollar.

So it's OK to sell Typhoons to Saudi, but not flight weight heat exchangers to India?

If there are any useful defence applications, then the technology isn't particularly revolutionary, and enough details have been published so a country prepared to ignore patent rights  and with a tech level capable of attempting to develop a Mach 7 cruise missile could replicate the engines anyway.

Why do you keep up with non-relevant examples. The Typhoon is hardly comparable if it was their would be restrictions on its sales.

[CrewtaiL]

As a democracy, India will likely be given access to the HXs in time

[/quote]
If there are any useful defence applications, then the technology isn't particularly revolutionary, and enough details have been published so a country prepared to ignore patent rights  and with a tech level capable of attempting to develop a Mach 7 cruise missile could replicate the engines anyway.
[/quote]

A technology isn't revolutionary if it has defence applications? Others can replicate the engines because they're attempting to develop Mach 7 cruise technology? I don't think anything in the above paragraph makes sense.

[Dao Angkan]

Being a democracy isn't really all that important when it comes to UK arms exports (Saudi Arabia has already been mentioned), but India is probably more likely to be less politically sensitive than China. Still, this would ultimately be decided by the government on a case by case basis, and could include firewalls to address any concerns. This is getting into policy area, so probably best to start a thread in that section to continue this line of debate.

[JCRM]

Why do you keep up with non-relevant examples. The Typhoon is hardly comparable if it was their would be restrictions on its sales.

No, it's not equivalent - the typhoon is a modern fighter jet. SABRE is an en engine designed for space access. If one were to be restricted I would of thought it would be the machine designed to kill,  rather than the one that "may have defence applications"

Others can replicate the engines because they're attempting to develop Mach 7 cruise technology?

If a country has a sufficient tech level to make Mach 7 cruise missiles a realistic possibility, then a SABRE equivalent, which "could have been built with 60s  technology" isn't going to be a significant challenge.
Sabre 4 has a lot of modern efficiency twists compared to the RB545, but it's essentially the same engine the UK managed to come up with in the 80s.

[CrewtaiL]

Why do you keep up with non-relevant examples. The Typhoon is hardly comparable if it was their would be restrictions on its sales.

No, it's not equivalent - the typhoon is a modern fighter jet. SABRE is an en engine designed for space access. If one were to be restricted I would of thought it would be the machine designed to kill,  rather than the one that "may have defence applications"

Others can replicate the engines because they're attempting to develop Mach 7 cruise technology?

If a country has a sufficient tech level to make Mach 7 cruise missiles a realistic possibility, then a SABRE equivalent, which "could have been built with 60s  technology" isn't going to be a significant challenge.
Sabre 4 has a lot of modern efficiency twists compared to the RB545, but it's essentially the same engine the UK managed to come up with in the 80s.

The tech. in SABRE likely has other applications in "machines designed to kill". Restricted export of the HX will be for the same reason America doesn't sell the F22 or give the UK access to F35 code.

The idea of pre-cooled jet engines goes back as far as the 50's; it's obviously not easy to manufacture the HX. Maybe others will eventually develop an indigenous capability to manufacture them but that's unlikely in the short-term.

[Star One]

Why do you keep up with non-relevant examples. The Typhoon is hardly comparable if it was their would be restrictions on its sales.

No, it's not equivalent - the typhoon is a modern fighter jet. SABRE is an en engine designed for space access. If one were to be restricted I would of thought it would be the machine designed to kill,  rather than the one that "may have defence applications"

Others can replicate the engines because they're attempting to develop Mach 7 cruise technology?

If a country has a sufficient tech level to make Mach 7 cruise missiles a realistic possibility, then a SABRE equivalent, which "could have been built with 60s  technology" isn't going to be a significant challenge.
Sabre 4 has a lot of modern efficiency twists compared to the RB545, but it's essentially the same engine the UK managed to come up with in the 80s.

The tech. in SABRE likely has other applications in "machines designed to kill". Restricted export of the HX will be for the same reason America doesn't sell the F22 or give the UK access to F35 code.

The idea of pre-cooled jet engines goes back as far as the 50's; it's obviously not easy to manufacture the HX. Maybe others will eventually develop an indigenous capability to manufacture them but that's unlikely in the short-term.

I was trying to dance around the issue but the technological transfer to China would probably not go down well and let’s leave it at that.

[john smith 19]

The tech. in SABRE likely has other applications in "machines designed to kill". Restricted export of the HX will be for the same reason America doesn't sell the F22 or give the UK access to F35 code.

You are wrong on both of those points.

In the presentation linked to earlier I think it was Mark Thomas who said that the HX is not an export controlled product under ITAR.  A full SABRE engine would be.

In fact BAe does develop core F35 software systems in the UK (In C/C++), a fact I discovered when I looked up its development history.

The idea of pre-cooled jet engines goes back as far as the 50's; it's obviously not easy to manufacture the HX. Maybe others will eventually develop an indigenous capability to manufacture them but that's unlikely in the short-term.

Quite true. Their failure then was because people were making elements cm or mm but 10s of cm, or metres long. Frost control was known to be the Achilles Heel of the technology even then.

Understanding this, and what to do about it, were two of Alan Bond's key breakthroughs in making SABRE viable.