The Reaction Engines Skylon/SABRE Master Thread (6)

[t43562]

> Crispin Odey's hedge fund halves in value - Business Insider
> Odey Asset Management's assets under management fell from $11.7 billion at the start of 2015 to $5.5 billion.
http://www.businessinsider.com/crispin-odey-hedge-fund-asset-management-value-2017-10

^^ This sort of thing could explain the odd changes in their plans and claims of proposed finances - all those times when we thought they had the 100s of millions promised that they needed. 

[john smith 19]

> Crispin Odey's hedge fund halves in value - Business Insider
> Odey Asset Management's assets under management fell from $11.7 billion at the start of 2015 to $5.5 billion.
http://www.businessinsider.com/crispin-odey-hedge-fund-asset-management-value-2017-10

^^ This sort of thing could explain the odd changes in their plans and claims of proposed finances - all those times when we thought they had the 100s of millions promised that they needed.

Not really. IIRC the total they were looking for for this process was £360m, rough,roughly 3.6% to 6.5% of the total fund value.

But it would be very unwise to pin all funding on a single investor (that's what Rotary Rocket did with Tom Clancy. He walked and the company folded).

I doubt if the fall in the hedge fund value helped but I'd guess a bigger element was the UKG changing the terms of the contract to fund REL (as well as taking 3 years to do so), requiring REL to find an investor, before they provided the funds rather than after. 

[CrewtaiL]

The UK gov. denied changing the terms of the grant. They claimed RE had failed to piece together a coherent business plan until 2016, iirc. All water under the bridge, anyway

[john smith 19]

The UK gov. denied changing the terms of the grant. They claimed RE had failed to piece together a coherent business plan until 2016, iirc. All water under the bridge, anyway

I had trouble finding the evidence REL provided to the relevant committee.

Here it is.

[JCRM]

This month's Spaceflight (ISSN 0038-6340, Vol 59 No. 12 December 2017) mentions the HTX in the 'Briefing Notes' section, ending with

REI says that flight tests could begin within five years with an X-series research vehicle which will integrate airframe, propulsion system and associated systems for a hypersonic vehicle which may satisfy US Air Force requirement for a hemispheric strike system

Have we seen the 5 year X-series claim before?

Aside from sounding like a troll what is your point?

My question was whether there were any other sources for REI giving a (potential) 5 year timescale for progressing phase III of AF161-074 to flight tests (i.e. other than the single paragraph summary article)

[JCRM]

The UK gov. denied changing the terms of the grant. They claimed RE had failed to piece together a coherent business plan until 2016, iirc. All water under the bridge, anyway

Do you have a source for that? The most recent I have in my notes was the findings of the 2016 select committee, where

Dr Parker:  In the case of that particular programme, which is one I have personally championed for a long time, the announcement of grant funding was simultaneously with the words “subject to a business case”; in other words, it is potentially a very large investment in what we would call a novel and contentious type of investment. It is a small company in the early phase of a very novel technology, so Government investment in it would transform that company from being a small one with some good ideas, but not a great deal of capital,  into a company with considerable potential. Our end goal was to secure this technology for the UK, not see it go abroad as has happened sometimes in the past. There was a process of helping the company understand the need to produce, first, a very coherent programme in steps. We were not simply going to write a cheque for £60 million and walk away; we needed to protect the taxpayer’s investment and work with the company to ensure that the right kind of terms and conditions went into the grant offer letter, which has gone out.  The project management board is meeting literally this week, so the project is now up and running

It appears the committee rejected David's weaselling about "subject to a business plan" meaning "have a major aerospace investor" as they went on

We therefore ask the Government to explain, in response to this report:
a) why  it  changed  the  conditions  of  the  grant  made  to  Reaction  Engines  almost  two  years after announcing the investment;
b) why it estimated that the first £35 million would be made available in 2014/15 and did not foresee any delays that EU State Aid regulations might present;
c) whether any other space and satellite SMEs have been affected by similar delays in direct Government investment reaching them; and
d)  the key lessons it has learnt from this project and what changes it will make to the conduct of any future direct investments in the UK space sector.

has there been a response to these questions that you are aware of?

I had trouble finding the evidence REL provided to the relevant committee.

Here it is.

source for veracity:
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/science-and-technology-committee/satellites-and-space/written/30178.pdf

^^ This sort of thing could explain the odd changes in their plans and claims of proposed finances - all those times when we thought they had the 100s of millions promised that they needed. 

I spent some time looking, but haven't yet found a claim by REL that they had the investors lined up; only that they successful frost-controlled pre-cooler tests were a necessary prerequisite for them to seek the investment for the 350M engine development program (although at the time I did take an optimistic interpretation of the BBC's reporting of it to mean they had the investors waiting)

[Star One]

This month's Spaceflight (ISSN 0038-6340, Vol 59 No. 12 December 2017) mentions the HTX in the 'Briefing Notes' section, ending with

REI says that flight tests could begin within five years with an X-series research vehicle which will integrate airframe, propulsion system and associated systems for a hypersonic vehicle which may satisfy US Air Force requirement for a hemispheric strike system

Have we seen the 5 year X-series claim before?

Aside from sounding like a troll what is your point?

My question was whether there were any other sources for REI giving a (potential) 5 year timescale for progressing phase III of AF161-074 to flight tests (i.e. other than the single paragraph summary article)

And precisely what issue do you have with the source that exists and was quoted that you require another source?

[JCRM]

This month's Spaceflight (ISSN 0038-6340, Vol 59 No. 12 December 2017) mentions the HTX in the 'Briefing Notes' section, ending with

REI says that flight tests could begin within five years with an X-series research vehicle which will integrate airframe, propulsion system and associated systems for a hypersonic vehicle which may satisfy US Air Force requirement for a hemispheric strike system

Have we seen the 5 year X-series claim before?

And precisely what issue do you have with the source that exists and was quoted that you require another source?

The issue I have with the source *I* posted is the "briefing notes" section isn't a high quality source. It publishes very short summaries (this piece was two sentences, of which I included half) of "also in the news" - stripped of context and  subject to editorial interpretation. They are usually a VERY good signpost for interesting news, but in this case I have been unable to find the story/press release this summary is referring to.

[CrewtaiL]

JCRM, I recently read a review of UK space policy in which the government's denial (of changing grant terms) was recapitulated. Can't currently find the doc. but if I do come across it again, I'll post a link to it here

[Star One]

This month's Spaceflight (ISSN 0038-6340, Vol 59 No. 12 December 2017) mentions the HTX in the 'Briefing Notes' section, ending with

REI says that flight tests could begin within five years with an X-series research vehicle which will integrate airframe, propulsion system and associated systems for a hypersonic vehicle which may satisfy US Air Force requirement for a hemispheric strike system

Have we seen the 5 year X-series claim before?

And precisely what issue do you have with the source that exists and was quoted that you require another source?

The issue I have with the source *I* posted is the "briefing notes" section isn't a high quality source. It publishes very short summaries (this piece was two sentences, of which I included half) of "also in the news" - stripped of context and  subject to editorial interpretation. They are usually a VERY good signpost for interesting news, but in this case I have been unable to find the story/press release this summary is referring to.

Considering the nature of the project I am not surprised you can’t find much about it.

[john smith 19]

This month's Spaceflight (ISSN 0038-6340, Vol 59 No. 12 December 2017) mentions the HTX in the 'Briefing Notes' section, ending with

REI says that flight tests could begin within five years with an X-series research vehicle which will integrate airframe, propulsion system and associated systems for a hypersonic vehicle which may satisfy US Air Force requirement for a hemispheric strike system

Have we seen the 5 year X-series claim before?

I looked up the USAF contract for this.
https://www.acq.osd.mil/osbp/sbir/solicitations/sbir20161/af161.html
or
https://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/870285

It's interesting for several reasons.
1) It sets the bar as up to Mach 4. Presumably because M3 flight (using a water spray before the compressor) got a heavily modified Phantom II to M3 in the Mid 70's.
2) It offers access to the "DoD Supercomputing Resource Center (DSRC)" to "cleared personnel"
3) It's goal is to cool to at least 260c and with a specific performance of about 33 MW/tonne, which I think is quite low by RE standards.
4) "A letter of endorsement from a Versatile Affordable Advanced Turbine Engines (VAATE) participant is highly encouraged."
Mfg partners for this are
"Liberty Works," Honeywell, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrup Grumman, Williams International, Teledyne Turbine Engines
Wheather it should be full engine mfg, or wheather REI could do the whole engine and should be partnering with an airframe mfg, is another issue.
Phase 2 talks about "Fabricate a scaled prototype of the heat exchanger" but I wonder if REI can get the contract authority to accept a segment of a full size design (tailored to an engine partners design?) to avoid scale effects. This is REL SOP.

It'll be interesting if the actual HX is mfg in the US. Judging by some of the pictures up thread I'm guessing it won't be. It's a particularly difficult issue given the US fondness for asserting jurisdiction over IP from other countries. 

Personally I'd expect "5 years" is the rule of thumb for such a programme when a more detailed breakdown does not exist.  An  "extended dash" speed of M3 in a moded Phantom II was possible in the mid 70's in (AFAIK) basically an unmodified Aluminium structure.  OTOH M5 cruise is likely to be much harder.

And precisely what issue do you have with the source that exists and was quoted that you require another source?

The issue I have with the source *I* posted is the "briefing notes" section isn't a high quality source. It publishes very short summaries (this piece was two sentences, of which I included half) of "also in the news" - stripped of context and  subject to editorial interpretation. They are usually a VERY good signpost for interesting news, but in this case I have been unable to find the story/press release this summary is referring to.

And the odds are that it did come from a press release somewhere.

[JCRM]

It's interesting for several reasons.

4) "A letter of endorsement from a Versatile Affordable Advanced Turbine Engines (VAATE) participant is highly encouraged."
Mfg partners for this are
"Liberty Works," Honeywell, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrup Grumman, Williams International, Teledyne Turbine Engines
Wheather it should be full engine mfg, or wheather REI could do the whole engine and should be partnering with an airframe mfg, is another issue.

I'd not looked into who the VAATE participants werre - that's useful, thank you for doing so. I wonder if REI/REL took that step.

Phase 2 talks about "Fabricate a scaled prototype of the heat exchanger" but I wonder if REI can get the contract authority to accept a segment of a full size design (tailored to an engine partners design?) to avoid scale effects.

A single segment of modules is a scaled precooler - but I strongly suspect the "scaled" usage indicates a scaled precooler is acceptable for phase II.
 

It'll be interesting if the actual HX is mfg in the US. Judging by some of the pictures up thread I'm guessing it won't be. It's a particularly difficult issue given the US fondness for asserting jurisdiction over IP from other countries. 

I was surprised that they built the test equipment in the UK to ship out.
The press release about Phase II said

To support HTX testing, Reaction Engines is constructing a new high-temperature airflow test facility [...] and then conduct the testing of a Reaction Engines-supplied precooler starting in the spring of 2018

- given the usage of "constructing" and "supplied" I don't expect the preecooler to be built in the US.
I suspect it would be reasonably time consuming and expensive to transfer the expertise for constructing the precooler modules compared to buying the already built segments from REL so I would expect a project accountant to wave it through - it's only a scaled prototype after all. It would be nice to know just what's going on, but I don't expect to find out.

They are usually a VERY good signpost for interesting news, but in this case I have been unable to find the story/press release this summary is referring to.

And the odds are that it did come from a press release somewhere.

Given the "REI says that" usage, I strongly expect press release but I've not seen any of the other usual suspects pick up on it. Another alternative would have been a talk given by Dissel, but I've not seen anything about that.

[john smith 19]

A single segment of modules is a scaled precooler - but I strongly suspect the "scaled" usage indicates a scaled precooler is acceptable for phase II.

And you'd be right. In fact that's what they'd normally expect companies to do. But if the pipes in this thing are anything like the ones in the other RE designs they are already  around 1 mil (25.4 micrometres).
"Scaling down" from that does not make a great deal of sense, hence a sub section (rather than total system scaled down) is the way REL like to go. It also means if the unit works then "scale up" becomes "Make X numbers of these," which is mfg problem. With an actual scaled design it becomes "Design a new HX with this capacity, then mfg that."

It doesn't sound that big a deal, but that extra step adds a lot of time and risk, in addition to any problems you find in the tests already.

I don't expect the preecooler to be built in the US.
I suspect it would be reasonably time consuming and expensive to transfer the expertise for constructing the precooler modules compared to buying the already built segments from REL so I would expect a project accountant to wave it through - it's only a scaled prototype after all. It would be nice to know just what's going on, but I don't expect to find out.

It's also the key IP of the company, so it's better closely held.

Given the "REI says that" usage, I strongly expect press release but I've not seen any of the other usual suspects pick up on it. Another alternative would have been a talk given by Dissel, but I've not seen anything about that.

Indeed. I've lost access to Spaceflight so can't comment. The piece didn't mention if it was in a BIS meeting by any chance?

[yoram]

From Jeff Foust's Twitter:

 Jeff Foust‏ @jeff_foust
Nov 22

Mark Wood: see applications for SABRE in both space launch and hypersonics. Think engine is ready for flight test in 2023. What vehicle it goes on still under consideration. #Space17

[Star One]

From Jeff Foust's Twitter:

 Jeff Foust‏ @jeff_foust
Nov 22

Mark Wood: see applications for SABRE in both space launch and hypersonics. Think engine is ready for flight test in 2023. What vehicle it goes on still under consideration. #Space17

Hasn’t that been the timeframe for some little while now.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

It's an exciting day for Reaction Engines - test equipment is starting to arrive in Colorado for the #HTX TF2 high temperature test facility! Stay tuned! @ReactionEngines

https://twitter.com/reactionengusa/status/936725591864229888

[HMXHMX]

It's an exciting day for Reaction Engines - test equipment is starting to arrive in Colorado for the #HTX TF2 high temperature test facility! Stay tuned! @ReactionEngines

https://twitter.com/reactionengusa/status/936725591864229888

Heh.  That sure looks like the plenum that we at HMX built for the DARPA MIPCC MTB (MIPCC Test Bench) facility back in 2003...

...and "by sure look likes" I mean, it is.

The MTB was developed to support the augmented jet engine testing for the RASCAL program.

[HMXHMX]

Since there may be interest, I attach a few images of the MTB facility used for RASCAL...

The engine shown was operating with either water injection or LAIR, I can't recall which.  It was a J-85, though most testing was done on the F-15 F100 engine.

The J-79 engine provided the pressure and hot gas to simulate M4 at 150K ft altitude.  To cool the J-79 exhaust (which was running on burner) we pumped something like 300 lbm/sec of LN2 into the plenum, and thence to the inlet of the engine under test.

It was pretty complicated test stand.  Cost about $2.3M as I recall, in 2003 dollars.

The site was later used for the AirLaunch FALCON program for DARPA and then became the Virgin rocket engine test stand for LauncherOne.

[john smith 19]

Since there may be interest, I attach a few images of the MTB facility used for RASCAL...

The engine shown was operating with either water injection or LAIR, I can't recall which.  It was a J-85, though most testing was done on the F-15 F100 engine.

The J-79 engine provided the pressure and hot gas to simulate M4 at 150K ft altitude.  To cool the J-79 exhaust (which was running on burner) we pumped something like 300 lbm/sec of LN2 into the plenum, and thence to the inlet of the engine under test.

It was pretty complicated test stand.  Cost about $2.3M as I recall, in 2003 dollars.

The site was later used for the AirLaunch FALCON program for DARPA and then became the Virgin rocket engine test stand for LauncherOne.

So it's true. You really can buy almost anything on eBay.   

I guess the obvious question is did the contract say it was company property after it was built, or did DARPA retain ownership and you were acting as "custodians" of it?

Completely OT (but more appropriate to the "General Hypersonics" thread") at the time were you aware of the GD team who'd re-built a Phantom to reach Mach 3 in the mid 70's, or did you think MIPCC had not been tried on an aircraft engine since the 1960's?

[HMXHMX]

Since there may be interest, I attach a few images of the MTB facility used for RASCAL...

The engine shown was operating with either water injection or LAIR, I can't recall which.  It was a J-85, though most testing was done on the F-15 F100 engine.

The J-79 engine provided the pressure and hot gas to simulate M4 at 150K ft altitude.  To cool the J-79 exhaust (which was running on burner) we pumped something like 300 lbm/sec of LN2 into the plenum, and thence to the inlet of the engine under test.

It was pretty complicated test stand.  Cost about $2.3M as I recall, in 2003 dollars.

The site was later used for the AirLaunch FALCON program for DARPA and then became the Virgin rocket engine test stand for LauncherOne.

So it's true. You really can buy almost anything on eBay.   

I guess the obvious question is did the contract say it was company property after it was built, or did DARPA retain ownership and you were acting as "custodians" of it?

Completely OT (but more appropriate to the "General Hypersonics" thread") at the time were you aware of the GD team who'd re-built a Phantom to reach Mach 3 in the mid 70's, or did you think MIPCC had not been tried on an aircraft engine since the 1960's?

The original DARPA contract with us was fixed-price (which is how I managed all my gov't contracts or OTA agreements).  For Phase 3 they decided they wanted to go to cost-plus, and I didn't, so we novated the equipment, including that beautiful plenum (25K lbm of stainless...) to one of our subcontractors.  (DARPA can't actually own facilities so they never took title to the hardware.)  After Phase 3 ended, the equipment was removed from the site by that contractor and put in storage; beyond that I don't know the disposition – until I saw the photo above.