The Reaction Engines Skylon/SABRE Master Thread (6)

[Star One]

With recent SpaceX's successes and competition from BO, I think either Skylon is scaled up for larger payloads  or this whole program will not generate a space plane, it will be for military and perhaps civil aircrafts.

...Or it will be used for nothing.

Providing it proves its metal to the right parties it will likely find its place within the global strike framework.

[CrewtaiL]

With recent SpaceX's successes and competition from BO, I think either Skylon is scaled up for larger payloads  or this whole program will not generate a space plane, it will be for military and perhaps civil aircrafts.

...Or it will be used for nothing.

Providing it proves its metal to the right parties it will likely find its place within the global strike framework.

And if a spaceplane ever becomes economical to develop, this is most likely the tech. that will propel it.

[Star One]

With recent SpaceX's successes and competition from BO, I think either Skylon is scaled up for larger payloads  or this whole program will not generate a space plane, it will be for military and perhaps civil aircrafts.

...Or it will be used for nothing.

Providing it proves its metal to the right parties it will likely find its place within the global strike framework.

And if a spaceplane ever becomes economical to develop, this is most likely the tech. that will propel it.

Where it was dreamed the technology would end up, and where it actually ends up looks to be far apart now.

[CrewtaiL]

With recent SpaceX's successes and competition from BO, I think either Skylon is scaled up for larger payloads  or this whole program will not generate a space plane, it will be for military and perhaps civil aircrafts.

...Or it will be used for nothing.

Providing it proves its metal to the right parties it will likely find its place within the global strike framework.

And if a spaceplane ever becomes economical to develop, this is most likely the tech. that will propel it.

Where it was dreamed the technology would end up, and where it actually ends up looks to be far apart now.

That a spaceplane is now more than a decade away only reflects current market realities. The route they've chosen to take will help mature the underlying technology and make them a profitable (and therefore sustainable) business. All very sensible to my mind.

[Star One]

With recent SpaceX's successes and competition from BO, I think either Skylon is scaled up for larger payloads  or this whole program will not generate a space plane, it will be for military and perhaps civil aircrafts.

...Or it will be used for nothing.

Providing it proves its metal to the right parties it will likely find its place within the global strike framework.

And if a spaceplane ever becomes economical to develop, this is most likely the tech. that will propel it.

Where it was dreamed the technology would end up, and where it actually ends up looks to be far apart now.

That a spaceplane is now more than a decade away only reflects current market realities. The route they've chosen to take will help mature the underlying technology and make them a profitable (and therefore sustainable) business. All very sensible to my mind.

Not saying it isn’t sensible, just disappointing from a dreamers prospective.

[john smith 19]

That a spaceplane is now more than a decade away only reflects current market realities. The route they've chosen to take will help mature the underlying technology and make them a profitable (and therefore sustainable) business. All very sensible to my mind.

True.

The problem with SABRESkylon have always been finaincial. Specifically REL's desire to remain effectively a sub contractor while initiating the whole design.  This has allowed them to concentrate on getting the parts they do best to work.  I count the plan to move to doing the whole engine a very encouraging sign of increasing confidence in their abilities but that still left the vehicle.

IMHO what I think would greatly help them is if there was some way they could get legally binding commitments from potential customers that required no payment but would require them to buy a vehicle (at the inflation adjusted price) provided it met certain stated performance targets.

With enough such commitments REL would be in a much stronger position to get potential mfg partners to form a consortium and approach banks for commercial funding.

Reaction Engines plan offers something no other concept offers.

On demand space access. To any orbit, from any location, within hours of delivering the payload. 

[john smith 19]

With recent SpaceX's successes and competition from BO, I think either Skylon is scaled up for larger payloads  or this whole program will not generate a space plane, it will be for military and perhaps civil aircrafts.

I think quite a lot of people would quite like to fly on a M5 transport, given that Concorde made M2 and flew with near perfect safety record.

[CrewtaiL]

First aerial view image of TF1

[john smith 19]

With recent SpaceX's successes

You mean the launch of FH 5 years after its announced first launch date?

and competition from BO,

Maybe, or then again, maybe not.

I think either Skylon is scaled up for larger payloads  or this whole program will not generate a space plane, it will be for military and perhaps civil aircrafts.

You do realize Skylon is designed to be sold to multiple operators? If your preferred operator is busy launching a payload, you get another.

Or maybe you just buy a Skylon of your own and do it yourself?

I guarantee that is something SX will never allow.

[Lars-J]

With recent SpaceX's successes

You mean the launch of FH 5 years after its announced first launch date?

and competition from BO,

Maybe, or then again, maybe not.

I think either Skylon is scaled up for larger payloads  or this whole program will not generate a space plane, it will be for military and perhaps civil aircrafts.

You do realize Skylon is designed to be sold to multiple operators? If your preferred operator is busy launching a payload, you get another.

Or maybe you just buy a Skylon of your own and do it yourself?

I guarantee that is something SX will never allow.

Ah, the classic JS19 returns... Whenever it seems like you have left the deep end of Skylon-ism, you jump back in. 

As a Skylon stone thrower, you are ill advised to be throing stones at SpaceX. FH at least launched. What has Skylon been up to all these years? At least they (RE) have wizened up to reality with a more practical application of their engine technology, yet you cling to the most absurd part of Skylon - the business plan.

I can offer you a contrasting guarantee - Skylon as you imagine it will never fly, and even if it did, it would not be sold to a random operator.

[john smith 19]

Ah, the classic JS19 returns...

You seem to think something has happened to change my PoV.  Since I'm unaware of anything that's happened to change it I'd be interested to know what you think that would be.

As a Skylon stone thrower, you are ill advised to be throing stones at SpaceX. FH at least launched. What has Skylon been up to all these years?

Retiring risk and raising funds, much as SX has done, with a few slight differences.

At least they (RE) have wizened up to reality with a more practical application of their engine technology, yet you cling to the most absurd part of Skylon - the business plan.

The word your looking for is "wised." "Wizened" is an adjective for something else.
Perhaps you should pay more attention to Musks presentations. The whole "point to point" transport idea looks remarkably close to REL's business plan, adapted to the fact that BRF/BFS is not and never will be Skylon like.

I can offer you a contrasting guarantee - Skylon as you imagine it will never fly, and even if it did, it would not be sold to a random operator.

Not much of a guarantee, really. 
It was always known Skylon would only be sold to operators that met certain criteria and operated from countries that met certain other criteria. Somalia. Probably not. France. Probably. Peru?

Just to repeat I'll be happy with anything that lowers the price of space access to 10s of $/lb mark. I know neither F9 or FH can do that. I strongly doubt BFR/BFS will do so either, although I expect it will begin the Mars settlement process.

As always time will prove who was right and who was wrong.

[Pete]

Reaction Engines plan offers something no other concept offers.

Reaction Engines plan offers:
The pre-cooler for the theoretical engine,
for the theoretical hypersonic airplane,
that can theoretically be optimized to the point where it can deliver small-payload to LEO.]


That's a lot of THEORY, and very little machinery, despite working on the concept since 1958

[Star One]

Reaction Engines plan offers something no other concept offers.

Reaction Engines plan offers:
The pre-cooler for the theoretical engine,
for the theoretical hypersonic airplane,
that can theoretically be optimized to the point where it can deliver small-payload to LEO.]


That's a lot of THEORY, and very little machinery, despite working on the concept since 1958

You’re obviously fishing for a response so I’ll bite. Your statement is patently silly in light of not just the developments in the UK but also the US over the last year. After all I guess the plant REL is building both sides of the Atlantic are just imaginary items.

[Lars-J]

Reaction Engines plan offers something no other concept offers.

Reaction Engines plan offers:
The pre-cooler for the theoretical engine,
for the theoretical hypersonic airplane,
that can theoretically be optimized to the point where it can deliver small-payload to LEO.]


That's a lot of THEORY, and very little machinery, despite working on the concept since 1958

You’re obviously fishing for a response so I’ll bite. Your statement is patently silly in light of not just the developments in the UK but also the US over the last year. After all I guess the plant REL is building both sides of the Atlantic are just imaginary items.

It's not silly at all. It is reality. The precooler exists. The engine does not. The plane does not. The orbital spaceplane does not. Suggesting that recent development and investments have changed any of that is very much putting the cart before the horse.

[Avron]

Reaction Engines plan offers something no other concept offers.

Reaction Engines plan offers:
The pre-cooler for the theoretical engine,
for the theoretical hypersonic airplane,
that can theoretically be optimized to the point where it can deliver small-payload to LEO.]


That's a lot of THEORY, and very little machinery, despite working on the concept since 1958

In theory one needs to look at the physics - engine instability has been a massive problem - one only needs to look at Saturn F1 - keeping the flame-front attached to the injector is not trivial and that's with pure fuel and oxygen. Compressed air is far from been pure oxygen - good luck keeping the engine stable, I have yet to see in all history a rocket breathing engine - no a scramjet is a jet, not a rocket - lots of scramjets - no rocket engines.

Please do post an image or video of a rocket running off compressed air and fuel if there is any example, even a lab experiment - running means more than a second or two.

[john smith 19]

In theory one needs to look at the physics - engine instability has been a massive problem - one only needs to look at Saturn F1 - keeping the flame-front attached to the injector is not trivial and that's with pure fuel and oxygen.

I'm racking my brains to remember the last LO2/LH2 rocket engine developed in Canada. Can you remind me? Or just any rocket engine really.

The term you don't seem to know but seem to be looking for is "Combustion instability," which was a big problem in 1958, when the F1 was being developed. In 2018 diagnostic techniques and modelling have improved somewhat. 

As you countryman Henry Spencer observed making it a very big engine with a single nozzle was a recipe for trouble.  Given that a SABRE is about 4.2x smaller than an F1, and splits the flow into 4 combustion chambers, suggests the issue will be substantially simpler to solve.

Compressed air is far from been pure oxygen - good luck keeping the engine stable, I have yet to see in all history a rocket breathing engine

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here but in fact (A "rocket breathing" engine is what exactly?)
a) The Nitrogen in the air stabilizes the flame.
b) This was tested as part of the development programmed by DLR, as was the air cooling process.
c) In fact gas/gas injection tends to improve CI, as Henry Spencer also observed some time ago.

- no a scramjet is a jet, not a rocket

What an interesting use of words.
In fact Gas turbines, ramjets, SCramjets, ducted fan "propulsors" and rockets are all "jets"

And you're quite right. An SCramjet is not a rocket.  Rockets work and have been built into operational systems. Despite at least 58 years of R&D and North of a $10Bn spent in current USD no operational SCramjet has ever flown.

- lots of scramjets - no rocket engines.

And by "lots" that would be about 3 or 4 that actually flew so far? As opposed to several 1000 jet engined vehicles.

Please do post an image or video of a rocket running off compressed air and fuel if there is any example, even a lab experiment - running means more than a second or two.

Why, how would you know the difference?

[john smith 19]

The orbital spaceplane does not.

Maybe 2022, eh? 

Suggesting that recent development and investments have changed any of that is very much putting the cart before the horse.

So why exactly are you posting on this thread again?

[Avron]

Compressed air is far from been pure oxygen - good luck keeping the engine stable, I have yet to see in all history a rocket breathing engine

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here but in fact (A "rocket breathing" engine is what exactly?)
a) The Nitrogen in the air stabilizes the flame.
b) This was tested as part of the development programmed by DLR, as was the air cooling process.
c) In fact gas/gas injection tends to improve CI, as Henry Spencer also observed some time ago.

Reference to claim <A>? this I have to see in a rocket engine

[Lars-J]

Suggesting that recent development and investments have changed any of that is very much putting the cart before the horse.

So why exactly are you posting on this thread again?

Did you deliberately cut out from your quote what I responded to? It was merely a response for 'Star One' who seemed to suggested that just because they are now breaking ground on a facility that the Sabre engine is moving beyond the theoretical. Not yet. It may, or it may fail miserably for many reasons. (not all being technical)

[Star One]

Suggesting that recent development and investments have changed any of that is very much putting the cart before the horse.

So why exactly are you posting on this thread again?

Did you deliberately cut out from your quote what I responded to? It was merely a response for 'Star One' who seemed to suggested that just because they are now breaking ground on a facility that the Sabre engine is moving beyond the theoretical. Not yet. It may, or it may fail miserably for many reasons. (not all being technical)

Whether it does or does not eventually exist for technical reasons did not justify the OP snarky posting to which I was responding.