Reaction Engines SABRE secures next stage of funding!!

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Excellent news:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/07...ready_in_2020/

[DanceswithUnix]

I fear that SpaceX has stolen a lot of their thunder. A static test is barely newsworthy these days when Blue Origin are live streaming their little test rockets hitting the edge of the atmosphere while carrying low G experiments.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The UK Space Agency is investing £4.12m in a National Propulsion Test Facility, giving the UK a new facility for space technology testing:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/u...lsion-facility

So a good last few days for investment in UK space technology.

I fear that SpaceX has stolen a lot of their thunder. A static test is barely newsworthy these days when Blue Origin are live streaming their little test rockets hitting the edge of the atmosphere while carrying low G experiments.

What they are doing is far more revolutionary than what SpaceX is doing IMHO - SpaceX are making cost improvements to iterative technlogies we have already seen in both space and general aerospace technology. What SpaceX has been doing has been attempted but nobody has really come close to what they have been doing AFAIK. If it works it will be a major leap forward.

[EndlessWaves]

It's about time, wasn't this £60 million originally announced three or four years ago?

What they are doing is far more revolutionary than what SpaceX is doing IMHO

Well, demonstrating landing rocket stages on a barge is competition to the SSTO concept of Skylon. As far as I know SpaceX aren't developing anything like the SABRE air breathing rocket engine though.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

It's about time, wasn't this £60 million originally announced three or four years ago?

It was contingent on certain milestones being achieved first AFAIK.

Well, demonstrating landing rocket stages on a barge is competition to the SSTO concept of Skylon. As far as I know SpaceX aren't developing anything like the SABRE air breathing rocket engine though.

It is still not as revolutionary as we had demonstrators of such technology even 20 years ago. At the end of the day what SpaceX are still showing off is a souped-up multistage rocket which is based on decades of proven technology and advances in modern materials and computing technology which have been utilised elsewhere. Their actual engines are based on decades old technology made with cheaper modern manufacturing efforts. The engine Reaction Engines is developing is truly ground breaking,similar efforts decades ago had real problems with weight and practicality. The engine not only has usage in transporting things in space,but even in the future in travelling quickly from part of the planet to another.

What SpaceX has done is successfully marry technology from multiple areas to cut costs,which is impressive in its own right,but what Reaction Engines is trying to do has far more greater implications longer term and with a fraction of the budget SpaceX is doing.

[DanceswithUnix]

What they are doing is far more revolutionary than what SpaceX is doing IMHO - SpaceX are making cost improvements to iterative technlogies we have already seen in both space and general aerospace technology. What SpaceX has been doing has been attempted but nobody has really come close to what they have been doing AFAIK. If it works it will be a major leap forward.

Surprised you are so dismissive, this is a very exciting time for space flight. Both SpaceX and Blue Origin are re-using almost all of their vehicles.

Blue origin are still at the stage of testing small rockets that are not big enough for orbital flight, but the technology should scale up and they have had 4 test flights so far out of one of their New Shepherd rockets.

SpaceX went the other direction, start big and lose a few during testing. They have a hanger full of used rockets now, as well as a lot of successful launches.

The headline result is the same as for Reaction Engines, re-usable space vehicles.

But the bit behind the scenes for SpaceX, the thin atmosphere reverse burn tests they have been doing as part of their landings that simulate a mars arrival,the manned capsules, the heavy lift platform.

By 2020 Blue Origin are hoping to go orbital with their next re-usable booster. SpaceX are hoping to be on Mars (though a 2018 launch seems unlikely).

So it's nice to see that Sabre hasn't died, but it would be nicer to see real money going their way.

[Bagnaj97]

Well, demonstrating landing rocket stages on a barge is competition to the SSTO concept of Skylon. As far as I know SpaceX aren't developing anything like the SABRE air breathing rocket engine though.

Except SpaceX are just landing the first stage. It still has to be transported back, re-assembled to another 2nd stage, rolled out to the launch pad and hoisted upright. The 2nd stage is still expendable.

Skylon, if they can figure all the details out, is pretty much a plane that can go into space. It can take off from a runway, take its payload to orbit and land back on the runway ready for refuelling. The fact it's airbreathing while still atmospheric also reduces the amount of oxidiser needed, leaving more payload capacity.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Surprised you are so dismissive, this is a very exciting time for space flight. Both SpaceX and Blue Origin are re-using almost all of their vehicles.

Blue origin are still at the stage of testing small rockets that are not big enough for orbital flight, but the technology should scale up and they have had 4 test flights so far out of one of their New Shepherd rockets.

SpaceX went the other direction, start big and lose a few during testing. They have a hanger full of used rockets now, as well as a lot of successful launches.

The headline result is the same as for Reaction Engines, re-usable space vehicles.

But the bit behind the scenes for SpaceX, the thin atmosphere reverse burn tests they have been doing as part of their landings that simulate a mars arrival,the manned capsules, the heavy lift platform.

By 2020 Blue Origin are hoping to go orbital with their next re-usable booster. SpaceX are hoping to be on Mars (though a 2018 launch seems unlikely).

So it's nice to see that Sabre hasn't died, but it would be nicer to see real money going their way.

Because for all intents and purposes a cheaper multi-stage rocket - the same things we have been doing from the 60s but updated with modern technology. The Merlin and its sucessors are based on Apollo era technology. FFS,that makes it less advanced than the oxider rich engines the Russians have been using for decades.

The rockets still need to be assembled and parts are not re-usable. Parts of the Space Shuttle were re-useable too,like the SRBs.

Most of its iterative technology with modern updates.

It seems everything is running off an Apollo era legacy. Anything remotely different never gets invested into for the full term - look at how research into Aerospike engines just ground to a halt.

We have been getting cheaper rockets for decades. The same kind of designs but updated for the new generation.

I think Elon Musk is very good at hyping things but honestly I just get bored with all the PR SpaceX pumps out - if they even farted it would be news.

Its not anywhere as exciting as what engines like SABRE will enable us to do in the future. For me that is far more closer to an exciting future especially with things like HOTOL and NASP promised.

Engines like SABRE would revolutionise how we travel into space,and has the potential to revolutionise travel to other parts of the world.

Plus when it comes to Mars,I was more excited by what India did with such a tiny budget,and they have done it very little fanfare.

Edit!!

Look at what India is trying to do:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RLV-TD

That is something that also excites me more than what SpaceX is doing too.

[HalloweenJack]

arnt spacex just buying the kit from the Russians and bolting on a parachute

[DanceswithUnix]

Parts of the Space Shuttle were re-useable too,like the SRBs.

Most of its iterative technology with modern updates.

As I said, I would like to see real money spent on R.E. The UK government has talked a lot about the space industry here, but £50M in funding? I think that is about the yearly budget for the worst funded teams in Formula 1. VW are looking at fines of three magnitudes more than that for their emissions rigging.

The shuttle died because it was horribly expensive to run. Being partly re-usable isn't enough. In the end, launch cost is what really matters and all the newcomers are bringing the costs down by re-using the expensive bits. From SpaceX's analysis the fuel costs is a small part of their overall launch cost, so saving on a bit of oxidizer isn't going to automatically leap Skylon into the lead of the cheapest launch leaderboard.

Now if you can build Concorde II from this, that would be awesome and a real unique selling point. But sticking payloads in orbit is getting very competitive, the eyes are looking towards moon and Mars bases which need heavy lifters to start with. So when I said I think R.E. might have trouble grabbing headlines, I am wondering things like: Can it get to Mars? Can it fly to the moon and back? If you are running that kind of mission, then the weight of the fancy engine is going to have to offset the weight of the fuel needed on the way out because coming back you won't have an atmosphere to suck oxygen out of.

Oh, and as a being iterated from more primitive apes, I think iteration can get you a long way

arnt spacex just buying the kit from the Russians and bolting on a parachute

That's, erm, that other lot whose name I can't remember and can't be bothered to look up

[Peter Parker]

As I said, I would like to see real money spent on R.E. The UK government has talked a lot about the space industry here, but £50M in funding? I think that is about the yearly budget for the worst funded teams in Formula 1. VW are looking at fines of three magnitudes more than that for their emissions rigging.

The shuttle died because it was horribly expensive to run. Being partly re-usable isn't enough. In the end, launch cost is what really matters and all the newcomers are bringing the costs down by re-using the expensive bits. From SpaceX's analysis the fuel costs is a small part of their overall launch cost, so saving on a bit of oxidizer isn't going to automatically leap Skylon into the lead of the cheapest launch leaderboard.

Now if you can build Concorde II from this, that would be awesome and a real unique selling point. But sticking payloads in orbit is getting very competitive, the eyes are looking towards moon and Mars bases which need heavy lifters to start with. So when I said I think R.E. might have trouble grabbing headlines, I am wondering things like: Can it get to Mars? Can it fly to the moon and back? If you are running that kind of mission, then the weight of the fancy engine is going to have to offset the weight of the fuel needed on the way out because coming back you won't have an atmosphere to suck oxygen out of.

Oh, and as a being iterated from more primitive apes, I think iteration can get you a long way

Agree about launch costs, but a bit like Bagnaj97 said, if Skylon's turnaround is almost like a passenger jet process - refill it with fuel and literally turn it around on the runway - then they really will be very cheap. Where it won't be able to compete is max payload, because the upcoming Falcon 9 Heavy will be lifting 50+ tonnes to LEO compared to 15 tonnes for Skylon. Still 15 tonnes is a lot and plenty of governments/companies would be delighted with a cheap launch of a comms/weather/spy satellite.

Concorde 2 is interesting but there's also a lot of companies planning moves in that area too (super fast small business jets for the 0.01%) so it could also get very competitive. If the engine works though, then they're another customer base without even needing to build Skylon.

As for headlines, perhaps if they can spin a comparison to the space shuttle from the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey then they'll get some hype. I can hear the Strauss waltz now ...

That's, erm, that other lot whose name I can't remember and can't be bothered to look up

United Launch Alliance I suppose - the Delta/Atlas folks. They buy RD180s from the Russians but are planning to use (probably) Blue Origin's BE4 in their next Vulcan rocket. It looks like a great design from around 2005

Look at what India is trying to do:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RLV-TD

I'm not knocking India but ... I mean they do amazing things very cheap and a good friend is a distant relative of the guy they named their space centre after. However in reality the RLV-TD was a hypersonic glider. That's less impressive that the X-15 which was doing rocket-powered hypersonic flight 50 years ago, and less than the X-43 which I think is the only proper actually air-breathing hypersonic flight so far. Oh possibly Hifire and X-51A but hard to get good information about them. They're a decade away at least. Even if Skylon is delayed again, they have a massive lead and a better proposal.

[DanceswithUnix]

Agree about launch costs, but a bit like Bagnaj97 said, if Skylon's turnaround is almost like a passenger jet process - refill it with fuel and literally turn it around on the runway - then they really will be very cheap. Where it won't be able to compete is max payload, because the upcoming Falcon 9 Heavy will be lifting 50+ tonnes to LEO compared to 15 tonnes for Skylon. Still 15 tonnes is a lot and plenty of governments/companies would be delighted with a cheap launch of a comms/weather/spy satellite.

I get the impression that the SpaceX rockets are ready to fly after minimal effort. The question is whether the insurance companies are ready to underwrite them. I struggle to see anyone take a vehicle that had just been doing mach 25 into the freezing void of space and turn it around in hours anytime soon, there have to be some inspections? Just not as many as the Shuttle had.

Perhaps R.E need to get Colin Furze on board, YouTube is the new medium for getting eyeballs on what you are doing and that mad plumber has already done hover bikes and jet carts so I shudder to think what he would strap a rocket to

[Bagnaj97]

Where it won't be able to compete is max payload, because the upcoming Falcon 9 Heavy will be lifting 50+ tonnes to LEO compared to 15 tonnes for Skylon. Still 15 tonnes is a lot and plenty of governments/companies would be delighted with a cheap launch of a comms/weather/spy satellite.

But once the concept is proven, what's to stop them building a Skylon heavy? After all, planes also come in wildly varying sizes.

[peterb]

It is good news, specifically for the UK aerospace industry, and also in the general advancement of space technology. At the present payload the Skylon would be great as a shuttle, and alternative launch methods are welcome. This could herald the return of a space shuttle type of craft, but with organic launch capabilities.

As an aside, it all seems to have gone very quiet on the Richard Branson space effort - unless I have missed something.

[Flibb]

Think they have flown again since the crash, probably still in the testing stage.

[Peter Parker]

But once the concept is proven, what's to stop them building a Skylon heavy? After all, planes also come in wildly varying sizes.

The engines themselves might indeed scale. I'm not sure about the plane/orbiter. I can think of a few things that limit scaling for planes:

1. Runway length - bigger plane needs a longer runway. The Shuttle tended to use a runway 4km+ long! I'm not sure what Skylon's current design needs. It's smaller and lighter than many commercial jets but with those stubby wings it'll need to land fast to maintain enough subsonic lift. Still I'm sure I remember plans for the old Hotol design to land at commercial airports! I'd love to watch *that* landing.

2. Drag from wings - bigger plane needs bigger wings, which create drag (and lift of course). OK, you also have bigger engines, so perhaps this isn't an issue?

3. Re-entry heating - bigger plane receives a bigger heat load on re-entry. You have more plane to absorb some heat and generate extra lift, but re-entry heat is a big problem still. I always thought an active cooling system would be good, with a working fluid taking heat from leading edges and powering a turbine for extra electricity on the way down. Since there's a lot of plasma in the re-entry atmosphere, the electricity might be used to generate a field to push it further away from the craft.

None of it is impossible to overcome. However a 2-stage + N-boosters rocket is definitely easier to scale to 100+ tonnes.

Edit - found this:
https://www.theengineer.co.uk/issues...ions-answered/
About 1/3 of the way down is some talk about scaling. Not much there, but mentions targeting the needs of the market and problems with scaling _down_