What do we know about SABRE / Skylon ?

[softweir]

The idea is that the ceramic skin of Skylon would be fabricated in a very few, very large parts, and would attach to the frame with a large number of sprung connectors. The connectors would reduce the demand on high tolerances between the two, and would allow the skin and airframe to expand and contract independently. Comments by Reaction Engines Limited suggest that Scaled Composites propose to manufacture the skin using "carbon-carbon composite", with a structure not unlike corrugated cardboard for lightness and strength.

Just how much research has been done into this novel material and construction is anybody's guess!

[Stormrider67]

This is a good overview magazine article about the Skyline and Sabre. Pretty readable and not overly technical. There were also two related sidebars about the Sklyon/Sabre. 

That issue of the magazine also had articles on three other spaceplanes under development at the time – SS2, Lynx, and Dream Chaser

[p1t1o]

On 3/3/2017 at 9:04 AM, softweir said:

The idea is that the ceramic skin of Skylon would be fabricated in a very few, very large parts, and would attach to the frame with a large number of sprung connectors. The connectors would reduce the demand on high tolerances between the two, and would allow the skin and airframe to expand and contract independently. Comments by Reaction Engines Limited suggest that Scaled Composites propose to manufacture the skin using "carbon-carbon composite", with a structure not unlike corrugated cardboard for lightness and strength.

Just how much research has been done into this novel material and construction is anybody's guess!

Reinforced Carbon-Carbon? Its quite a mature technology as it happens, invented for the Space Shuttle.

Sure, it will be used in a different form factor under different conditions - actually less stressful conditions than the Shuttle - but research into carbon composites is fairly advanced. Thats why we are getting all these fancy new plastic airliners  

[Nibb31]

And as I mentioned earlier, Boeing had to completely reinvent how to build an airliner with the 787. It required a new factory, new tooling, new suppliers, new techniques, new procedures, new tests, and a lot of that didn't work as planned as they suffered many unexpected technical problems and delays. It cost them $32 billion to develop, which kinda makes sense if you expect to sell thousands of units.

The A380 and A350 programs both cost around €11-13 billion. These are both rather conventional aircraft that apply proven technology. The A350 uses composite wings but a conventional fuselage.

As a comparison, the Ariane 6 development program has a budget of €2.6 billion. Development of Vulcan will probably be around $2-3 billion too.

REL claims that Skylon could be developed for $12 billion, which is less than half the cost of the 787 and about the same amount as the A350. That's absolutely unrealistic. Even with the best estimates, a total fleet of 5 Skylons would exceed the world's entire launch market, which would put the unit price of one Skylon at $2-3 billion. The economics simply don't work.

Edited March 6, 2017 by Nibb31

[p1t1o]

3 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

REL claims that Skylon could be developed for $12 billion, which is less than half the cost of the 787 and about the same amount as the A350. That's absolutely unrealistic. Even with the best estimates, a total fleet of 5 Skylons would exceed the world's entire launch market, which would put the unit price of one Skylon at $2-3 billion. The economics simply don't work.

The A350/787 however has to be man-rated for thousands of flights, multiple flights per day, not so with a hypothetical Skylon, would that not significantly reduce costs?

Not that Im arguing the case that Skylon in its current guise is economically viable at this time - though it is clearly geared towards a world with much increased launch demand, I think that is the point of the whole thing. But I think we are all agreed that "Skylon" as a concept is more of a detailed marketing proposal for the engine than anything else.

Its a significant step in propulsion technology, I for one am excited just by the engine.

Edited March 6, 2017 by p1t1o

[wumpus]

1 hour ago, p1t1o said:

The A350/787 however has to be man-rated for thousands of flights, multiple flights per day, not so with a hypothetical Skylon, would that not significantly reduce costs?

Not that Im arguing the case that Skylon in its current guise is economically viable at this time - though it is clearly geared towards a world with much increased launch demand, I think that is the point of the whole thing. But I think we are all agreed that "Skylon" as a concept is more of a detailed marketing proposal for the engine than anything else.

Its a significant step in propulsion technology, I for one am excited just by the engine.

Anyone know the economics of a Learjet?  I'm guessing that you simply can't get the cost of the SABRE engine down to the point where it could be a Bill Gate's/sultan's/whatever personal jet, so you probably would need the full 787 high-duty-cycle man rating.  Skylon itself is pretty unlikely to fly unless the SABRE already exists, and I don't see a real market for SABRE.

[p1t1o]

8 minutes ago, wumpus said:

Anyone know the economics of a Learjet?  I'm guessing that you simply can't get the cost of the SABRE engine down to the point where it could be a Bill Gate's/sultan's/whatever personal jet, so you probably would need the full 787 high-duty-cycle man rating.  Skylon itself is pretty unlikely to fly unless the SABRE already exists, and I don't see a real market for SABRE.

Personal jets? Heh?

Why would an unmanned cargo ferry, or its engines, require man-rating?

Skylon might be a marketing exercise or a demented pipe-dream, but if you cant see any market for a Mach 5+, 90k+ft alt. airbreathing engine...

At the very least, I'll eat my hat if the military isnt watching with some interest.

[mikegarrison]

Yes, this is an old thread. But I just read the following in Soonish and found it amusing:

Quote

A British firm called Reaction Engines is working on a vehicle called Skylon, which uses an engine called SABRE, for Synergetic Air-Breathing Rocket Engine. We're guessing that they came up with the "ABRE" part quickly, then spent a few days deciding on an "S".

 

[Skylon]

If Skylon did fly, what would be the cost? I'm guessing there would be a lot of refurbishment costs like with the space shuttle, but I could be wrong, which is why I'm asking. 

It's all well and good making something reusable, but if it's expensive, then what's the point?

Spoiler

I found this article, which amused me with this statement: 

Quote

Reaction Engines are hoping to have a working prototype flying by 2016, and aim to construct a fleet of them within the next decade.

 

 

[StrandedonEarth]

Ask NASA or Elon (and pretty much anyone else in aerospace) about how "hope to" and "aim to" timelines work out...

[tomf]

21 hours ago, Skylon said:

If Skylon did fly, what would be the cost? I'm guessing there would be a lot of refurbishment costs like with the space shuttle, but I could be wrong, which is why I'm asking. 

It's all well and good making something reusable, but if it's expensive, then what's the point?

  Reveal hidden contents

I found this article, which amused me with this statement: 

 

 

I think the idea is that when it is empty it would be so light that it would have a pretty easy re-entry, bot needing any of the heat resistant tiles that made the shuttle so difficult to refurbish.

[p1t1o]

21 hours ago, Skylon said:

If Skylon did fly, what would be the cost? I'm guessing there would be a lot of refurbishment costs like with the space shuttle, but I could be wrong, which is why I'm asking. 

Its hard to say, because the cost would also have to include the construction of multiple spaceports wherever you needed them. IIRC it cannot use present runways because the takeoff weight-on-wheels is too high.

Really the cost is dependant on the expansion of a space industry, that has to come first, THEN something like Skylon might be viable (although still with a very high initial outlay) however, the general consensus is that Skylon is a thought exercise on how airbreathing engines might contribute to space travel, and not necessarily a complete and practical proposal.

So we may get airbreathing space travel at some point in the future, it may be special-purpose or it may be widespread and ubiquitous, or it may never pan out. Either way, Reaction Engines have the SABRE, which is real, someone just needs to come up with a way to make money from it.

[tater]

 

[mikegarrison]

16 hours ago, tater said:

 

It's not clear that they are buying access to the engine. I've seen some press articles that suggest they may be more interested in the heat exchanger technology Reaction Engines has developed.

[Nuke]

looks like they did a redesign on the engine, or is this the scaled down test engine?

[Racescort666]

15 hours ago, Nuke said:

looks like they did a redesign on the engine, or is this the scaled down test engine?

No, same engine, it's just the new Porkjet version.