Crook Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 As the title says. On the one hand, there are the stories of funding from the British government and the ESA (admittedly, only a small fraction of the total project cost), and the successful engine tests. On the other, the very long list of previous cancelled SSTOs, many of which ran for years before they finally died. So, where does Skylon fit? Are we likely to see it become operational?Apologies if this has been covered before.Crook Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 SSTOs are dependent on very high launch rates, which are dependent on very high demand for relatively small satellites. Venturestar and it's ilk were proposed when 'big LEO' projects like Iridium, Teledesic and Globalstar were generating a lot of potential demand, and failed when they did. Skylon is now going to be dependent on new projects in the same sector, like the WorldVue system; if the sector succeeds, it may succeed, but if it collapses like it did last time, they haven't got a chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frozen_Heart Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 I actually think that Skylon has a much better chance of success if the Falcon rockets start being reused. Europe would need something that was able to compete. The ariane rockets (5 and 6) look like a joke compared to a reusable falcon 9. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crook Posted November 29, 2014 Author Share Posted November 29, 2014 Does competition actually drive the creation of alternatives? I know it did during the Space Race, but these days competition seems non-existent. After retiring the Shuttle, US astronauts just rented Soyuz, for example. If Falcon works, I'd imagine the ESA would just pay up and borrow it. Is there something I'm missing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 ESA are big on retaining independent access to space, but I don't see why they wouldn't just keep funding Ariane 6 in that case. Skylon wouldn't be able to perform most of the missions ESA actually undertakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibb31 Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 Apologies if this has been covered before.It has. Plenty of times.http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/86244-What-will-happen-if-Skylon-succeedshttp://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/72850-Skylon-may-fly-this-year-first-SSTO-spaceplanehttp://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/65742-Why-is-skylon-unmannedhttp://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/63293-Lift-vs-Weight-tradeoff-on-Skylon-style-spaceplanehttp://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/50187-Will-Skylon-ever-flyCan a mod please merge this thread with one of the other ones so that we don't have to go through the same arguments all over again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crook Posted November 29, 2014 Author Share Posted November 29, 2014 My mistake. The search function turned up the latest thread, which I thought was more of a 'If it works, what then?' rather than a 'Is the project likely to reach its goals?'. Looks like I missed the other threads, so please merge/lock this - as you say, it'll bring nothing new to the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sal_vager Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 Oh dear those threads are really old, some date back to 2013, I think we can stand to have a new one on this subject by now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibb31 Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 Why? What has changed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainKipard Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 Well the Skylon designs are always evolving. It's been through at least 3 iteration that I know of. The manual or RELs website undergoes revisions from time to time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibb31 Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 The last thread was July 2014. If there has been any news, then it might be good to post it there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuke Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 (edited) last i checked there was no news (last update was back in may). which seems fishy because they used to be doing regular news about engine tests. they may just be actually building the scale model engine, which might explain the lack of updates. Edited November 29, 2014 by Nuke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xenomorph555 Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 While the whole Skylon project is cool, the main thing to be excited about is the SABRE engine, a hydrogen powered jet engine capable of sending the plane to hypersonic speeds. It will be the next aviation revolution! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFlyingPigs Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 Skylon is interesting... But I still favour the roar of chemical rockets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgt_flyer Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 Yeah - the real interesting thing with skylon is the engine technology once those are perfected and shows to be reliable, they'll be able to also make tests with the scimitar variant of the engine. - if they follow airplane kind of business model, (they build the thing, then sell it to companes exploiting it) - then combining sales of the hypersonic planes + the spaceplane might offset the high devellopment costs a little.The rest of skylon's technology is quite doable with current tech. (Though they'll may need a bit of help for the hull and tanks materials)The engine's precooler itself is already an astounding leap forward in technology (and maybe the most important breakthrough they needed for the engine - current precooler tech being wayyy too heavy and ineffective compared to this one) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EzinX Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 Skylon is interesting... But I still favour the roar of chemical rockets Won't a saber engine takeoff still involve an earth shattering roar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Aqua* Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 Nope. It will take of in jet engine mode. It will sound like any regular jet plane. At a height of 28 km however... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuke Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 i thought starting it in rocket mode was needed to kickstart the air breathing components. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Aqua* Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 Don't worry, a kickstart isn't needed. In jet mode it will start like a normal turbofan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sal_vager Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 But will it actually run on the ground so it can take off?The precooler seems to rely on having a large amount of air available to feed the saber engine, not a problem when it's in flight but at zero airspeed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 But will it actually run on the ground so it can take off?The precooler seems to rely on having a large amount of air available to feed the saber engine, not a problem when it's in flight but at zero airspeed...I don't think it needs the precooler at all at lower speeds.Part of the problem in hypersonic speed is that you have to compress the thin air and slow it down so the engine can work with it. This generates lots of heat who the precooler handle. This is not a problem below mach 2 and the rapier is not an ramjet but have fans so takeoff should be possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shynung Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 But will it actually run on the ground so it can take off?The precooler seems to rely on having a large amount of air available to feed the saber engine, not a problem when it's in flight but at zero airspeed...There's a turbocompressor right behind the precooler. At takeoff, this will generate a low-pressure region between it and the precooler, sucking in the immediate atmosphere as a result.Though, I think we should be concerned more about REL's current condition. They don't have any factories able to mass-produce these kinds of engines, nor have they announced who will make the engines for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuke Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 they have about a third of the funds neccisary to build their reduced scale engine. im not sure how reduced. i think i remember hearing 1/4 scale, but i cant site that. im pretty sure that facility wise they are good for this part of the development process. they dont need a factory to build prototype engines, just a machine shop (which im pretty sure they have if they managed to build their precoolers already). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibb31 Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 Alright then, no thread merging then... I suppose we'll have to debunk Skylon all over again for the umpteenth time... *sigh*REL doesn't have the resources, the industrial base, the logistics, the infrastructure, or the business model to pull off Skylon. All the figures they have communicated are either hugely optimistic with no margin for underperformance, or unrealistic, especially in terms of their market expectations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softweir Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 (edited) I hate to agree, but I have to agree: I am very sceptical about it happening.Now, if REL took their heads out of the "it must be a spaceplane" place they are in, then they could make a fortune by licencing their heat-exchanger IP for other applications. There are numerous applications where a very high-efficiency heat exchanger can save energy and money: not household applications, but very large industrial applications.There's a turbocompressor right behind the precooler. At takeoff, this will generate a low-pressure region between it and the precooler, sucking in the immediate atmosphere as a result.It does: and that also is new, untried tech. They envisage using two counter-rotating compressor fans with no stators. Nobody has tried anything like it for a supersonic engine, and they have yet to prove it will work as well as they hope. Edited December 1, 2014 by softweir Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now