How excited should I be about Skylon?

[MBobrik]

It will be the cost of developing the technology required so that it can work at all.

Sure. We have the cost of certification (and fuel efficiency, and longevity) on the other side, and the cost of developing something much more demanding on the other side.

But I am not sure that the added cost of certification is low enough ( or the added cost of developing a hypersonic instead of transonic plane is high enough ) to allow us to say right off the bat that the 12 G cost is too low to be real. It might be the case, but it is not obvious that it is.

[Frozen_Heart]

Sure. We have the cost of certification (and fuel efficiency, and longevity) on the other side, and the cost of developing something much more demanding on the other side.

But I am not sure that the added cost of certification is low enough ( or the added cost of developing a hypersonic instead of transonic plane is high enough ) to allow us to say right off the bat that the 12 G cost is too low to be real. It might be the case, but it is not obvious that it is.

Small companies can develop things for a much cheaper price and much faster than huge, bloated ones. Its how Spacex was so successful.

However this requires someone very effective in charge which I don't really see with Reaction Engines.

[*Aqua*]

Those figures are bogus, and everyone in the industry knows it.

Fascinating!

Who of you developed a working space plane? Who of you managed a project of this size? Who of you had a budget of several hundred millions?

None? I guessed so.

It is really always fascinating how fast people become 'experts' in stuff they never touched.

At least my numbers come from

. So if you know better than him, why don't build your own space planes or rocket? Edited December 2, 2014 by *Aqua*

[MBobrik]

Fascinating!

Who of you developed a working space plane? Who of you managed a project of this size? Who of you had a budget of several hundred millions?

None? I guessed so.

It is really always fascinating how fast people become 'experts' in stuff they never touched.

Negativist Nibb building something ? Nah, he figured already out that everything is impossible and/or futile...

At least my numbers come from

. So if you know better than him, why don't build your own space planes or rocket?

On the other hand, this is just argument from authority. And not exactly a trustworthy one. Nothing personally against Alan Bond, it's just he is looking for investors. And in that situation, it is tempting to underestimate costs and exaggerate returns.

[Frozen_Heart]

everything is impossible and/or futile...

Its a worryingly common view that technology is at its height and cannot get any better...

[*Aqua*]

On the other hand, this is just argument from authority. And not exactly a trustworthy one. Nothing personally against Alan Bond, it's just he is looking for investors. And in that situation, it is tempting to underestimate costs and exaggerate returns.

ESA had a look at what they developed, said 'It's good!' and then pumped millions in it. The UK Space Agency did the same. I don't think they can be fooled easily.

[rodion]

to be fair to REL the cost and efficiency projections for just about every space launch system ever developed are always vastly more optimistic than expected and often borderline doctored to attract investment, and i believe this is a tacitly accepted fact in aerospace circles, and large engineering projects in general. remember how NASA promised the shuttle would have turnaround time of a week and launch for $20 million per mission? (the real figures were about seven or eight times that amount, on average...)

[PakledHostage]

Its a worryingly common view that technology is at its height and cannot get any better...

Since there's an underlying theme of pointing out common logical fallacies in this thread, I'll jump in here and point out that this is an example of reductio ad absurdum.

These posts are in response to Nibb31, yet Nibb has only pointed out that the development of Skylon is likely to fail because there isn't currently enough demand for launch services to support the cost of its development. He did not say that "technology is at its height and cannot get any better".

[NERVAfan]

I don't think Skylon will be operating (if it ever flies) in anything like the current market, though. They haven't built an engine yet; even if they get funding really soon, it will be a long time until it flies, probably well into the 2020s at least. By then stuff like Falcon reusability, big LEO smallsat constellations, maybe Bigelow stations etc. will likely have changed the picture quite a bit.

[Frozen_Heart]

Since there's an underlying theme of pointing out common logical fallacies in this thread, I'll jump in here and point out that this is an example of reductio ad absurdum.

These posts are in response to Nibb31, yet Nibb has only pointed out that the development of Skylon is likely to fail because there isn't currently enough demand for launch services to support the cost of its development. He did not say that "technology is at its height and cannot get any better".

What I said wasn't necessarily aimed at nibb. Just that I don't think I've ever seen a thread discussing a new piece of technology during my time on this forum that someone or another has quickly said will never work. SSTOs, reusable boosters, spaceplanes, nuclear engines, electric engines, etc. Its usually the same people but without fail they say that it won't work.

The only reason I think Skylon is likely to fail is because Reaction Engines is incapable of developing and building it. If the concept was given to a company that was halfway competent then it could be developed and built for a fraction of the cost and time. Physically it could function just as well as any other launch system and probably a lot cheaper per launch.

[magnemoe]

That's something of a straw-man argument. While Skylon doesn't need to meet the strict standards of airworthiness that transport category aircraft have to meet (especially if it isn't man rated), it does need to work at speeds and altitudes over 30 times higher than a typical transport category aircraft. The cost of developing Skylon won't be that of certification. It will be the cost of developing the technology required so that it can work at all.

Might be better to use the B2 bomber as example rather than the A380 as its an very unique planes build in low number.

[magnemoe]

Since there's an underlying theme of pointing out common logical fallacies in this thread, I'll jump in here and point out that this is an example of reductio ad absurdum.

These posts are in response to Nibb31, yet Nibb has only pointed out that the development of Skylon is likely to fail because there isn't currently enough demand for launch services to support the cost of its development. He did not say that "technology is at its height and cannot get any better".

Yes, if you was willing to pour lots of money into the development you could build it at least as first stage.

In the future then you have far more transport too and from space it would be economical. Two other reason to build it prestige or military use and the last is limited.

[MBobrik]

What I said wasn't necessarily aimed at nibb. Just that I don't think I've ever seen a thread discussing a new piece of technology during my time on this forum that someone or another has quickly said will never work. SSTOs, reusable boosters, spaceplanes, nuclear engines, electric engines, etc. Its usually the same people but without fail they say that it won't work.

We have a proverb here. Not sure about the exact equivalent in English, but it goes like "those who want (to do something) seek ways, those who don't, seek reasons." And people like this are all about finding reasons why that particular space travel technology will fail.

[Kryten]

We have a proverb here. Not sure about the exact equivalent in English, but it goes like "those who want (to do something) seek ways, those who don't, seek reasons." And people like this are all about finding reasons why that particular space travel technology will fail.

This thing is supposed to be a commercial product, it needs 'reasons' or it will fail. The problems mostly aren't technological, they're with the business case.

[MBobrik]

This thing is supposed to be a commercial product, it needs 'reasons' or it will fail. The problems mostly aren't technological, they're with the business case.

I think you misunderstood my post. the 'reasons' in the proverb were not like asking for proper justification, but like finding any excuse why to dismiss the entire idea.

[shynung]

The idea itself is pretty solid on paper. Technological stuff can be researched with enough funding. After all, the Space Race back then 'til the 70s was one heck of a technological advance achieved in a rather short period.

Problem is, REL right now has very little in the way of funding, not to mention infrastructure and expertise. If it was Airbus or Boeing that made the offer, the situation might have been different.

[PakledHostage]

I think you misunderstood my post. the 'reasons' in the proverb were not like asking for proper justification, but like finding any excuse why to dismiss the entire idea.

And this ties into my posts from yesterday: You can't extrapolate out from someone's economic argument as to why a project like Skylon is likely to fail and accuse them of just finding excuses not to try, or of believing that no technological progress is possible. Engineers are creative people who dream of new ways to apply science to solving problems. But they have to be practical too. Nobody is going to provide billions of dollars to develop a technological Taj Majal. People who have that kind of money available to invest want to see a return on it. Show me a reasonable business case for something like Skylon and I'll jump right on the band wagon. As Kryten said, a lack of funding is a bigger barrier to Skylon ever succeeding than a lack of creative solutions to technological problems.

[AngelLestat]

Is funny to read economy arguments in a science forum section, these arguments are so true as scientific arguments in a economic forum.

ESA already did an study about the economic viability of the project, it was very positive (that without taking into account all new bussiness that will arise due the lower launch costs)

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27591432

Before get funding, a new study is needed, this is to prove the feasibility of skylon, to see if it will work just as reaction engines guess. It will take 1 year or more, if that is ok.. The project will start.

US Airlane force and other companies already show interest in the sabre engine, they are making studies right now, reactions engines said they had some bussiness talks about the licenses.

I dint read all previous comments, but I already know the opinions of many of you because we had this discussion before.

[MBobrik]

You can't extrapolate out from someone's economic argument as to why a project like Skylon is likely to fail and accuse them of just finding excuses not to try, or of believing that no technological progress is possible.

True. I myself did indeed declare someone's idea impractical, more than a few times. Maybe Skylon is impractical too, or maybe, as mentioned above, just the company designing it is not up to the task.

But I was not talking not about someone calling just skylon, or a bunch of other projects feasibility into question. I was talking about people like Nibb the negativist who do always.

[MBobrik]

ESA already did an study about the economic viability of the project, it was very positive (that without taking into account all new bussiness that will arise due the lower launch costs)

Not to be negativist myself, but what percentage of ESA's big projects went significantly over the budget ?

[Nibb31]

Cost estimate is based on them using much more conventional materials than the 787. (only the TPS uses a material new to airframes, but it's not new to high-temperature structural applications. It's already used in F1 engines and exhaust systems.)

From REL's web site:

"SKYLON's fuselage and wing load bearing structure is made from carbon fibre reinforced plastic and consists of stringers, frames, ribs and spars built as warren girder structures. The aluminium propellant tankage is suspended within this, free to move under thermal and pressurisation displacements.

The external shell (the aeroshell) is made from a fibre reinforced ceramic and carries only aerodynamic pressure loads which are transmitted to the fuselage structure through flexible suspension points. This shell is thin (0.5mm) and corrugated for stiffness. It is free to move under thermal expansion especially during the latter stages of the aerodynamic ascent and re-entry."

There is nothing conventional about a carbon fibre load bearing structure the size of an A380 fuselage, covered with RCC panels that are designed to move under thermal expansion. RCC was used on the Shuttle's wing edges, but has never been used in such a huge structure. It was also damn expensive and fragile.

F1 engine parts and exhausts are much smaller and they aren't exposed to the same constraints. Also, F1 teams can afford to replace them after each race, which would be prohibitive for the huge surface of Skylon's TPS.

Boeing spent billions just to set up production of the carbon fibre segments for the 787, and they have had all sorts of issues with it. Producing a cylindrical structure is also easier that the ogival shape of Skylon.

There are no facilities and no expertise for building stuff like this in such huge sizes. Everything has to be done from scratch, the tooling, the logistics, the supply chain, the training, the manufacturing and testing processes... It's much more complex than the 787 fuselage.

$12 bn was the development cost of the A380, and the Skylon does not require man-rating in its initial development. Aside from the engines, Skylon is more conventional than most modern airliners - it's certainly a LOT simpler, even if its task is more complex.

It's not about man rating. It's just the cost of designing every single part, bracket, connector, line of code... Mundane parts like the landing gear or engine nacelles, the electronics, tyres, lights, etc... all need to go through testing. The avionics alone are going to be a huge expense, because automated SSTO has never been done before.

It's a huge project, much more complex than an airliner, a military cargo plane, or even a supersonic fighter jet.

The quoted unit price for Skylon is £190 mn, or $320 mn at the time that estimate was published. Into $12 bn, that means only 37.5 units are required - market estimates performed expect at least 30 units demand, more likely 60+.

And what are these 60 skylon's going to be launching? Where are the customers queuing up for $16 million launches? 60 vehicles capable of 200 flights, that's 12000 orbital launches. Over 10 years, that's 23 launches a week.

Space tourists are not going to pay that kind of money. If you put 20 people on each flight, it's still $800000 per seat. There aren't enough customers with that kind of money to fly 500 people per week to nowhere.

There might be a market for a couple of constellations of 100 sats, at $16 million each, that's a few billion, but you're still far from 12000 launches, or even 6000.

Is funny to read economy arguments in a science forum section, these arguments are so true as scientific arguments in a economic forum.

ESA already did an study about the economic viability of the project, it was very positive (that without taking into account all new bussiness that will arise due the lower launch costs)

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27591432

From the article:

"The report, commissioned by the European Space Agency (Esa), was led by Reaction Engines Limited (REL) of Oxfordshire"

So basically, ESA paid a few million euros to REL for a report that justifies REL's business case. Ok.

Seriously, ESA and its member agencies spend a lot of money every year on reports and trade studies. It's what research institutions do. 5 million euros for a trade study is chump change for ESA.

It would be wrong to extrapolate that because they funded a trade study, ESA is going to fund Skylon. In the meantime, they have just committed 8 billion euros to Ariane 6, which is going to be ESA's bread and butter for the next 20 years.

At least my numbers come from

. So if you know better than him, why don't build your own space planes or rocket?

Alan Bond has been working on Skylon for nearly 30 years now. Maybe he's right and everyone else is wrong. Maybe NASA, ESA, Boeing, LM, Airbus, BAe, and everyone who works in the industry are dummies.

But maybe the reason nobody else has built a space place over the last 30 years is because they actually do know better than him.

I think REL has some extremely valuable innovations. I think they could revolutionize space travel. But I also think they are biting off more than they can chew. They should put their technology on the market and reap in the rewards with stuff that the industry actually has a use for. If the need ever arises for an SSTO spaceplane, their technology will probably be part of it, but the industrial effort to build Skylon is way beyond what 4 blokes in a shed can do.

Edited December 3, 2014 by Nibb31

[Iskierka]

There is nothing conventional about a carbon fibre load bearing structure the size of an A380 fuselage, covered with RCC panels that are designed to move under thermal expansion. RCC was used on the Shuttle's wing edges, but has never been used in such a huge structure. It was also damn expensive and fragile.

F1 engine parts and exhausts are much smaller and they aren't exposed to the same constraints. Also, F1 teams can afford to replace them after each race, which would be prohibitive for the huge surface of Skylon's TPS.

A C-F load bearing frame is much easier than what most airliners using C-F are aiming for, which is a full C-F airframe in all components including skin. Skylon simply needs a series of girders to mount its other components from, much simpler than an actual full body as with the 787.

From immediate reading, RC/C has few strength problems, it only suffers under impact conditions. F1 cars use it for their brakes that sustain absurd loads, and while they could afford to replace parts after each race, they don't because they don't want 10-place grid penalties. Further, Skylon uses C/SiC, which is developed from original RC/C materials, performs much better, and deals well with impacts from studies I find after just a few minute's googling.

It's not about man rating. It's just the cost of designing every single part, bracket, connector, line of code... Mundane parts like the landing gear or engine nacelles, the electronics, tyres, lights, etc... all need to go through testing. The avionics alone are going to be a huge expense, because automated SSTO has never been done before.

Care to explain why every man-rated space vehicle has cost so much more then? There's definite savings in that area from not having to support people. And the Buran has flown totally automatically - and how exactly would a single-stage vehicle that simply has two engine modes be more complex than a vehicle that needs to manage five engine units that aren't even part of itself, stage twice, handle the changes in behaviour of each staging, and then perform the same task in the end? Just because it's not been done before doesn't mean we haven't done far more difficult.

And what are these 60 skylon's going to be launching? Where are the customers queuing up for $16 million launches? 60 vehicles capable of 200 flights, that's 12000 orbital launches. Over 10 years, that's 23 launches a week.

Space tourists are not going to pay that kind of money.

There might be a market for a couple of constellations of 100 sats, at $16 million each, that's a few billion, but you're still far from 12000 launches, or even 6000.

Why do they have to perform all 200 launches in 10 years? As has been pointed out, they can cover development cost in 10 years with far less, and the typical airliner has a lifespan of at least 25 - why should these be worked so hard that their entire lifespan is gone so quickly?

You're the first to mention space tourism. REL say that's a possibility once the vehicle is operating, but have absolutely zero intention of using that market to generate interest. The satellite constellations are what will generate interest, and at so little for the same payload to LEO, or more to GTO, people will be interested in more than just a couple. The customers will queue up for these launches when the launches are actually being offered and the vehicle is beyond quiet discussions that they'd rather not publicise too much so early in development.

From the article:

"The report, commissioned by the European Space Agency (Esa), was led by Reaction Engines Limited (REL) of Oxfordshire"

So basically, ESA paid a few million euros to REL for a report that justifies REL's business case. Ok.

Or, if you don't snip a quote out of context, REL and ESA together asked some other independent companies to do assessments, so that both REL and ESA could get a better, more certain idea of their business case. Ariane 6 is getting funded because it's simple, certain, and quick - doesn't mean they won't be happy to throw it out if Skylon comes along, just means they don't want to risk waiting around for it.

Alan Bond has been working on Skylon for nearly 30 years now. Maybe he's right and everyone else is wrong. Maybe NASA, ESA, Boeing, LM, Airbus, BAe, and everyone who works in the industry are dummies.

But maybe the reason nobody else has built a space place over the last 30 years is because they actually do know better than him.

I think REL has some extremely valuable innovations. I think they could revolutionize space travel. But I also think they are biting off more than they can chew. They should put their technology on the market and reap in the rewards with stuff that the industry actually has a use for. If the need ever arises for an SSTO spaceplane, their technology will probably be part of it, but the industrial effort to build Skylon is way beyond what 4 blokes in a shed can do.

Or maybe because they can earn plenty themselves on simple expensive rockets that they charge stupid amounts for. Maybe because rockets -work-, and space is valuable enough that people will pay those absurd prices, so to bother actually trying to change that and make space for everyone (or as many people as feasible), takes more of a visionary approach fuelled more by determination than big company budget. The need will never naturally arise for an SSTO spaceplane until we need to abandon the planet due to an extinction event - but if you offer one, the market will leap aboard as fast as it can adapt its payload interfaces.

[Nibb31]

Care to explain why every man-rated space vehicle has cost so much more then?

Because they are more complex. It's not the man-rating that costs, it's the complexity of the design that is driven from the requirements. A hot-air balloon is man-rated, but it's cheaper than a GEO comsat.

Why do they have to perform all 200 launches in 10 years?

Because operators who buy Skylon will not want to wait 25 years to break even. An airliner is profitable way before the end of its operational life. Even 10 years is a long wait for ROI.

You're the first to mention space tourism. REL say that's a possibility once the vehicle is operating, but have absolutely zero intention of using that market to generate interest. The satellite constellations are what will generate interest, and at so little for the same payload to LEO, or more to GTO, people will be interested in more than just a couple. The customers will queue up for these launches when the launches are actually being offered and the vehicle is beyond quiet discussions that they'd rather not publicise too much so early in development.

Right, so we agree that space tourism is not Skylon's market. So then what IS Skylon's market ? What purpose justifies such a huge flight rate at the proposed price point?

Ariane 6 is getting funded because it's simple, certain, and quick - doesn't mean they won't be happy to throw it out if Skylon comes along, just means they don't want to risk waiting around for it.

That is not how these things work...

ESA's main purpose is to subsidize the European space industry. Most of the money is provided by France, Germany, and a couple of other big players. The UK is one of the smallest contributors. What each country gets is proportional to what each country puts in, and the decisional power goes to the biggest contributors. ESA is not going to cut the funding that goes to Airbus or Thales-Alenia to spend billions on a small company out of an industrial park in Oxford.

The only way ESA will put any serious money into Skylon is if the British Government starts putting serious money into ESA. And I don't see that happening.

The need will never naturally arise for an SSTO spaceplane until we need to abandon the planet due to an extinction event - but if you offer one, the market will leap aboard as fast as it can adapt its payload interfaces.

I don't buy that. The graveyards of marketing are full of products for which somebody thought "build it and they will come". The rare cases where a new product creates a new need are the exception.

Dividing the price of orbital launches by a factor of 10 doesn't mechanically multiply the demand by 10... or 100 or 1000. Demand will be driven by need, not price, and there simply is very little need for space.

[AngelLestat]

Not to be negativist myself, but what percentage of ESA's big projects went significantly over the budget ?

why it matters? What you try to prove? Agencies all the time evaluated lot of papers of possible projects, scientifics missions, etc. Is normal that just the most important and most qualify will be receive the budget. Skylon is a 20 years projects which reach their final step. If the second study gives green line (This mean that it can be build and it will work as prevented) then it will get the found without questions. They will share cost with private companies as always is done in these cases.. Because it is a bussiness project with real return.

From REL's web site:

"SKYLON's fuselage and wing load bearing structure is made from carbon fibre reinforced ... propellant tankage is suspended within this, ... fibre reinforced ceramic and carries only aerodynamic pressure loads which are transmitted to the ... o move under thermal expansion especially during the latter stages of the aerodynamic ascent and re-entry."..... more structure issues

So you you did all the structure calculations with the right software and then with the real tests?

What you really know about strength of materials and the stresss they need to take? You may said the physsics adding that you study in collage and university. But? You need to be at least 20 years of experience being always update by edge of news on your speciality to work in this kind of projects.

What you know about all the new composite materials based in graphene which some are being manufactured right now or in development..

From the article:

"The report, commissioned by the European Space Agency (Esa), was led by Reaction Engines Limited (REL) of Oxfordshire"

So basically, ESA paid a few million euros to REL for a report that justifies REL's business case. Ok.

Seriously, ESA and its member agencies spend a lot of money every year on reports and trade studies. It's what research institutions do. 5 million euros for a trade study is chump change for ESA.

It would be wrong to extrapolate that because they funded a trade study, ESA is going to fund Skylon. In the meantime, they have just committed 8 billion euros to Ariane 6, which is going to be ESA's bread and butter for the next 20 years.

Lol.. as I said, is funny read about economics in a science forum.

5 million euros just to do an economic study seems not money for you?? If they will spent that money for each paper or report they would be broke in few years.

You know how many people working in that means? Or you think that there was only 4 dudes who each one receive 1 millon.

Then you said that it has not importance or is not valid.. lol so they spent 5 millons for a report with flaws then?? hahaha

But that is not all, then you said:

There might be a market for a couple of constellations of 100 sats, at $16 million each, that's a few billion, but you're still far from 12000 launches, or even 6000

This mean you know more about economic than all the people who work in this study all this time.. why they dint ask you?

Time to go, this topic reached a new level of insanity.

[Iskierka]

Because they are more complex. It's not the man-rating that costs, it's the complexity of the design that is driven from the requirements. A hot-air balloon is man-rated, but it's cheaper than a GEO comsat.

So ... we're agreed there? Skylon gets to skip all the human costs? Cool.

Because operators who buy Skylon will not want to wait 25 years to break even. An airliner is profitable way before the end of its operational life. Even 10 years is a long wait for ROI.

And I just said they don't even need that much business to break even in 10, the 200 flights is ten times the break-even.

Right, so we agree that space tourism is not Skylon's market. So then what IS Skylon's market ? What purpose justifies such a huge flight rate at the proposed price point?

Reading comprehension, much? The satellites, like I said where you precisely quoted.

That is not how these things work...

It kind-of is. ESA needs a launch vehicle for Europe - Ariane 6 is definitely going to work. Skylon is a very interesting proposal, but even if they believe it will work, it's not going to be as certain as Ariane, so, funding remains for Ariane, and if Skylon gets to a point that it is comparable certainty, or worthwhile risk, they can still go fund it, assuming the US hasn't taken it. If they haven't, it'll be companies like Airbus that take airframe manufacturing, so funding will remain in the same distribution.

I don't buy that. The graveyards of marketing are full of products for which somebody thought "build it and they will come". The rare cases where a new product creates a new need are the exception.

Dividing the price of orbital launches by a factor of 10 doesn't mechanically multiply the demand by 10... or 100 or 1000. Demand will be driven by need, not price, and there simply is very little need for space.

And it doesn't need to. Even at current launch rates they can break even, and so long as it provides the same functionality or more (it does) every customer will want to fly with them for the price - so yes, build it and they will come.

Also, demand is driven by need, but demand is limited by price, so dropping the price will increase space utilisation, even if not by a predictable amount. The only certainty is more universities launching cheap projects.