Slashdot Mirror
Reaction Engines To Fly Reusable Spaceplane
RobGoldsmith writes "Reaction Engines have designed a 'reusable spaceplane' to provide inexpensive and reliable access to space. The Star Wars-looking 'Skylon' reusable spaceplane has already been designed and the team are well into engine testing. They have taken some time out from building spaceships to talk about their background, their goals, and their recent engine tests. This article shows new images of their STERN Engine, an experimental rocket motor which explores the flow in Expansion Deflection (ED) nozzles. They also discuss their Sabre air-breathing engine technology. View the Skylon Spaceplane concept, the STERN Engine and much more in this in-depth interview with the team."
Reaction Engines is the name of the company. It's using conventional LOX/LH2 engines.
And for those who are calling this Shuttle 2.0, it's unmanned.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
From http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/skylon_dev.html :
The total development program will cost about $10 billion.
Also... http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/skylon_vehicle.html
Skylon Statistics
Length: 82m
Fuselage Diameter: 6.25m
Wingspan: 25m
Unladen Mass: 41,000kg
Fuel Mass: 220,000kg
Maximum Payload Mass: 12,000kg
At the start of the take-off roll the vehicle weighs 275 tonnes, whilst maximum landing weight is 55 tonnes.
At take-off the vehicle carries approximately 66 tonnes of liquid hydrogen and approximately 150 tonnes of liquid oxygen for the ascent.
.
.
.
Payload Capabilities
The Sklyon payload bay is 4.6m diameter and 12.3m long. It has been designed to be compatible with expendable launcher payloads but in addition to accept standard aero transport containers which are 8 foot square in cross section and 10, 20, 30 or 40 feet long.
It is anticipated that cargo containerisation will be an important step forward in space transport operations, enabling the "clean" payload bay to be dispensed with.
The vehicle can deliver 12 tonnes to a 300km equatorial orbit, 10.5 tonnes to a 460km equatorial spacestation or 9.5 tonnes to a 460km x 28.5 deg spacestation when operating from an equatorial site.
You do the per flight math.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Sure, nobody wants to lift cargo at the current price point. Try cutting it by 90% and see what happens.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Hmm... as I'm getting old I thought I remember this concept as HOTOL, and sure enough: wikipedia Reaction engines was started by one of the HOTOL designers. Still, it's had probably 30 years of intellectual development and it looks believable to me. Go Reaction Engines.
-- For evil to triumph it is enough that good men do nothing.
Then you may need to work on your reading :-)
The precooler tests were run separate to the thrust tests. The thrust tests were related to the ED nozzle work.
As for the reliability, well when I wrote the test plan for the ED nozzle test engine, I can assure you, that reliability was very much part of the plan.
As for you not seeing any prototype being tested, note the photograph of a rocket shaped object with hot flame coming out of it in the News section?
I'm sorry the photograph isn't any better, but none of us were prepared to step outside the bunker during the hot firings. I'm working on improving the photos taken during test runs.
Can I trust my payload and/or investment dollars to a company that uses "whilst" on their site?
The Brits and everybody else on the planet. ;)
We also have probably an inefficient nozzle design with a tradeoff between greater bell size (and efficiency in vacuum) and lower air drag.
That's why we are developing the ED nozzle :-)
The ED nozzle is a very efficient nozzle design and provides altitude compensation across the thrust operation range. Part of the engine development at the moment is concerned with development of the ED nozzle for this purpose.
Problem is the narrowness of the vehicle. Up to 273 tons concentrated in a narrow band. They even mention it on the website (which is why I brought it up, wouldn't have thought about it on my own). And an abort and return to airport shortly after takeoff would result in a fully loaded landing. That has to be part of the design as well.