Slashdot Mirror
Spaceplane Concept Receives Euro Funding
draevil writes "BBC News reports that the novel "Skylon" spaceplane design of British firm Reaction Engines has received funding to proceed with its proof-of-concept design for an air-breathing rocket engine.
If successful, the Sabre rocket engine will be able to take the Skylon with 12 tonnes of cargo from a runway, to orbit and then back to that runway without the need for disposable components or a piggy-back ride on a larger aircraft.
Should the design prove viable, it could see first use within ten years."
I think the only ones who do this stuff successfully are the Americans.
As an American living in Britain I'm embarrassed that there is no British space program. Perhaps this can be the start of one - but more likely, the European financing will be half-ass or the British government will pull the plug on it somehow.
...to save a few hundred kilos of oxidiser. On the ground they won't be moving fast enough to scoop oxygen out of the air. In less than a minute they will be too high and fast to use anything from the atmosphere. Once effectively out of the atmosphere most of the work remains to be done so that will have to use stored oxygen.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
..That someone built a spaceplane. Too bad the US is busy cutting NASA budgets to fund a new welfare program.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
While the chances of this thing actually working is very slim, it is a very smart move to fund this sort of thing. At a million euros a pop, you can afford to fund a awful lot of projects that goes no where in order to find the diamond in the rough.
There has been some info about them on slashdot a while back http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/12/0135200
>"...the Sabre rocket engine will be able to take the Skylon with 12 tonnes of cargo..."
That should read "two Sabre rocket engines will be able to take a Skylon with 12 tonnes of cargo..."
That is 13.225 US Short Tons...or approximately 6 tons per engine, if the illustration is any indication.
Space Craft Blog feeds
Give the money to Noble. He'll use it to train the next generation of advanced engineers on a fun project that will actually go somewhere. Looking at the history to date of US efforts to develop scramjets (and this thing is basically an extended scramjet and therefore even more complex and expensive) a million Euros won't even pay for the project manager's office.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
The Sabre isn't taking anything into orbit, then, is it...
FTFA..."As the air density falls with altitude the engine eventually switches to a pure rocket propelling Skylon to orbital velocity..."
Ahhh No. The mach numbers become useless when there are a few molecules of air per Sq.Meter.
It switches to feet/second.
However, the what could be a limiting factor for rocket-powered spaceplane could be:
1) Gravity: Or lack of it in space. this will require a toothpaste kinda arrangement that can squeeze fuel into the rocket engines.
2) Fuel: Unlike Saturn or Proton rockets, this is a spaceplane. So the fuel tank cannot be meters long and meters wide. it must be compact like a gasoline tank, yet be able to contain ALL fuel for launch from high-altitudes and return. Compression matters a lot. Oxygen can be compressed but cannot be super-cooled. Probably made into a mushy liquid/gel formation which releases gas when de-compressed.
3) Re-Entry radar and guidance: Unlike the spaceshuttle, the spaceplane is much smaller in size, so it has to depend on both inertial guidance AND GPS. Why? GPS is screwed it needs inertial.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
I think your definition of 'Rocket' is too restrictive. There is such a thing as an Air Augmented Rocket, which has all the characteristices of a rocket except it also uses air as additional propellant mass (not as a fuel) This is not the same as a RamJet. Also, from my understanding a Rocket is a type of Jet - an engine which relies up the dischage of a fluid jet for propulsion.
You're making a huge deal out of a simple mistake. Who really cares whether they've gotten their terminology wrong?
The actual content of the article is interesting, and I've seen far more stupid mistakes in past articles.
You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!
I think it is a way to develop an unmanned hypersonic bomber, without owning up to the fact for most of the development cycle.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
First, it is not "MY" definition. It is the dictionary definition. Second, routing or compressing air around the engine to use the Bernoulli effect for extra thrust has no bearing on the matter, since air is still not being used for combustion (in a rocket). That *is* what divides rockets and jets.
To put it a different way: the difference between a rocket and a jet (by dictionary definition) is whether the engine uses an internal oxidizer (LOX, hydrogen peroxide, hydrazine), or external oxidizer (air). It matters not one whit to the definition whether it augments its thrust in other ways.
If you really want to "muddy the waters", one definition of "jet" is any moving stream of fluid. But let's face it... that's really not relevant to this discussion. We are discussing the difference between a rocket engine and a jet engine.
The article is light on details, but it sure sounds like it's using a rocket style combustion chamber even when it's pulling the oxidizer in from the atmosphere: I don't know any jet engine that requires you to liquefy the incoming air... not even a scramjet. High speed jet engines are generally all about simplifying the intake.
ahhahaha
reminds us of the time when the last band of greed/fear/ego based illuminazis went south with their country's resources. better days ahead. guaranteed.
The funding is primarily intended to enable them to build and test some of the more novel parts of their sabre engine. For example the pre-cooler design which is necessary to cool the air prior to its use as fuel will be tested in front of a jet engine.
From the press release - http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/pr_19_feb_09.html
"The demonstration programme will look at three key areas in the engine.
The first area, conducted by REL, concerns the revolutionary precooler that cools the incoming air as it enters the engine. During the programme a test precooler will be constructed using the actual module design for the flight engines. This will be tested on the companyâ(TM)s B9 jet engine experimental facility at Culham in Oxfordshire.
The second area is the cooling of the combustion chamber, where the propellants are mixed and burnt producing water vapour at around 3,000oC. The SABRE engine uses the air or liquid oxygen as the cooling fluid â" a key and unusual design feature as most rocket engines use the hydrogen fuel for cooling instead. EADS Astrium and DLR in Germany will be conducting this work using demonstration chambers fired at the DLR Lampoldhausen facility.
The third area, led by the University of Bristol, will explore advanced exhaust nozzles that can adapt to the ambient atmospheric pressure. This follows on from the successful STERN (Static Test of ED Rocket Nozzle) test rocket programme that was conducted last year. As part of the ESA contract a new water cooled chamber will be constructed and test fired."
You're correct, it's not much money for a space plane but it's a good step forward in establishing the viability of the engines.
The reason I raise the issue now is that the same people have made the same mistake in two announcements now, weeks apart, regarding the same project. Both announcements have appeared here on Slashdot. And both made the very same mistake.
If I were someone actually involved in the project, and I believed in it, then after the first announcement I would have contacted whoever it is in the press, and told them to get it straight, because until they do it would make my company look stupid to somebody with technical expertise. The fact that the company behind this obviously does not care about the technical accuracy of its own MAJOR news releases, tells me that these people are lacking a few clues, in one place or another. Which makes me doubt the project as a whole.
I do understand your objection, but it would appear that the engine designers themselves are referring to this as an air breathing rocket engine on their site.
Sure they've put a slash in that's been lost somewhere, but I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to name this apparently new kind of hybrid engine as an "air breathing rocket engine", as it would seem to have characteristics described by both sets of adjectives.
Yes it's something of an oxymoron, but there are far more depressing examples of abuse of the English language out there.
You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!
Wow. It has consistently amazed me, here on Slashdot, how often when I cite authority like THE DICTIONARY, I get modded as "Troll" or "Flamebait".
I guess I just tend to expect fewer children here than there really are.
Here is an example, for the disbelievers:
rocket engine
- noun
A reaction engine that produces a thrust due to an exhaust consisting entirely of material, as oxidizer, fuel, and inert matter, that has been carried with the engine in the vehicle it propels, none of the propellant being derived from the medium through which the vehicle moves.
(Note from me: you see how careful they are to describe how the oxidizer is carried with and supplied by the vehicle. Hmmm. You might actually think they were making a point.)
Mod parent troll. Scientology bullshit as an attachment to Bugzilla.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
You know what? I am really sick of this shit. I work hard to be a contributing member of Slashdot, but when something comes up that I can PROVE is wrong, and say so, some assholes get pissed off and mod my post as flamebait. That's not very -- dare I use the word? -- democratic.
Well, look at some of the other entries below. It ain't flamebait, nor yet troll. I don't mind saying that I often wish there were a way to negate those who mod down irresponsibly.
Here is the bug to which the attachments are attached:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=478721
If you have a Mozilla account then please comment on the bug requesting it to be deleted, as I have done.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Why should it matter whether the engine designers are describing it incorrectly, or the press is describing it incorrectly? It is still being described incorrectly. And I will ask you to read other enrtries I have made in this thread that prove that they are describing it incorrectly.
I don't care if somebody who designs an internal combustion engine that runs on chicken parts calls it a combustion engine. But if they call it a "nuclear engine" then I will take exception, because that is false. Plain and simple. False.
I don't care if the guys at this company have designed a new kind of rocket engine, or hybrid engine. It is a rocket engine, or it is a hybrid engine. Calling it an "air-breathing rocket engine" is false. Plain and simple. It is contrary to the DEFINITION of "rocket engine".
I might as well write an article for my local newspaper, describing how they have invented a new kind of "mole-shit" engine, and that would be just about as accurate. Which is to say: not.
I agree that there are lots of depressing examples out there but this one is particularly egregious. These people are supposed to be experts in their field. It is rather as though Shaquille O'Neill said "I make my money playing 'Butterfly'", or Neill Armstrong saying he went to the moon on a "Unicorn". SIMPLY FALSE.
Formatting got screwed up. I was not trying to yell.
Cool. I want in.
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/20/0149254
If it works, then maybe the power guys will have what they need to take their stuff up.
But it's a very big 'if' IMHO...the current shuttle show the tremendous problems associated with 'reusable' spacecraft, and even then they launch it conventionally.
Why the sarcasm? Don't get me wrong. I don't mind at all that you don't approve of killing people. But in the current situation, a more lethal US Marines as part of the US hegemony means less deaths in the long run. If the criteria is solely "killing people is bad", this is a win. And if a spaceplane turns out to be a boondoggle, the anti-US hegemony people get a win.
Little hint: it's not what you say but how you say it, you moran.
So... What is a "water rocket"?
Thunderbirds are go!
This post is LAW where prohibited by VOID. Prosecutors will be violated.
Replying anonymously because I am one of those moderators:
It's flaimbait (to me) because of the language used not necessarily because of the content.
e.g. "I think the article is wrong because it uses inappropriate language and therefore should be treated with suspicion." is not flaimbait.
"This article sucks and the anyone who wrote it must be wrong because they are so stupid, and I'm totally right and everyone else should bow down before me" is flaimbait because although your reasons for having problems with the article may be valid, but the way you write it appears to be written in a way intended to annoy people.
Learn to speak like a civilised person participating in an intellectual debate rather than a petulant hormonal child and you may find the moderators far more to your liking.
Skylons were created by man
They evolved
There will be many copies
And they have a plane?
I don't think a liquid air collection engine (LACE) was ever successful, but there were preliminary designs for some (don't know about prototypes). Here's a short article on the subject:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/aerplane.htm
By keeping the air a gas, it simplifies the plumbing while still letting you use essentially a rocket engine design (liquid fuel is vapourised before burning anyway, usually by using it to cool the nozzle).
The downside to this is that water vapour will freeze on the cooling fins/surface of the intake, and cause ice buildup. For the length of time this engine is expected to operate that's not a big deal, but in humid air or for longer operation, ice could clog the air intake.
..that the black budget part of the defense department already has some operational models of such a plane. I seriously doubt they just stopped secret development and deployment of ultra high tech planes and craft, given their fixation on maintaining the "high ground" advantage. And we have had enough tantalizing leaks to even think they might have a variety of models, both atmospheric and exoatmospheric. The sr71 and 117 and so on are *very* old models and tech now, and the black budget has been huge over the years and decades since those were built. I'd say as a rough rule of thumb, they are always three generations ahead of what they admit to publicly.
That's not the same at all. A much more accurate way to put it is that it's the same as someone calling an internal combustion engine a motor.
Despite the fact that most people have no clue there is a difference between motor and engine, they are different terms for different things.
The dictionary is VERY clear on the subject.
The people who write dictionaries are extremely competent etymologists... but they aren't, in general, "rocket scientists".
The people who designed the engine that we're discussing, however, are.
I would tend to believe the "rocket scientists". :)
And by the way: no, a common hybrid automobile does not have two engines. It has one engine, and an electric motor.
And you say I'm nitpicking?
The point is that the automobile engine that burns fuel is a separate "source of motive force thingy that might be called an engine or a motor depending on whether it burns fuel or not" than the electric motor powered by the battery. It is not a single "source of motive force thingy that might be called an engine or a motor depending on whether it burns fuel or not". If you want to try and devise something analogous to this device in the automotive field, you'd have to come up with something like a hydrogen burning hybrid that used electrolysis to generate hydrogen from the stored electricity.
BTW, while you've got the dictionary open, look up "motor car".
Yes. Seriously. Behold the Skylon
and its distant descendant, the Firefly class spacecraft.
Joss, you clever boy.
-S
Vaporware or not, this is the type of thing the US should still be doing as well - remember the old National Aerospace Plane (NASP) program in the 80s? Kudos to the British for at least attempting to push the frontiers of aerospace science and technology.
I think I see your problem.
You are mistaking an authority on the English language as an authority on Engineering.
Don't do that.
"BTW I don't think this space plane thing will work but I do think the engines would be great for a high speed military vehicle. Something to get a payload to the target really fast. It could do unpowered semi ballistic lobs as well."
In Soviet Russia we had it done by the end of 1950s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burya
Alan Bond and crew have been talking about Skylon/HOTOL for decades with nothing to show. They've had funding in the past and produced nothing. Compare to SpaceX who have taken a fairly conservative concept and run with it from idea to orbit in well under a decade.
The main problem with Skylon and the Sabre engine is that both engine and airframe need unobtainium to work. Active-cooled sharp aerosurfaces are a nightmare problem for reentry - plus the engine gets exposed to reentry-like conditions throughout flight profile.
Second major problem is the combined-cycle engine concept as a whole and the horizontal-launch nature of Skylon. The craft is supposed to launch, compress it's oxidizer on the way up through the worst part of atmosphere and then fly into space. All while storing 70%+ deadweight in oxidizer as only 23% of it is oxygen - it'll be contaminating it's fuel-flow w/ tons of useless N2. Look at any real rocket's ascent profile and it is apparent that this does not work. It might work for point-to-point but not for orbital ascent.
There is a reason that all ground-launched rockets use vertical ascent - it gets you out of the worst part of the atmosphere as fast as possible.
The Skylon concept should be (-1 Snakeoil)
Generally compare this vapourware to American vaporware: Skylon is in same class as Kelleyspace's Griffin, Pioneer's XP, the K1 and the various other hangar queens that never made it.
gigantino.tv - Heavy but weighs nothing.
I'm sorry, you are in fact trolling.
Not quite an ad-hominem attack, but close. It's certainly a genetic fallacy.
Skynet meets the Cylons?
Totally screwed.
...was disappointed
*** ***
Troll!?!?
C'mon, mods! "I disagree"!=="troll".
That was an honest evaluation and opinion, delivered calmly and rationally.
I guess it's pretty typical for /. though, sadly. If you're unable to debate and discuss on the merits, just use mod points instead of using a brain.
[Sigh]
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Other people are mistaking authorities on Engineering for authorities on the English language. There is a rather large difference.
Which was the whole of my point: when English-speaking engineers do not even properly understand the English that pertains to their craft, their credibility suffers.
"We are discussing the difference between a rocket engine and a jet engine."
Actually, we're discussing a third category of engine -- which is apparently called by its inventors an air-breathing rocket engine.
A cell phone is not a phone according to the dictionary definition at the time it was invented. (It's more of a two-way radio that has an interface to the phone network, but nobody felt like calilng it that.) A DSL modem is most certainly not a modem (there is no analog signal on either side of the device). Many LCD and plasma TV's are not TV's (they have no tuner).
So it is with this engine. The term "air-breathing rocket engine" is a pretty good description for an engine that carries and can use its own oxidizer, but also can supplement that using outside air when operating at (relatively) low speeds and altitudes.
I had to try a couple of times to get the movie to come up.
It is a terrific design, I only wonder if they can get the same thrust out of 20% O2 (air) as they could out of 100% O2
The movie clip indicated they expect to get 50% more thrust on LOX.
It's also theoretical. It looks like they have some prototype cooler elements, and a 20% cutaway scale model, but I don't know if they have more than that.
I suspect it's curved because it looks cooler.
The US has a long history of failed shuttle replacement programs including NASP, VentureStar and a couple of others. It seems that Europe wants a taste of failure, too.
Airbreathing just doesn't work for getting to space. Most of the effort is not spent on climbing a couple of hundred kilometers - it's accelerating to orbital velocity in order to stay up there. Acceleration is best done in vacuum. Airbreathing is best done, well, in air. Do the math.
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
The shuttle still uses 70's era computers for guidance. They have more modern equipment too, but the core computers (5 of them) are ancient. Why? Reliability. Wire-wrap equipment can take a beating and will keep working.