Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Spaceplane Concept Receives Euro Funding

Posted by samzenpus on from the space-plane-race dept.

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."

15 of 193 comments (clear)

  1. But ... Its british. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:But ... Its british. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      As everybody knows, the Americans were the first people to put an object and after that a human being into space...

  2. About Time! by BlueStrat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ..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.
    1. Re:About Time! by BlueStrat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We already have a welfare system.

      We now have a new welfare system for rich bankers, investors, and politicians *plus* the effective cancellation of the widely-lauded Welfare Reform Act signed by former President Clinton for the welfare system we already had.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    2. Re:About Time! by prefec2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would always favor social welfare over a space plane in this decade. However, the USA are using so much money on their military, so it would be more useful to cut on military expenses for space flight. But first the current president has to cleanup the mess Bush made. BTW. in France and Germany the state is spending most of its money on social/welfare aspects instead of investing too much money in weapons. This is very reasonable because violence can not be stopped by more violence. And I really cannot understand why previous post is moderated insightful. I like space science very much, but I wouldn't trade the well being of my fellow citizens for a space plane.

    3. Re:About Time! by BlueStrat · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I would always favor social welfare over a space plane in this decade

      I believe that having things like the space program not only helps employment, but also brings progress in many many fields that benefit society and help reduce the need for social programs.

      BTW. in France and Germany the state is spending most of its money on social/welfare aspects instead of investing too much money in weapons.

      France and Germany can afford to do this precisely because the US spends so much on the military and subsidizes & assists Frances' and Germany's defense. Especially with Russia now becoming aggressive again, if the US did not assist in so many ways with helping those countries with defense they would of necessity be spending much, much more on their military.

      This is very reasonable because violence can not be stopped by more violence.

      This has been demonstrated to be patently false over and over throughout history. Violence and the perceived threat of violence is the only thing that has halted those who would conquer for wealth & power. Diplomacy only ever works if there is credible force to back it up.

      As the famous quote goes; "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'good doggy' while looking for a big stick".

      I like space science very much, but I wouldn't trade the well being of my fellow citizens for a space plane.

      This is not a zero-sum game. A space program can contribute mightily across a wide spectrum to the well-being of a society and its' people, and the societies' long-term wealth and progress.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    4. Re:About Time! by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...instead of investing too much money in weapons. This is very reasonable because violence can not** be stopped by more violence.

      ** except in the case of 99.9% of wars, genocides, personal struggles, and all other forms of violence.

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    5. Re:About Time! by mysticgoat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Please also note that the original Space Shuttle concept involved the use of a piloted suborbital rocket plane for the first stage, instead of bolting on the two sticks of dynamite. Under the original concept, the Space Shuttle would have had enough fuel to reach stable LEO, rather than barely skimming the top of the atmosphere in low LEO like the ISS does. The aerodynamic lift of the rocket plane would have conserved fuel during that most expensive first 60,000 vertical feet of the ride.

      If the program had been managed better (and if what had been learned in building the Blackbird had been made available to Shuttle developers), the Shuttle would have been an effective launch vehicle for many commercial satellites. That was a big part of the initial vision. NASA was expected to partially fund itself while also giving the US aerospace industry a significant lead over all potential competitors.

      The technology was within reach back then, and the modular approach would have supported improvements through stepwise refinements. But the original vision did not survive the politics of bureaucratic committee meetings, and the stupidly short-sighted secrecy surrounding the Blackbird program did not help either.

      So basically you could say that Space Shuttle program failed to reach its objectives not because of hardware limitations, nor because of software limitations, but because of limited, malfunctioning wetware in NASA and NASA related committees, and in the committees that so badly mismanaged military intellectual property.

  3. Good for them! by lee1026 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  4. more info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There has been some info about them on slashdot a while back http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/12/0135200

  5. 1 Skylon ~ 12 tonnes ~ 2 (two) Sabre engines by djupedal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >"...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.

  6. A million Euros is peanuts by Kupfernigk · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Unfortunately the UK has a long history of underfunded research and development projects that fizzle - Blue Streak, anyone? Significantly, the most successful British rocket project of recent years was the car that broke the sound barrier, and Richard Noble and Andy Green are now trying to build one to exceed 1000mph. Significantly, because when Noble was trying to get funding, BAe actually sent a memo around its engineers telling them not to co-operate as the inevitable failure would bring them into disrepute.

    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."
  7. Re:Whole ./ lead-in is a crock... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Yes, but most of the oxygen is used getting to orbit. The small fuel tanks on the space shuttle itself are sufficient for in-space maneuvering and landing, yet it needs two solid rocket boosters and a huge strap on fuel tank to get up their. Over half of that fuel tank and half of the solid rockets is oxidiser. This is all volume and weight that would not be needed on the Skylon.

    The engine is dual mode, like a hybrid car, so if uses atmospheric oxygen and supplements that with stored oxygen as it gets higher, so that when it is in orbit it would run entirely on internal liquid oxygen.

  8. Re:They are going to a lot of trouble.... by jeroen94704 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That would be true for a (sc)ramjet, which has no compressor turbine to suck in oxygen at low speeds. As I understand it, the whole idea of the Sabre engine was that it IS able to suck in atmospheric oxygen, so it doesn't need the LOX it carries until it reaches Mach 5.5.

    --
    He who laughs last, thinks slowest.
  9. Re:This is REALLY, REALLY stupid. by Shrike82 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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!