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."

12 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.

  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 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.
    4. 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: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.
  8. 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!