Slashdot Mirror
Skylon Spaceplane Design Passes Key Review
gbjbaanb writes "A revolutionary UK spaceplane concept has been boosted by the conclusions of an important technical review. Skylon is a design for a spaceplane that uses engines that work as normal jets near the ground and switch to rocket propulsion in the upper atmosphere. The concept means the plane will not have to carry as much fuel and so will not need disposable stages. It is estimated (by its developers) that the Skylon will drop the cost of delivering payloads to orbit from $15,000 per kilo to $1000."
This spaceplane is still in the concept phase. They're not even planning to build it until the 2020's. Right now it's all just fund-raising and hype. All this review says is "Well, it COULD work."
In fact, this thing has apparently just the latest version of a spaceplane that has been in the development stage since 1982 (no, that's not a mistake--1982), and has already went through quite a bit of government and private money, with little more to show for it than some concept art and promises. Add to this the fact that they're emphasizing cause-du-jour selling points like "the environmentally-friendly green rocket" in their promotional literature, and I'm a little skeptical.
More power to them if they can build it though. The real first test will come when they're supposed to actually build a test engine this summer. Deliver something to me in the real world that actually works, and you'll get my attention.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
No one's thought of this til now?
The Skylons were created by man.
They rebelled.
They evolved.
There are many copies.
And they have a plan.
Or are just making shit up as they go. It's kind of hard to tell.
Now was can get 15x as much space junk for our $
the Skylon will drop the cost of delivering payloads to orbit from $15,000 per kilo to $1000.
If you weigh your payload in pounds, do you have to pay in Euros?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
And get funding from the Sy-Fy channel!
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
I couldn't help but to read the article with interest and a healthy dose of Moller Skycar Skepticism. The concept art work looks like something out of Popular Science or Popular Mechanics. The "details" of the engine include "Esa's technical staff have witnessed this "secret technology" on the lab bench and can confirm it works." Wow, something that works in the lab. I'm not impressed.
Furthermore, it promises to cut the launch cost of payload from $15k/kilo to $1k/kilo. I call BS. That's just marketing hype. Cutting it by 20% or 30% would be revolutionary. Cutting it by a few hundred percent is just pipe dreams by people looking for VC capital.
Nobodies Prefect
Tidbits for Techs Technology Blog
etc. etc.
Engage!
You'll wish that you had done some of the hard things when they were easier to do.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
HOTOL, it just won't go away.
http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20110405
Falcon 9 heavy will be $1k per pound in 2013 ( ok, $2.2k per kg )
You're really confused. "Going back" to capsules just means what everyone already knew; it's the best way to do it. It's like the wheel, thousands of years old and still valid. You're confusing progress in computers (which don't have anything to do with the real physical world) and physical reality.
"We are not the superpower we used to be, and as long as we're internally bickering over healthcare, abortion, and whether god controls the tides, we never will be a superpower again."
You think it's different anywhere else? You think throwing big tubes full of fuel into the air confers first world status to a country? What does that make Russia, India and China? Why don't you move there, since the only metric you seem to recognize is a childish fascination with rockets?
Though it certainly takes a lot of fuel and oxidizer to get a rocket through the thick lower atmosphere up to say 90,000 feet, it still takes a tremendous amount of energy to get from 90,000 feet and 3000-4000 mph to escape velocity of 17,500 mph. And that last bit would have to use oxidizer brought with since the air is quite thin at the edge of space.
From what I learned in physics class, the cheapest way to get through the thick atmosphere is to go straight up. Taking the airplane route consumes a lot more energy (several times more), though the hope is that the air can be used as an oxidizer so you don't have to carry O2. But I'm very skeptical that anything better than a rocket will ever be found, at least that uses chemical reactions as a means of propulsion.
Why would it put us behind the Chinese and Russians?
A few points:
1) Everyone else is still using capsules. Don't see how going back to using one ourselves means we're now "behind" the others.
2) The shuttle itself is little more than a glorified, odd-shaped capsule. It still depends on rockets to push it into space; and it has to basically be re-built between flights.
3) You're neglecting the work done by companies in the US. NASA isn't all we've got. Sure, virgin galactic and the others aren't there yet, but they're a hell of a lot closer than this piece of marketing -- and that's ALL this piece is; they haven't made anything yet, much less a working anything.
I find this kind of talk depressing. All you seem to care about is whether you any your buddies (America) are ahead or not. Why not just be happy that human spaceflight is advancing? Must you be reminded that the ISS is an international endeavor? Spaceflight is something that we should all be doing together. That way we can achieve far more than any one country can on its own.
Of course, at $1000 a kilo we're looking at $100,000 per person per flight,
That's $320,000, American.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Space planes are not a new idea. The SR-71, while it never flew in space, was still considered by many engineers to be proof that a space plane was possible.
"...NASA couldn't even make the Aerospike work either..."
"After we lost our German scientists, America went back to black powder and cannon to launch rockets."
A gross characterization. Lockheed Martin made aerospike technology workable while developing Venture Star, a canceled successor to the Space Shuttle. They made three aerospike engines but only had the chance to test one of them (successfully) before the cancellation of the X-33 test vehicle. While the engine concept was sound there were budget issues, fuel tank failures, and political pressure to stay with the Space Shuttle.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/design/aerospike/figures/test02.jpg
Instead of pouring tons of cash into a 40 year of design like the Space Shuttle the US is embracing simpler, more affordable rocket technology. Commercial rocket launch companies like SpaceX can do it cheaper than NASA. They have a proven track record and are now building their first heavy class rocket.
For all the Space Shuttle's accomplishments it's initial purpose was to make the cost per pound of cargo cheaper, something it never did.
Pic here: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_mpBGa4P5jUo/TL42QnvUzkI/AAAAAAAAFuk/B4g6Bp2czH8/s1600/altrusia7.jpg
NASA couldn't even make the Aerospike work either, and that was supposed to revolutionize space travel in the mid-80's.
The X-33 failed because NASA couldn't get their composite fuel tanks to work, and with the additional weight needed for traditional metal tanks, they wouldn't be able to achieve SSTO. As I understand it, the aerospike itself worked great.
The flaw of the aerospike is the very thing that makes it work. It uses aerodynamic forces from the atmosphere to produce a continuously variable expansion ratio, and while it's not optimally efficient at any given altitude, it's pretty good at all altitudes. Because of this, it needs direct access to the atmosphere, and thus must be located on the exterior of a vehicle. For a toroidal aerospike, that means you can only have a single rocket motor. For a linear aerospike, you have to gang multiple in a row, which leads to a wide, flat, 'spaceplane' shape.
Single engine launch vehicles are fairly rare, with most modern launch vehicles involving multiple common cores, or a large core with multiple smaller boosters. Redesigning a launch vehicle to use a single engine would be a significant undertaking, and since most of the cost of a launch vehicle lines in the development and manufacturing, rather than the fuel, the only way it would be worth it to invest in an expensive new engine would be if it were recoverable and reusable for multiple launches.
Assuming you could pull it off, a reusable space plane would be a great way to accomplish the above. It would have to be far more robust than the shuttle, meaning you cannot require the engines be torn down, re-machined, and rebuilt from scratch after each run, and the thermal protection system would need to be something more traditional than the carbon carbon and ceramic tiles on that readily fall off and get damaged. Again, since aerospikes need to be in the airflow, you would not be able to put boosters or fuel tanks on the top and bottom. The angled side of a delta shaped object is not conducive to strapping things on either. All your fuel must be carried internally, which falls back to why that composite fuel tank was so crucial to the design of the X-33. The best you could hope for is you might be able to get away with some form of conformal drop tanks like you see on high performance fighters.
and on top of this being marketing - they pre-cooler is supposed to cool from 1000+c to -130c in a few feet and be able to do it for sustained flight? call me exceptionally suspect
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
Our last Shuttle flight is July 8th. I'm marking that day on my calendar, as it marks America's official slide into 3rd world status. We are not the superpower we used to be, and as long as we're internally bickering over healthcare, abortion, and whether god controls the tides, we never will be a superpower again.
America really should never have been a superpower; it was an accident of history. The only reason America became a superpower is because of WWI and WWII; Europe was devastated in those two wars, and America got rich rebuilding them, as we were the only industrialized nation left standing (except maybe for Australia, but they didn't have much industrial capacity like America did).
Basically, we're a third-world country that won the lottery. We've never really had what it takes to be a technological power, as our culture prevents it. We'd rather watch sports than learn about science. Even way back in the 40s-50s, when public education was far better here than now, we couldn't even make our own rockets for our space program to compete with the Russians. We had to grab a bunch of Nazi rocket scientists from Germany and put them to work for us. Nowadays, we don't have a prayer. The only thing we're good at is shuffling money around, but being good at business doesn't make you automatically good at engineering and science, especially when those professions don't pay very well and aren't seen as very prestigious, despite the difficulty in getting degrees in those fields.
The best thing for smart Americans to do now (i.e., scientists and engineers) is to get out of the country before it collapses and hyperinflation happens.
I call the major difference between government and private ventures such as this the "pick a lane" problem. In Private, they typically pick a lane early on and stick with it until it fails. In government sponsored projects, they use multiple pathways approach, and fund them beyond their failure. This is the primary reason why Private Enterprise succeeds where government sponsored approach fails.
And if you look at SpaceX's approach, they picked a design early on, and have stuck with it. They are much closer to suborbital flight than anyone else. And they will get to full production while others are still in design mode.Right now, they are in beginning stages of getting certified for commercial flights. Government can't compete here, the approach is all wrong.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
That'd be fine if other countries were progressing really rapidly with human spaceflight, but they aren't; they're starting way behind where America was in the 70s. What have other nations been doing since we were walking around on the Moon? The Russians did some cool stuff, but it all got put on hold when their empire collapsed and has been crippled by funding problems ever since. The Indians haven't done much besides a couple probes, nothing with humans. The Chinese have replicated what we did in the late 50s/early 60s, and that's it so far. What have the Europeans done? A probe or two? One lame module on the ISS maybe? Do they have any lifting capacity at all?
I'd really like it if the other countries really were advancing with their space programs; then we could just laugh as America withers away into irrelevance, and the scientists and engineers in America could just pack up and move to those other places to find good jobs waiting for them there, and even better be able to live someplace where they're respected and have some prestige in their professions, rather than being surrounded by morons who worship sports and airheads like Sarah Palin, Glen Beck, and Barack Obama. But that's really not the case. It's probably going to take decades for the other nations to get where America has already been.
Could use two separate engines, one jet and one rocket. Bonus points for putting them on two planes and allow separation. Oh wait... that has already been done.
>> "And now, while the ESA is moving forward, America is jumping backwards even more, going back to 60's Apollo-era capsules. And that's after a long development schedule while we're piggybacking on the Russians."
The Space Shuttle concept was designed in the late 1960. Aside from upgraded cockpit avionics much of the system is 60's era tech.
Take a position. Are we behind or not? Everyone is ahead of us (you say) yet the only other countries to launch men into space (Russia and China) have done so with capsules. China's capsile was a disposable single use system. The CEV is a re-usable system which finds close parity with the Soyuz.
The US using capsules again is an acknowledgment that strapping your vehicle and crew to the side of a rocket is more dangerous than placing them at the top. A capsule can be mission specific. A capsule can be redesigned much easier than modifying a space shuttle or place where a system wide impact study must be done. The Space Shuttle was a difficult system to upgrade for this reason. A capsule can have the latest system upgrades since it is self-contained. The Soyuz has gone through dozens revisions for this reason.
Aside from landing on a runway what was gained from the shuttle in a practical sense? Longer turnaround between missions? A small fleet a complex vehicles instead of a large inventory of simpler capsules? When safety is concerned, simple wins. The Russians launch men into space more often because they use a simpler system.
I think well get it cheap enough that drug lords from around the world will be able to deliver directly to homes by space plane. It sure beats subs/ultra-lites, and good old ground transport.
At $1000/kilo, isn't that acceptable transport fee for some drugs? (Assuming 100% success) These people are now constructing submarines!!
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
We have received reports that a Skylon attack is underway.
Skylons aren't just Cylons pronounced funny. They're Cylons created by Skynet.
Seriously, that has to be the most dooms-day-ish, worst-conceived name ever.
Do we want to be a super power? Is this a good thing?
I drank what? -- Socrates
I thought the same when I read about the project a few years ago. That figures sound insane.
America really should never have been a superpower; it was an accident of history. The only reason America became a superpower is because of WWI and WWII; Europe was devastated in those two wars, and America got rich rebuilding them, as we were the only industrialized nation left standing (except maybe for Australia, but they didn't have much industrial capacity like America did).
Yes, it was also an accident of Geography that America was full of natural resources, farm-able land, and room to expand. And an accident of politics and colonialism that led to America's freedom of speech and religion which was a big early draw for immigration. But yea, if you discount the massive natural resources, the great natural protective barriers of the Oceans, the political climate that cause immigration, the policies that kept her out of European wars as long as possible, and the huge industrial base is used to help win those wars, I don't see why America ever should have become a super power. I mean, it's not even the Country with the most letters in it's name.
What have the Europeans done? A probe or two? One lame module on the ISS maybe? Do they have any lifting capacity at all?
Lifting capacity? How does 21 metric tons to LEO (10.5 metric tons to geostationary transfer orbit) sound?
Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
Ariane 5, until recently, was the most successful commercial launcher.
However, the rocket is getting a little long in the tooth and things are hotting up with Space X getting into their stride.
While TFA states otherwise, Reaction Engines Ltd are most likely aiming for the forthcoming ESA review and investigation into a replacement for Ariane 5. It would be a long shot, both the UK's dismal track record in funding space flight at a national level and France's well proven track record are major hurdles. But I suspect this would be Skylon's best bet, nobody else has the spare billion or 5 to spend on the project.
I'd hardly call the concept "Revolutionary". They messed around with similar concepts during the 70/80s, I've even seen concept sketches of a space shuttle with turbines attached to the sides. It simply wasn't considered near term enough at the time. And "precoolers" have been used on practically every rocket motor since WWII, the only real difference here is that they're adding another part to the precooler, the heat exchangers in the intake manifold instead of only around the reaction chamber. The only really new concept that I can figure is whatever "secret method" they're using to keep ice from building up on the intake heat exchangers (probably sonic/chemical/coating based). Don't get me wrong, I hope it works magnificently, but while I do believe they're the first ones to start fabricating the components, they're not the first ones to think up the concept.
This is Skylon, not HOTOL, so no it hasn't been in development since 1982. Different vehicle, different engine (the original one was classified by the UK government).
The statement 'they are not planning to build it until the 2020's' is flat out false. They are planning to have it operational in 2020. This may be optimistic, but what you said does not accurately reflect their statements.
Environmentally friendly is not a touchy-feely issue either; if spaceflight is going to go from long-term experiment to routine flight, its emissions need to be taken into account. Concern has already been raised about the effects of releasing particles from hybrid motors at high altitude. Right now it doesn't matter, but IF we are entering an era of mass spaceflight, it will.
A review isn't the same as the test, no, but I can tell you from first hand experience that ESA engineers are not easily impressed. They will have given REL a proper grilling before coming out and saying that they think this concept is viable.
Whilst I have no doubt the mostly US-based /. audience will probably not have much respect for ESA, please bear in mind that despite a budget half the size, and a lack of manned capability for political reasons, its cooperates with NASA on engineering matters as an equal these days.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
And the Harrier jump jet. Will American jealousy scupper this project too ?
Yeah, the US is a crappy third world country that got lucky while places like the USSR have done so much better. Oh wait...
Well, look at it this way: you can be a superpower and this can be a good thing or not, but you still get to tell others what they have to do, or else. Or you can not be a superpower, and get someone else to tell you what you should do. Seriously, why do you think everybody wants superpower status? The nations of Europe badly want to, but they're falling way short. "Everybody wants to rule the world" is not just a Tears for Fears song.
Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
The only time America did anything great technically is when they were competing with the Soviets. After the Soviet system collapsed, Americans just got fat and lazy and instead of developing new technologies, decided to spend all their time selling each other crappy houses. Meanwhile, the Chinese are catching up very quickly, and will surpass us before long.
Ah. I fall into the
Don't walk in front of me for I won't follow.
Don't walk behind me for I won't lead.
Just leave me the hell alone!
camp. Drove the military crazy trying to put me in charge of people.
I drank what? -- Socrates
"News for nerds" and none of the Cylon puns got modded up? I'm going to Gizmodo!
NASA scrapped this idea a long time ago, but I think it was just for lack of funding, not because it was a bad idea.
The only time America did anything great technically is when they were competing with the Soviets.
Yeah, that whole intertubes thing, personal computers, mobile telephony, the global positioning system, constantly being at the forefornt of aerospace technology ... all of that stuff is just mediocre.
constantly being at the forefornt of aerospace technology
Yes, that was all during the 50s and 60s, when America was competing hard against the Soviets. In case you haven't noticed, military aerospace technology hit a brick wall in the 70s-80s, and there haven't been any real big improvements since then except for stealth (which is mainly 80s).
The internet is the one big exception to all of this, and is the main reason our economy didn't go down the crapper 15 years ago.
Yes, that was all during the 50s and 60s, when America was competing hard against the Soviets. In case you haven't noticed, military aerospace technology hit a brick wall in the 70s-80s, and there haven't been any real big improvements since then except for stealth (which is mainly 80s).
You're smoking crack. The F-22 is leaps and bounds ahead of anything else available today, and the F-35 either outmatches or can go toe-to-toe with any fighter except the F-22. The Osprey is a FANTASTIC aircraft which has absolutely zero competitors at the moment - no surprise considering what a bitch it was to develop in the first place. Drone technology is almost exclusively a US endeavor, although the Israelis have made some strong contributions, too. And who has better satellites than the yanks?
More to the point, I didn't mention the word "military" at all - I was speaking about Aerospace in general. The only company in the world that can compete with American civilian widebody aircraft is Airbus. The light-commercial side of the industry is, likewise, dominated by American companies. When it comes to space-launch capabilities, US companies are well in the lead. Pretty much any industry you look at, the US is either in the lead or near the top. You could argue about where exactly they rank in any given category, but it's completely idiotic to claim that there's been some magical transformation which has suddenly put the US at the bottom of every industry. The only thing that the US isn't good at is making "cheap shit"; but that's why they outsource the manufacture of such a high percentage of consumer goods.
Seriously, I hate to come across as an America-Fanboi, but if you honestly believe that "Americans just got fat and lazy and instead of developing new technologies, decided to spend all their time selling each other crappy houses" then you're either ignorant or a bigot. Either way, your assessment has absolutely no merit.