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.
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
The exact opposite.
1. Second stages don't remain in orbit.
2. Skylon can (like shuttle) can bring payload back (and its likely to be able bring back more that it can put in the orbit).
3. For GEO launches which skylon can't do they suggest a reusable stage that will be fueled by cheap skylon flight, go to GEO (or more liekely GTO, and back). So no junk at all.
In fact at these prices, such stage could even be used to bring stuff back from GEO.
We are nerds. Such attitude I see for "it will never work" is just inacceptable.
"It probably won't work' it ok, but 'It never will work' isn't OK. Thats what was said about all technologies that do work now.
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.
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.
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.'
From what I learned in physics class, the cheapest way to get through the thick atmosphere is to go straight up.
That's only true for conventional rockets. The longer you remain in the lower atmosphere, you more rocket fuel you must carry. The more fuel you must carry, the larger the rocket you require. The larger the rocket you require, the larger the engine. The larger the engine, the more fuel you must carry. This is a nasty spiral simply because you obtain 100% of your lift from thrust.
With the skylon design, you are obtain a lot of your lift - from lift. Its only after you're passed through the lower atmosphere, where you don't get much lift and where you now need an oxydizer for your fuel, that you need to start a rocket engine. Thusly, they've side step a massive problem with traditional rockets.
Furthermore, its the first stage on traditional rockets which requires the most fuel to obtain orbital velocities. By using a plane's features, a massive weight burden (and associated size) is removed from the design.
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.
They had a plan. Nuke the humans for orbit. After they found out that is in fact NOT a sure-fire plan, they were just winging it.
#include <signature.h>
>> "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.
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.
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.
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.
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?