Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Skylon’s SABRE Engine Passes a Big Test

universetoday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 47 posts

Re: Skylon’s SABRE Engine Passes a Big Test

#21

Post by ggm »

avmich wrote: post #20
ggm wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

European governments will continue to back Ariane because strategically it makes sense. Russia will bankroll energyia likewise. Dominance is not static and private capital will not entirely replace state actions.

A nitpick, Energiya doesn't make rockets this days, rather Soyuzes, Progresses, satellites, upper stages (Block D)... Launchers are made mostly by Khrunichev (Proton) and Progress (Soyuz-2). Russia tries to develop new rockets, but so far it's really slow and quite expensive. It's possible that when NASA will stop paying for Soyuz transport to ISS, it will become even slower. It's not a particularly good time in Russ…

All true, but do you seriously think Putin will renounce a domestic space industry? They might pick jv partnerships like ariane to stay afloat. Or sell engines or something but i dont see them giving up. To your side of this, the cash flow to a russian space sector will end when a man rated launcher from the U.S. starts making regular trips to the ISS, I guess.

Re: Skylon’s SABRE Engine Passes a Big Test

#22

Post by _lbaq »

privateSFacct wrote: post #17

These guys don't disappear - they have been around forever with their Skylon plane. Just a heads up, it's a long way from testing one component of an engine on the ground to getting a full engine demo going to then testing it in the air to then build the plane then integrating engine - then getting orbital trips working with reentry! I am curious how much private capital they have been able to attract (outside of gov…

These things take time, but it's not the complete story, Virgin Galactic has been around since 2004, so the same year GMail launched, without producing a single passenger flight.

Blue Origin has been around for almost 20 years, and they have a few suborbital flights to their credit, and an engine that has yet to fly.

SpaceX, on the other hand, has been around since 2002 and achieved orbit in 2008, and have completed a lot of milestones since then.

I suspect the biggest difference between these companies is not talent or vision, but sens of urgency

Re: Skylon’s SABRE Engine Passes a Big Test

#23

Post by goodcanadian »

privateSFacct wrote: post #17

These guys don't disappear - they have been around forever with their Skylon plane. Just a heads up, it's a long way from testing one component of an engine on the ground to getting a full engine demo going to then testing it in the air to then build the plane then integrating engine - then getting orbital trips working with reentry! I am curious how much private capital they have been able to attract (outside of gov…

. . . it's a long way from testing one component of an engine on the ground to getting a full engine demo going to then testing it in the air to then build the plane then integrating engine . . .

True, but my understanding is that the heat exchanger is the critical piece of difficult technology/engineering. With that, they have the potential to revolutionise industries even if none of the rest comes to pass.

Re: Skylon’s SABRE Engine Passes a Big Test

#24

Post by 7952 »

trhway wrote: post #11
nickpinkston wrote: post #5

In case anyone was confused by the article's description, here's the Wikipedia: "SABRE (Synergetic Air Breathing Rocket Engine) is a concept under development by Reaction Engines Limited for a hypersonic precooled hybrid air-breathing rocket engine. The engine is being designed to achieve single-stage-to-orbit capability, propelling the proposed Skylon spaceplane to low Earth orbit. SABRE is an evolution of Alan Bond…

>After shutting the inlet cone off at Mach 5.14, and at an altitude of 28.5 km, the system continues as a closed-cycle high-performance rocket engine burning liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen from on-board fuel tanks the benchmark of today - SpaceX - separates the first stage at Mach6-8 at 65-80km height. Thus, the SpaceX second stage has less delta-v to add and don't have to carry all that weight - the SABRE would n…

I think the benefit of launching horizontaly is overstated. Any airport would still need to handle LOX and hydrogen which could be pretty dangerous. And the airport is not necessarily going to be in the right place for launch.

Also traditional rockets have most of the forces acting vertically. A horizontal launch space plane must also deal with a completely different set of forces.

Re: Skylon’s SABRE Engine Passes a Big Test

#25

Post by [deleted] »

SECProto wrote: post #13
trhway wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>After shutting the inlet cone off at Mach 5.14, and at an altitude of 28.5 km, the system continues as a closed-cycle high-performance rocket engine burning liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen from on-board fuel tanks the benchmark of today - SpaceX - separates the first stage at Mach6-8 at 65-80km height. Thus, the SpaceX second stage has less delta-v to add and don't have to carry all that weight - the SABRE would n…

Imagine putting SABRE on the first stage though - the engines would be heavier, but using air instead of carrying oxygen, for the full burn of the first stage. The payload mass fraction would be dramatically higher without carrying the oxidizer mass on board.

[deleted]

Re: Skylon’s SABRE Engine Passes a Big Test

#26

Post by simonh »

trhway wrote: post #11
nickpinkston wrote: post #5

In case anyone was confused by the article's description, here's the Wikipedia: "SABRE (Synergetic Air Breathing Rocket Engine) is a concept under development by Reaction Engines Limited for a hypersonic precooled hybrid air-breathing rocket engine. The engine is being designed to achieve single-stage-to-orbit capability, propelling the proposed Skylon spaceplane to low Earth orbit. SABRE is an evolution of Alan Bond…

>After shutting the inlet cone off at Mach 5.14, and at an altitude of 28.5 km, the system continues as a closed-cycle high-performance rocket engine burning liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen from on-board fuel tanks the benchmark of today - SpaceX - separates the first stage at Mach6-8 at 65-80km height. Thus, the SpaceX second stage has less delta-v to add and don't have to carry all that weight - the SABRE would n…

I think one of their big advantages over SpaceX is noise pollution. Nobody is going to be launching Super Heavy near significantly inhabited areas just because of the noise.

Re: Skylon’s SABRE Engine Passes a Big Test

#27

Post by simonh »

ggm wrote: post #14
zer0sugar wrote: post #9

Isn't it inevitable the SpaceX will (and already does) dominate the entire space industry? Won't it be cheaper to launch on starship than anythign else even for very small payloads? Yes, I know about RocketLab but I wonder if they will be able to survive once starship is up and running.

European governments will continue to back Ariane because strategically it makes sense. Russia will bankroll energyia likewise. Dominance is not static and private capital will not entirely replace state actions.

It depends if we consider state sponsored agencies maintained for national security reasons part of the ‘space industry’. There are reasonable arguments either way.

Re: Skylon’s SABRE Engine Passes a Big Test

#28

Post by heisenbit »

_lbaq wrote: post #22
privateSFacct wrote: post #17

These guys don't disappear - they have been around forever with their Skylon plane. Just a heads up, it's a long way from testing one component of an engine on the ground to getting a full engine demo going to then testing it in the air to then build the plane then integrating engine - then getting orbital trips working with reentry! I am curious how much private capital they have been able to attract (outside of gov…

These things take time, but it's not the complete story, Virgin Galactic has been around since 2004, so the same year GMail launched, without producing a single passenger flight. Blue Origin has been around for almost 20 years, and they have a few suborbital flights to their credit, and an engine that has yet to fly. SpaceX, on the other hand, has been around since 2002 and achieved orbit in 2008, and have completed…

Sense of urgency lets one leverage the best current technologies and take the best compromises within the time and monetary budget. But this is incremental innovation. It fails at tackling novel concepts where the paths forward are not so clear. You can't incrementally tunnel through a wall.

At one point maybe SABRE is ready and the next SpaceX comes along and will build a spaceship with it. The spoils of innovation seldom accrue with the inventors.

Re: Skylon’s SABRE Engine Passes a Big Test

#29

Post by sandworm101 »

trhway wrote: post #11
nickpinkston wrote: post #5

In case anyone was confused by the article's description, here's the Wikipedia: "SABRE (Synergetic Air Breathing Rocket Engine) is a concept under development by Reaction Engines Limited for a hypersonic precooled hybrid air-breathing rocket engine. The engine is being designed to achieve single-stage-to-orbit capability, propelling the proposed Skylon spaceplane to low Earth orbit. SABRE is an evolution of Alan Bond…

>After shutting the inlet cone off at Mach 5.14, and at an altitude of 28.5 km, the system continues as a closed-cycle high-performance rocket engine burning liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen from on-board fuel tanks the benchmark of today - SpaceX - separates the first stage at Mach6-8 at 65-80km height. Thus, the SpaceX second stage has less delta-v to add and don't have to carry all that weight - the SABRE would n…

Mach 5 at 28km and mach 6 at 70km are not all that different. Mach slows down with altitude. And specific altitude numbers dont matter much if you are aiming for orbit. All that really matters is horizontal velocity. The first stages of both schemes are relatively slow. Both get the bulk of thier orbital velocity from thier second stages.

SpaceX takes a very non-aggressive approach with its first stages. When they detach they arent moving nealy as fast as other rocket first stages. That is done so they dont slam back into the lower atmosphere but it means relying upon second/third stages to do the horizontal work. By the raw physics, it isnt the most energy efficient approach. It is a compromise to facilitate recovery.

Re: Skylon’s SABRE Engine Passes a Big Test

#30

Post by arethuza »

_lbaq wrote: post #22
privateSFacct wrote: post #17

These guys don't disappear - they have been around forever with their Skylon plane. Just a heads up, it's a long way from testing one component of an engine on the ground to getting a full engine demo going to then testing it in the air to then build the plane then integrating engine - then getting orbital trips working with reentry! I am curious how much private capital they have been able to attract (outside of gov…

These things take time, but it's not the complete story, Virgin Galactic has been around since 2004, so the same year GMail launched, without producing a single passenger flight. Blue Origin has been around for almost 20 years, and they have a few suborbital flights to their credit, and an engine that has yet to fly. SpaceX, on the other hand, has been around since 2002 and achieved orbit in 2008, and have completed…

"Virgin Galactic has been around since 2004"

I'm 54 - Sabre/Skylon were in the news when I was in high school!

Post reply on HN