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

41–47 of 47 posts

Re: Skylon’s SABRE Engine Passes a Big Test

#41

Post by digsy »

_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…

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

Well that and the SABRE engine is a completely new design and SpaceXs engines are based on engines created in the 1960s and refined since then.

Its comparing apples and oranges.

Re: Skylon’s SABRE Engine Passes a Big Test

#42

Post by _lbaq »

digsy wrote: post #41
_lbaq wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>I suspect the biggest difference between these companies is not talent or vision, but sens of urgency Well that and the SABRE engine is a completely new design and SpaceXs engines are based on engines created in the 1960s and refined since then. Its comparing apples and oranges.

I think that “spaceplanes” where a great idea until SpaceX landed a Falcon9 first stage, after that point they are mostly a complication.

Re: Skylon’s SABRE Engine Passes a Big Test

#43

Post by _lbaq »

heisenbit wrote: post #28
_lbaq wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Some ideas also have a tendency to be leapfrogged by a combination of lesser novel ideas used in a new way, the idea of a plane as a first stage was probably great until SpaceX showed up and landed a Falcon9 first stage to reuse.

Re: Skylon’s SABRE Engine Passes a Big Test

#44

Post by mrfusion »

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…

Even if reusable rockets have them beat cost wise. This could be an ideal way to get passengers to orbit and back with less G forces.

Re: Skylon’s SABRE Engine Passes a Big Test

#45

Post by avmich »

ggm wrote: post #21
avmich wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> do you seriously think Putin will renounce a domestic space industry?

Probably not. It's possible to bring the space industry to the state of aviation industry, but 1) some resources are still available to maintain some level (as you mentioned) 2) to keep the same level, one needn't spend too much effort and 3) there are some interested parties in Russia which wouldn't want too deep degradation of space industry (e.g. periodically some hints to that come from Samara).

So a likely outcome could be maintenance of some expertise, at least for military purposes, and possibly attempts to cooperation with foreign partners - China, Europe etc. No total destruction; "just" - potentially - another deep crisis.

Re: Skylon’s SABRE Engine Passes a Big Test

#46

Post by privateSFacct »

growlist wrote: post #38
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…

You speak as if the design has not changed over time. To be precise, the history dates back to American studies in the 50s and 60s which were not taken forward but that were picked up by Alan Bond in the UK and evolved, then later developed into the HOTOL design, and still later into Skylon/SABRE - with significant work undertaken throughout this history. I think that there are some factors to give one faith that thi…

Much of the “significant external funding” is coming from govt funded defense contractors - nothing better then selling star wars military dreams to politicians spending taxpayer money.

I’m glad research is happening - agreed on Sabre vs Skylon too. could do with a touch less hype.

Re: Skylon’s SABRE Engine Passes a Big Test

#47

Post by privateSFacct »

goodcanadian wrote: post #23
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.

People gloss over things like building a turbine engine as easy - it is not - it's been done, yes, but for these guys to build, qualify, validate and get an engine flying on passenger planes is a HUGE undertaking even ASSUMING this critical piece of tech was perfect.

To also then build the plane? I'm curious to see what their re-entry technology looks like - feels pretty critical path to me.

What are these applications and industries that will be revolutionized? I'm serious - I've heard this will revolutionize hypersonic cars. OK.

The plane concept itself required a closed loop normal rocket engine - so you've got to have that AND the Sabre AND are doing single stage to orbit. I shudder to think of the mass fractions - how does carrying all this extra around make sense just from the physics - do you save that much in terms of LOX?

Post reply on HN