British aerospace company claims biggest engine advance since the jet

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4844581

> I think it could very well be in that context that a MAGLEV launch-assist vehicle might make sense.

Maglev would indeed allow smaller, less complex vehicles built with less stringent margins to be launched.

Note that much of the energy spent for orbital flight is not spend getting height, but spent getting speed. Efficiency is greatly increased if you can reach high speeds without having to carry the reaction mass to reach those speeds.

LEO requires about 7.8 km/s, Skylon's jet engines can go around 1.7 km/s. You are reaching 20% of your orbital velocity without reaction mass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SABRE_(rocket_engine)#Advantage...

The big savings, like spacex's grasshopper project, is of course a reusable space vehicle. The advantage to spacex's approach is that Skylon is a single stage to orbit space plane (you don't need to land a bunch of stages using retro-rockets).

If I was placing a bet, I would bet on spacex since they have a proven track record (rockets are easy, organizing/funding rocket companies is hard). Skylon is a great idea though and it is the general direction that aircraft engine design is headed (a peak at the future).

1. it requires a large amount of hydrogen - which is not heavy so it looks good on paper but is very cold and voluminous, meaning you need huge insulated tanks. They are expensive to build, have bad mass fraction and are aerodynamically problematic. Hydrogen is also expensive to handle in systems and infrastructure.

2. the dry mass of an air breathing engine sucks because they process gases (rockets process liquids with 1000x density), though SABRE is better than stuff like scramjets. This is especially bad for an SSTO like they are proposing since you carry the inlets and precoolers and all that all the way to orbit.

My bet for cheap spaceflight would be a two stage kerosene-oxygen rocket. A SABRE engine might make a great first stage but I doubt if you would want to carry it to orbit. I haven't performed much calculations though.

The cost of fuel and the cost of fuel tanks is an insignificant part of the cost of an orbital launch, around the 1% level. The major drivers of cost are overall system complexity and manufacturing cost of the engines. And here's the big problem for a Skylon spaceplane, rockets are fairly simple systems whereas hypersonic airbreathing engines are extraordinarily complex and difficult. And if you can manage reusability on your launcher then the ordinary rocket engine wins hands down.

The reason why the jet engine won out over the propeller in civil aviation is not because of the higher thrust or better performance of the jet, it's because of lower operational costs. A jet powered aircraft requires less maintenance per passenger-mile than a propeller driven aircraft does. Partly this is because, despite the design complexities involved, a jet engine is actually a much simpler system.

The idea of not having to haul up a full load of oxidizer on an orbital launcher is a tempting one, but it doesn't come easy. One of the big advantages of a rocket is that it can push up above the bulk of the atmosphere when it's still traveling fairly slowly and do most of its accelerating in a near-vacuum. This reduces aerodynamic drag, aerodynamic heating, and dynamic pressure forces. All of which are some of the most pernicious problems to deal with in a launch vehicle. No few launch vehicles have been lost just as they reach "max-Q" (the moment of maximum dynamic pressure), and for an air breathing launcher it would likely be forced to fly through even more severe aerodynamic regimes than most rockets for significantly longer periods of time. This is hard on the vehicle design, hard on airframe longevity, hard on the thermal protection systems, and hard on the whole vehicle in general.

So on the one hand you have a vehicle which requires significantly more robust engineering and significantly more complex engines and overall design while probably having a shorter total service life. And is perhaps some significant factor riskier to fly in general. And on the other hand you have dead simple basically 60 year old engineering that is just put together sensibly, flown within a familiar flight envelope in a way that minimizes risk and iteratively improved to continuously shave off operating costs. It's a pretty safe bet which one is more likely to actually lead to lower launch costs.