|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
12th March 2015, 06:53 AM | #1 |
Pi
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 21,797
|
Skylon
I thought I'd start a thread (I couldn't find one) about the potentially marvelous concept that is Skylon and the slightly lesser known and even more conceptual A2
I have been following this since HOTL (too heavy at the back, apparently) and it's looking more and more feasible that an SSTO craft of this nature is possible now that the problem of frost control appears to be actually not a problem at all. Are there any other comapnies pursuing similar technology? What does the assembled company think the feasibility of the project is? Also, I get annoyed when the engines are referred to as working as jet engines. As far as I'm aware, they never do, they're always rockets. |
__________________
Up the River! Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted] |
|
12th March 2015, 08:22 AM | #2 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,606
|
Been following Reaction Engines and their SABRE engine for a while. Be interesting to see if they can deliver on their promise in a timely manner and for an affordable price.
|
__________________
Long time lurker |
|
12th March 2015, 07:10 PM | #3 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 299
|
|
12th March 2015, 07:28 PM | #4 |
Scholar
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 83
|
|
12th March 2015, 07:33 PM | #5 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
|
I'm always skeptical of proposals that have to compare themselves against the worst cost option available to make the proposal appear very cost attractive.
Still, it's very interesting. |
12th March 2015, 08:12 PM | #6 |
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
|
I think this device is more spork than fork. The compressor section is not driven by the combustion chamber as a single-shaft feedback loop as in a jet engine but a separate component.
From Reaction themselves: "The SABRE engine is essentially a closed cycle rocket engine with an additional pre-cooled turbo-compressor to provide a high pressure air supply to the combustion chamber. This allows operation from zero forward speed on the runway and up to Mach 5.5 in air-breathing mode during ascent. As the air density falls with altitude the engine eventually switches to a pure rocket propelling its vehicle (e.g. SKYLON) to orbital velocity (around Mach 25)." http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/sabre_howworks.html They're calling it a closed cycle rocket engine + compressor, in effect a rocket with on-board oxygen collection and compression upstream of the combustion chamber; control of the compression stage is discreet from the thrust output and not physically or thermodynamically coupled with thrust output. That detail makes it a spork, a spoon with poking bits rather than an ordinary spoon or traditional fork. |
14th March 2015, 02:21 PM | #7 |
Pi
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 21,797
|
It's never a jet though. It's always rockets it's just, up to mach 5 it scavenges O2 from the atmosphere and injects it into rocket bells (skirts? Exhausts?) along with H. There's never a point at which it uses gaseous air passed straight through the machine.
Is that still a 'jet'? Or what he said. |
__________________
Up the River! Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted] |
|
14th March 2015, 10:29 PM | #8 |
Muse
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 829
|
Last time I looked, the engine seemed fantastically complicated. Unless they come up with something really clever, it has to be an absolute nightmare to maintain.
|
15th March 2015, 02:11 AM | #9 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,591
|
Not about the Skylon, per se but here's a thread I started about the Sabre engine: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=248556
|
15th March 2015, 02:45 AM | #10 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,040
|
They are Jet engines, they use a jet of expanding gas to provide their thrust.
Why do you think Nasa call it the Jet Propulsion Lab? |
15th March 2015, 09:33 AM | #11 |
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
|
so does a 2-stroke chainsaw. Your simplified description fails to account for the actual thermodynamic and engineering differences of rocket and jet engines.
Quote:
Fun Fact: Jack Parsons has a crater on the moon named for him. It could be accurately described as a pimple on the moon's &&&crack. |
2nd November 2015, 04:47 AM | #12 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,606
|
A bit of an update, BAE has invested a £20m into Reaction Engines. Looks like a good investment for all involved.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34694935 |
__________________
Long time lurker |
|
2nd November 2015, 07:33 AM | #13 |
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
|
|
25th October 2019, 07:19 AM | #15 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 19,788
|
Is this related to the battery powered pump for use in rockets? I just lately learned that liquid fueled rockets need high pressure pumps.
So far as "jet" vs "rocket", they both use a jet of reaction mass. The axial turbine engine uses heated air as a reaction mass. The rocket uses on board mass. I doubt that whether pumps or compressors make the distinction. Is it important how you power the pumps? |
__________________
Any sufficiently advanced idea is indistinguishable from idiocy to those who don't actually understanding the concept. |
|
25th October 2019, 07:32 AM | #16 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 19,788
|
Aside- craft design- Swing wing? Maybe with wings that fold totally into the body. This would lessen drag at the time when lift supplied by the wings does not offset the friction of the wings, once in thin air and 'rocket' mode? And canards for trim because folding the wings will change lift/load balance point. Later fold the canards into the body too.
The change in air density makes for an interesting dynamic as the craft morphs from plane to missile. |
__________________
Any sufficiently advanced idea is indistinguishable from idiocy to those who don't actually understanding the concept. |
|
25th October 2019, 07:32 AM | #17 |
Pi
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 21,797
|
How you power the pumps is huge chunk of rocketry. Efficiencies to that process are the main reason the Raptor is such a good engine. (This is the everyday astronaut talking about it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbH1ZDImaI8) This isn't related to that though. Conventional jet engines tend to melt at around mach 3 and there's nothing that can reasonably be done about it. This engine force cools incoming hypersonic air so it can be used as oxidiser for what is effectively a rocket engine. EDIT: All of the above is my pretty shonky knowledge and subject to correction if someone who knows what they're talking abut turns up. |
__________________
Up the River! Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted] |
|
25th October 2019, 08:32 AM | #18 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 19,788
|
Did I read it cools the compressed air in 1/20th of a second? At mach 5, that is 1,000 feet. Seems like a long unwieldly craft.
|
__________________
Any sufficiently advanced idea is indistinguishable from idiocy to those who don't actually understanding the concept. |
|
25th October 2019, 08:36 AM | #19 |
Pi
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 21,797
|
The theorised prototype, Skylon, is long and thin and, predictably, looks part way between a rocket and a plane: https://meflyrocket.files.wordpress....sus_orbit2.jpg As I understand it, REL aren't pursuing the Skylon concept initially and are looking at two stages to orbit with the first stage using the Sabre and the second stage conventional. |
__________________
Up the River! Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted] |
|
25th October 2019, 08:39 AM | #20 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
|
|
25th October 2019, 03:53 PM | #21 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 370
|
The idea is to cool the air as it compresses it and slows it to subsonic speeds so it can be piped around and injected into the combustion chamber on the rocket end of the engine. SABRE would do this by feeding it through a heat exchanger composed of 16800 tubes with 30 micron thick walls that circulate helium chilled by the liquid hydrogen fuel. The helium drives the turbopumps pumping the fuel in the process.
The required temperature drop means liquid hydrogen is the only usable fuel, since it doubles as coolant. In Skylon, it would also have been used to cool leading surfaces during the slow ascent at high supersonic speeds. Between the fantastically complicated engines and the huge tanks needed to hold the liquid hydrogen, "unwieldy" is a pretty good word. I think Skylon was Alan Bond's baby. Since his retirement, the website's been scrubbed of all references to it apart from some pretty concept art. They don't mention even tentative plans of building any actual vehicles themselves any more, and seem to be trying to sell the engine as something for others to build vehicles around. Given the likely cost and fragility of something that complex...good luck. For space launch: liquid oxygen is cheaper than dirt, liquid oxygen tanks are a small contributor to vehicle dry mass, and conventional rocket engines easily produce the thrust to lift the needed oxygen while being cheaper than SABRE could ever dream of being. I doubt you'll ever see a SABRE-based launch vehicle, it's better suited to craft that cruise at high supersonic speeds than to those that are trying to accelerate out of the atmosphere. |
16th November 2019, 01:11 AM | #22 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,353
|
There is a difference though, an engine that uses the atmospheric air as reaction mass must expell that mass from the nozzle at a higher velocity than the vehicle is travelling for that mass to contribute to thrust, an engine that uses on board oxidiser doesn't have that limitation.
As the speed of an air breathing engine increases it would have to increase its exhaust velocity to maintain its thrust, not so with engine running on carried oxidiser. |
__________________
The secret NASA doesn't want you to know - God makes rockets work in space. |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|