Reaction Engines SABRE engine (Skylon Spaceplane)

[Moose]

They used a Mach 5 spaceplane to deliver 2 UAVs and a crate of supplies? Seems a bit of a waste.

Someone's been hanging around with the SUSTAIN people too much, heh.

 

[Flyaway]

They used a Mach 5 spaceplane to deliver 2 UAVs and a crate of supplies? Seems a bit of a waste.

Obviously going for a more fluffy bit of PR for some reason rather than putting forward what it's probably really for which is hypersonic strike.

 

[Ian33]

SHARP, meet SABRE, SABRE, SHARP.

Now, that's the introductions out the way, get jiggy, we need your babies.

 

[Grey Havoc]

The OPFOR Anti-Aircraft mechs were a nice touch. I wonder if the concept was from a 'blue sky' future threat study or just PR eye candy.

 

[Michel Van]

BAE Systems Hypersonic Response Aircraft concept using a Sabre type engine

Armed forces of the future could be using rapid response aircraft equipped with engines capable of propelling those aircraft to hypersonic speeds - similar to the Synergetic Air-Breathing Rocket Engine (SABRE) which is currently being developed by Reaction Engines Limited, a small British company in which BAE Systems has invested £20.6 million.

War the mother of all (technical) Things
only positive in this case is that Reaction Engines Limited get more money for R&D on Sabre engine
At least BAE could build hypersonic recon plane with Sabre hardware...

 

[CJGibson]

BAE née BAC could build a hypersonic recon plane fifty years ago.

Chris

 

[Flyaway]

ESA COMMITS TO NEXT STAGE OF UK REVOLUTIONARY ROCKET ENGINE

http://m.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Engineering_Technology/ESA_commits_to_next_stage_of_UK_revolutionary_rocket_engine

BBC article with some further info on developments.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36773074

 

[FighterJock]

ESA COMMITS TO NEXT STAGE OF UK REVOLUTIONARY ROCKET ENGINE

http://m.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Engineering_Technology/ESA_commits_to_next_stage_of_UK_revolutionary_rocket_engine

BBC article with some further info on developments.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36773074

An interesting development, lets hope that Skylon succeeds where HOTOL failed.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/09/fighter-engine-size-hypersonic-ground.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Fadvancednano+%28nextbigfuture%29&utm_content=FaceBook

 

[FighterJock]

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/09/fighter-engine-size-hypersonic-ground.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Fadvancednano+%28nextbigfuture%29&utm_content=FaceBook

Interesting link bobbymike, thanks for posting. B)

 

[Flyaway]

There is also this article.

http://aviationweek.com/new-space/reaction-engines-refines-hypersonic-engine-demonstrator-plan

 

[bobbymike]

http://aviationweek.com/propulsion/us-air-force-lays-out-air-breathing-engine-powered-launcher-studies?NL=AW-19&Issue=AW-19_20160927_AW-19_702&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_2&utm_rid=CPEN1000000230026&utm_campaign=7154&utm_medium=email&elq2=29a2ea3e406e43c896b93c2d89b5d83b

5000 lbs nice CPGS payload size ;D

 

[Flyaway]

Reaction Engines Refines Hypersonic Engine Demonstrator Plan

SABRE demonstrator will be scaled for smaller-scale hypersonic and reusable launch needs

Freshly infused with government and industry funding, and riding a wave of interest in Europe and the U.S., Reaction Engines Ltd. is firming up plans to build a fighter engine-size ground demonstrator of its reusable hypersonic propulsion system. As that rarest of beasts, a powerplant concept combining the air-breathing efficiency of a jet engine with the power and vacuum operating capability of a rocket, the SABRE (Synergistic Air-Breathing Rocket Engine) cycle is a potential game changer ...

http://aviationweek.com/technology/reaction-engines-refines-hypersonic-engine-demonstrator-plan

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/12/reaction-engines-uk-progressing-to-full.html

 

[FighterJock]

Interesting link bobbymike, I always like to keep up to date with all things Skylon related.

 

[flateric]

...

 

[steelpillow]

...

Yep, do air-launch before attempting SSO, it's a no-brainer that the industry loves to forget. Personally I think the key problem has always been that SSO sparks more romanticism in the designers. This is best countered with fancy graphics, because two sleek shiny things parting company look more romantic that one sleek shiny thing posing for the artist. And getting the big one off the shelf is a great way to look like you are down-to-earth cost cutting.

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

A Two stage to orbit is a non ambitious compromise which inflates costs and drives down payload.

Getting to orbit is far more about velocity than altitude because the in the energy term it's squared. Hence an off the shelf first stage i.e subsonic is utterly pointless as constrains the payload stage enormously. The Tristar Pegasus has a tiny payload and orbital mass fraction of the complete aircraft/rocket is no better than vertical lifting rocket. It only exists because of whole load surplus cheap Mx motors becoming available. The stratolaunch is now stillborn because it never made sense even if they had/do fly it.

The AFRL is looking for a high speed (Mach 6) sabre based first stage to launch an expendable second stage. This approach may be quite politically motivated as one of the senior guys in that organisation only a few years ago declared that SSO would not be possible for twenty or more years.

Good luck to Reaction Engines for getting Skylon together as an SSO

 

[Byeman]

1. A Two stage to orbit is a non ambitious compromise which inflates costs and drives down payload.

2. Getting to orbit is far more about velocity than altitude because the in the energy term it's squared.

3. Hence an off the shelf first stage i.e subsonic is utterly pointless as constrains the payload stage enormously. The Tristar Pegasus has a tiny payload and orbital mass fraction of the complete aircraft/rocket is no better than vertical lifting rocket.

4. It only exists because of whole load surplus cheap Mx motors becoming available.

1. A statement unsupported by physics and reality

2. Air launch benefits Pegasus via lower air density and not launch altitude.

3. It isn't utterly pointless. It is that you don't utterly understand the benefits or the physics, like multiple launch site, multiple azimuths from single launch sites and that mass to orbit is not the primary consideration. If mass to orbit was a primary consideration, then SpaceX would not be using a returnable first stage. And like the Falcon 9, Pegasus has a reusable first stage.

4. MX has nothing to do with Pegasus. Pegasus existed before MX was going to be decommissioned. Pegasus does not use any motors that were used by or related to the MX.

 

[Byeman]

1. The Pegasus 1 is a whole load of surplus /obsolete components cobbled together, i.e. Mx missile rocket motors, an old /unwanted airliner, etc. If all the bits are free or bargin basement prices it's easy to make the business case. Its a very desperate solution with an orbital mass fraction of 0.2% of the runway take off weight.


2. Talking of which, the Space Shuttle sitting on top of a 747 may have looked cool but this doesn't translate to a practical launch solution, remember when on the 747 it had no fuel or payload. The high centre of gravity of the combination had to be reacted by the 747 Nose Landing Gear when braking (the design case will be the max energy RTO). Any commercial airliner is designed to be just about strong enough to perform its intended task and doesn't have spare margins. So to estimate the mass of a piggy back orbital vehicle take the normal passenger payload weight and divide it by the increased moment arm due to extra cg height. My guess is A340, without massive structural modifications, would be able to carry, piggyback, a 20 ton orbiter max. Skylon is designed to have a max take off weight of about 280 tons.

1. You really don't know what you are talking about. The Pegasus uses motors that were specifically design for it. Hence, they were not surplus nor obsolete.

2. Your point is meaningless because there has to be structural modifications to carry anything piggyback on top of an aircraft. The shuttle orbiter weighed about 110 tons.

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

The space shuttle orbiter empty weight is 68 ton, which is the weight it would have been on the back of 747. I believe, while in flight the combination was significant limited in both airspeed and max altitude as well;- this would further reduce the orbital energy input. 110 Ton is an orbiter with an integrated payload and is well beyond the payload of a 747;- any claim that the structural modification to mount it on its back could extend to that level basic wing root bending enhancement is unsupported by physics or realty.

As for your assertion relating to air density this only effects nozzle expansion ratio optimisation which is a second order effect on payload mass fraction. I would welcome you to publish the physics which shows that kinetic energy is not the sole dominant factor in getting a payload into orbit.

Sure a two stage to orbit concept gives the ability for launch point selection but that wasn't the point, a single stage such as Skylon can offer the same flexibility.

Pegasus's Tristar was the last one flying in the world because they deliberately chose to control costs by using obsolete equipment. Nothing wrong with that but is show how marginal the business case is.

 

[steelpillow]

I would welcome you to publish the physics which shows that kinetic energy is not the sole dominant factor in getting a payload into orbit.

Of course this has always been the prime rationale for multi-stage launch, as was first realised in the mid-twentieth century and ever since then multi-stage has been the only possible way to attain orbit. That Zootycon is using the same rationale to try and justify SSO technology over multi-stage is - what, ironic perhaps? SABRE makes it technically possible but it doesn't change the proven economic advantage of multi-stage.

Second-best is a subsonic COTS (commercial-off-the-shelf) mothership with SABRE upper stage. As British Aerospace found donkeys years ago (and contrary to Zootycon's dreams), this is the cheapest and lowest-risk orbiter to develop. And as Pegasus has amply demonstrated, a conventional mothership brings operational flexibilities which have high value in themselves.

Better is a suborbital SABRE-powered mothership. It might even borrow a trick from the Shuttle, with the orbiter's conventional rocket engine providing boost for takeoff. But that's two specialist craft, with twice the development cost and the risk squared. Let's do it the easy way first.

You don't even need SABRE. An atmospheric mothership, suborbital rocket second stage and rocket orbiter would have been viable fifty years ago - think B52 plus X-15 with disposable orbiter hung beneath, then refine. But that refining triples the development cost, so nobody ever dared go there.

Exercise for the student: Taking the Virgin Galactic two-stage suborbital launch system as a starting point, how is it best developed to give orbital capability? SABRE for the mothership? SABRE for the second stage? A new rocket third stage? Richard Branson would love to know!

But if you are willing to set aside orbital flight for now then, whether or not you believe that SSO will ultimately triumph, a sub-orbital Skylon is an obvious next step.

 

[SteveO]

Hmmm... not much to look at anymore on the new website https://www.reactionengines.co.uk

Hopefully the lack of documents, images and videos indicates real world progress is being made!

 

[mz]

The space shuttle orbiter empty weight is 68 ton, which is the weight it would have been on the back of 747. I believe, while in flight the combination was significant limited in both airspeed and max altitude as well;- this would further reduce the orbital energy input. 110 Ton is an orbiter with an integrated payload and is well beyond the payload of a 747;- any claim that the structural modification to mount it on its back could extend to that level basic wing root bending enhancement is unsupported by physics or realty.

As for your assertion relating to air density this only effects nozzle expansion ratio optimisation which is a second order effect on payload mass fraction. I would welcome you to publish the physics which shows that kinetic energy is not the sole dominant factor in getting a payload into orbit.

Sure a two stage to orbit concept gives the ability for launch point selection but that wasn't the point, a single stage such as Skylon can offer the same flexibility.

Pegasus's Tristar was the last one flying in the world because they deliberately chose to control costs by using obsolete equipment. Nothing wrong with that but is show how marginal the business case is.

initial mass / final mass = exp ( delta vee / effective exhaust velocity)

The effective exhaust velocity can be made significantly higher for lower ambient pressures. Don't have info on 20% sea level air pressure, or whatever Pegasus is launched at, but here's some back of the envelope:

For example the SpaceX Merlin engine has a nozzle extension on the vacuum version.

Merlin 1C with sea level nozzle
Sea level: 350 kN, 275 s
Vacuum: 400 kN, 304 s

Merlin 1C with vacuum nozzle extension
Vacuum: 411 kN, 342 s

For example if you need 6 km/s of stage delta vee, with a normal ISP of 3 km/s you need e^(6/3) = e^2 = 7.4 mass ratio.
While with the air launch ISP 3.4 km/s you only need a 5.8 mass ratio.

You could downsize the first stage and leave out some engines, to save on cost per launch etc...

 

[Byeman]

The space shuttle orbiter empty weight is 68 ton, which is the weight it would have been on the back of 747. I believe, while in flight the combination was significant limited in both airspeed and max altitude as well;- this would further reduce the orbital energy input. 110 Ton is an orbiter with an integrated payload and is well beyond the payload of a 747;- any claim that the structural modification to mount it on its back could extend to that level basic wing root bending enhancement is unsupported by physics or realty.

2. As for your assertion relating to air density this only effects nozzle expansion ratio optimisation which is a second order effect on payload mass fraction.

3. I would welcome you to publish the physics which shows that kinetic energy is not the sole dominant factor in getting a payload into orbit.

The fact that you are using wrong data just shows that the rest of your posts are suspect and you don't know what you are talking about. I make no "claims", I am only stating facts.

1. When the shuttle orbiter landed at Edwards AFB and was ferried back to KSC, it was not empty, it still had some fluids onboard and payload. And if the payload was a Spacelab, it was a full up payload.
Here is a document covering the first 91 missions and it lists the ferry weights. One was almost 230k pounds (i.e. 115 tons)

2. Just as your assertion about "combination was significant limited in both airspeed and max altitude as well;- this would further reduce the orbital energy input.". Air launch is not about energy input. Airspeed and altitude at launch figure little into the deltaV required.
And as for my point on air density, it is not an assertion on nozzle expansion. The benefit from air launch due to lower air density is less drag and dynamic pressure.

3. Never made any post that does not say otherwise. However, there are other considerations and trades that affect what it costs to provide the kinetic energy.

 

[steelpillow]

Hmmm... not much to look at anymore on the new website https://www.reactionengines.co.uk

Hopefully the lack of documents, images and videos indicates real world progress is being made!

Hedging their bets now:
"SABRE class engines are applicable in both multi-stage and single-stage architectures."
https://www.reactionengines.co.uk/vehicles/

 

[Ian33]

Hmmm... not much to look at anymore on the new website https://www.reactionengines.co.uk

Hopefully the lack of documents, images and videos indicates real world progress is being made!

Hedging their bets now:
"SABRE class engines are applicable in both multi-stage and single-stage architectures."
https://www.reactionengines.co.uk/vehicles/

No, not hedging their bets, fully realising the potential for small, bomber sized version as well as they big boys full sized monster to take payload to orbit. I fully expect to see a little clip mid to late 2017 of such power plants demonstrated.

 

[steelpillow]

...fully realising the potential for small, bomber sized version as well as they big boys full sized monster to take payload to orbit.

That's what I said, hedging their bets.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/02/leading-development-of-hypersonic.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Fadvancednano+%28nextbigfuture%29&utm_content=FaceBook

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/02/us-dept-of-defense-providing-funding.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Fadvancednano+%28nextbigfuture%29&utm_content=FaceBook

 

[Archibald]

Skylon on backburner until the 2030s. Et merde !! :-\

 

[Flyaway]

Reaction Engines begins construction of UK rocket engine test facility

Reaction Engines Ltd. today began construction of a new engine test facility where it plans to undertake the first ground based demonstration of its revolutionary SABRE™ air-breathing rocket engine.

The test facility at Westcott, Buckinghamshire, UK will enable Reaction Engines to test critical subsystems along with the testing of a SABRE engine core, which will commence in 2020.

The project represents a substantial investment for Reaction Engines, which will consist of a multi-purpose propulsion test stand designed to accommodate various test engine configurations, an assembly building, workshops, offices and control room. The location of workshops and other support facilities alongside the test stand will enable configuration changes to the engine to take place at the site, reducing the down time between testing phases and accelerating the development programme of the SABRE engine.

To mark the start of construction, Mark Thomas, CEO, Reaction Engines undertook a ground breaking ceremony with Franco Ongaro, Director of Technology, Engineering and Quality, European Space Agency (ESA); Dr. Chris Castelli, Director, Programmes, UK Space Agency and Richard Harrington, CEO, Buckinghamshire Thames Valley LEP.

Mark Thomas, CEO, Reaction Engines said:

“This is another exciting step forward in development of Reaction Engines’ SABRE engine and a visible demonstration of the UK’s commitment to the programme. I look forward to seeing this unique facility take shape and commencing our core engine testing, which will be a defining moment for aerospace.”

Franco Ongaro, Director of Technology, Engineering and Quality, ESA said:

“The opening of this new test facility at Westcott Today marks an historical moment for the European Aerospace industry and for the UK research and development in rocket propulsion. This facility will enable the ground test of the SABRE engine cycle, opening the way to the first flight tests, and to a new era. The European Space Agency is proud of this partnership with industry and the UK Space Agency, to which we bring our technical competence, which has supported the SABRE development to this stage, and we are confident, to its future flight success.”

The construction of the SABRE engine test facility is a significant milestone. The company has already successfully undertaken testing of the engine’s pre-cooler and thrust chamber technologies, and will undertake further ground-based high-temperature testing of the pre-cooler early in 2018.

The test facility is located in the Westcott Venture Park, a location with a strong history of rocket propulsion research, having been used to test various UK rocket projects since 1946, including the Blue Streak and Black Arrow programmes. In 2016 the UK Space Agency selected Westcott as the UK’s National Space Propulsion Test Facility and the site is now home to a number of space propulsion and satellite technology companies.

https://www.reactionengines.co.uk/reaction-engines-begins-construction-uk-rocket-engine-test-facility/

 

[FighterJock]

That is brilliant news for Reaction Engines. B)

 

[Flyaway]

Reaction Engines is proud to announce ground is now broken on our multi-£M #SABRETF1 core engine test facility @WestcottVP

Pictures on the link below.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ReactionEngines/status/860147329260822528

 

[Flyaway]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g1lDjHPLWE

Published on 8 May 2017

Animation of Reaction Engines SABRE TF1 test facility at Westcott Venture Park near Aylesbury.

 

[Flyaway]

Awarded DARPA Contract to Perform High-Temperature Testing of the SABRE Precooler

CASTLE ROCK, Colorado – September 25, 2017

Reaction Engines Inc., the U.S. subsidiary of Reaction Engines, today announced that it has received a contract from the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to conduct high-temperature airflow testing in the United States of a Reaction Engines precooler test article called HTX. The precooler heat exchanger is a key component of the company’s revolutionary SABRE air-breathing rocket engine and has the potential to enable other precooled propulsion systems. The primary HTX test objective is to validate precooler performance under the high-temperature airflow conditions expected during high-speed flights up to Mach 5.

“We have been greatly encouraged by the increasing interest in our technology’s potential and are thrilled to embark on our first U.S. government contract with DARPA for HTX,” said Dr. Adam Dissel, President of Reaction Engines Inc. “Full-temperature testing of the precooler will provide the most compelling near-term proof of the technology’s potential to accelerate the future for high-speed air-breathing systems.”

The HTX precooler test builds upon previous successful ground tests of the precooler technology conducted at ambient environmental conditions in the United Kingdom. These previous tests validated precooler design methodology, manufacturing techniques, and test operations plans.

To support HTX testing, Reaction Engines is constructing a new high-temperature airflow test facility, located in Colorado. Under the DARPA program, the company aims to establish the facility’s capability to provide airflows in excess of 1800°F (1000°C), analogous to air-breathing flight above Mach 5, and then conduct the testing of a Reaction Engines-supplied precooler starting in the spring of 2018.

Mark Thomas, Chief Executive Officer of Reaction Engines, commented, “The announcement of DARPA’s contract is fantastic news and provides us with the opportunity to demonstrate our innovative heat exchanger capability in the world’s largest aerospace market. This will accelerate our development efforts and strengthen key relationships.”

Reaction Engines has world-leading expertise in the design and manufacture of compact, lightweight heat exchangers capable of cooling airstreams from over 1800°F to -240°F (1,000°C to -150°C) in less than 1/20th of a second. Developed for the high-speed SABRE engines, the precooler heat exchangers prevent engine components from overheating at high flight speeds and thereby could enable new classes of vehicles and operational possibilities.

END

https://www.reactionengines.co.uk/reaction-engines-awarded-darpa-contract-to-perform-high-temperature-testing-of-the-sabre-precooler/

 

[steelpillow]

Guess they'll be running a precooler in reverse to create an adequate preheater for the test airflow

 

[merriman]

Guess they'll be running a precooler in reverse to create an adequate preheater for the test airflow

They could do what the PLUTO people did at Jack-Ass Flats. Or aim the south-end of an after-burning engine into the maw of the pre-cooler. Or have the crew wolf down bean-burritos 30-minutes before test.

David

 

[sferrin]

Guess they'll be running a precooler in reverse to create an adequate preheater for the test airflow

They could do what the PLUTO people did at Jack-Ass Flats. Or aim the south-end of an after-burning engine into the maw of the pre-cooler. Or have the crew wolf down bean-burritos 30-minutes before test.

David

Imagine the cooler required to take the exhaust from say, an F414 in afterburner, and turn it into liquid.

 

[TomS]

Imagine the cooler required to take the exhaust from say, an F414 in afterburner, and turn it into liquid.

Not quite that cold -- it's about 40C above the liquefaction point. But yeah, it's pretty heroic. Keeping it from icing up seems like the worst part. Ice blocking channel in the precooler could cause serious problems, so they have to dry the air as well as chill it.