Skylon spaceplane

[Anonymous No.4212119]

Skylon spaceplane

"The vehicle design is for a hydrogen-powered aircraft that would take off from a conventional runway, and accelerate to Mach 5.4 at 26 km using atmospheric air before switching the engines to use the internal liquid oxygen (LOX) supply to take it to orbit.[4] It would then release its payload, which can weigh up to 15 tonnes, and re-enter the atmosphere."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon_(spacecraft)

Is this fully reusable spaceplane the way to finally enable routine and cheap spaceflight capability?

[Anonymous No.4212149]

CheapER yes. But it's still more expensive than it has to be.

[Anonymous No.4212152]

Its certainly a step in the right direction I would say

[Anonymous No.4212157]

>>4212149

Blargh? Skylon could lead to airliner-like flights, just refuel and fly again. It hardly gets any cheaper than that..

[Anonymous No.4212171]

>>4212157
Yes, because there's no CONCEIVABLE way for space launches to be cheaper
>suddenly launch loops, space elevators, mass drivers, nuclear engines, skyhooks, sea dragons and space fountains
>thousands of them

Yes, if it can be made to work, it'll definitely be a huge improvement on our present capabilities, but it most certainly isn't the pinnacle of efficiency.

[Anonymous No.4212173]

It's predicted to bring costs down to ~$600/kg from ~$16,000 iirc

So yes, significantly cheaper. But with companies like SpaceX already making things cheaper without having to develop fancy new engines or technologies it could well be a close run thing. SKYLON hasn't even got full funding yet, they've just got the money to build demonstration engines from the ESA.

In vaguely related news, I walked past Reaction Engines inc. a few weeks ago when I was on a Nuclear Fusion PhD open day at Culham. Shit was so cash. They've got a tiny scale model of SKYLON in the main reception.

[Anonymous No.4212177]

>>4212157
Imagine everyone in a Ski resort used individual skidoos to get to the top of the pistes. A Ski lift is way more efficient.

Saying that, we should hardly wait for the most efficient method conceived to be implemented. Everyone using personal cars is hardly the most efficient way of doing things, in a perfectly efficient world we'd make use of a lot more public transport. That doesn't mean that the current system doesn't work incredibly well.

[Anonymous No.4212180]

>inb4 all this optimism causes the spontaneous summoning of Barbaric Monkey-demon

[Anonymous No.4212182]

>>4212171

>>suddenly launch loops, space elevators, mass drivers, nuclear engines, skyhooks, sea dragons and space fountains

Id say if skylon works as advertised, it could very well be cheaper than most, if not all of that. Full reusability, no need for mega-engineering and is hard to beat.

[Anonymous No.4212183]

>>4212180
Then let him come.

I need this shit to make me stop hating the world.

[Anonymous No.4212196]

>>4212182
Actually, all of those would be cheaper by the kilogram. Yes, ALL of them.

And the sea dragon isn't even a megaproject. but a huge, cheap hydrox rocket that would have enough payload capacity to lift the whole ISS into orbit in one go and still have several tonnes spare left for provisions.

[Anonymous No.4212203]

Reaction engines website:

http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/

There is also a Mars mission concept using skylon:

http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/troy.html

[Anonymous No.4212206]

>>4212183
When the world gives you piss, make piss-onade. (and make someone else drink it)

Don't let him get to you, he's just someone who's too hung up on apocalyptic visions to be able to enjoy all the positive and good things in life. While things have been a bit bleak, people are coming around, even if the world leaders are a bit behind the times.

If nothing else lifts your spirits, enjoy some finnish underwater shenanigans:
http://vimeo.com/34340906

[Anonymous No.4212219]

How feasible would some sort of space-aircraft carriers be? Like they float around in the atmosphere and have all the things needed to resupply and launch ships. They have all the big stuff that would be a bitch to get out of the atmosphere there, either it was launched earlier or they build them there. You just send the crew up in a tiny pod, they get there, stretch their legs, get in their big ship and blast away to explore the galaxies.

[Anonymous No.4212221]

>>4212196


>Actually, all of those would be cheaper by the kilogram. Yes, ALL of them.

I very much doubt it. Look critically at these cost predictions. They said the same about shuttle, and reality was the polar opposite. Noone has much of an idea of what the cost per kg will be until its actually tried.

>a huge, cheap hydrox rocket

Huge means expensive, and its non-reusable. Id say it would be even more expensive per kg than current rockets. Also:

>implying there are 550 ton payloads

Enjoy your huge rocket sitting on a pad waiting for nonexistent customers while the bills pile up.

[Anonymous No.4212226]

>>4212221
>I very much doubt it.
Go ahead, makes no difference.

>Huge means expensive
Which just means that you didn't research what it is and are just jumping to conclusions. Also, you're implying you can't combine payloads.

[Anonymous No.4212231]

>>4212219
Yeah, you just described what the ISS was going to be before all of the funding cuts.

[Anonymous No.4212239]

>>4212206
Okay, that actually did make me grin like a little kid. Thank you! Time for productivity.

[Anonymous No.4212275]

>>4212239
Always happy to help.

[Anonymous No.4212289]

If you ask me this is all still to slow.

The world is too slowly adapting Nuclear Power.
The world is too slowly adapting Space Tech.

In general everything except consumer computer power seems to be going very slowly.

I'm 22 years old now. By 2030 I'll be 40 for fucks sake.

By 2050 I'll be 60... and we still won't have anything cheap enough for me to travel to space.

I wish I was born in like 2040 or something... I could see all the great leaps happen... World ruining on super cheap combinations of Nuclear/Fusion/Hydro + Solar/Wind/Geo. People going to Mars and establishing a colony there and so on...

Now at best I'll make it to 2070. And the question is if I'm going to be alive or sane enough to appreciate what humanity has done. Too bad I won't experience anything first hand after 2040... because TOO OLD.

[Anonymous No.4212310]

>>4212289
http://www.alcor.org/
200,000 for body
80,000 for just your head

[Anonymous No.4212313]

>>4212289
You son of a bitch. It took me months to get over that kind of jealousy and now it's all back.

Fucking bullshit. I wish reincarnation was true.

[Anonymous No.4212319]

>>4212313
Well the fac that we have the first qbit computers and the fact that they're at least "predicted" to go exponentially up. Maybe by 2050 we can transfer our contentiousness into robots or some shit?

[Anonymous No.4212320]

>>4212319
Dude, I do NOT want to wink out before we settle space.

Fuck, turn me into a fucking servo skull if they have to.

[Anonymous No.4212328]

It sounds kinda like that orbital shuttle the US experimented with a few years back. That one was more of a space transporter.

I love NASA and all they do, but if they plan for this to be any more cost effective than the shuttles were, it can;t be in their hands.

[Anonymous No.4212334]

>>4212289
>>4212313
>>4212319
>>4212320
>>4212310
Cryonics. pay attention

[Anonymous No.4212335]

>>4212177
Skidoos are more fun and look better. Also (more importantly, I guess), unless a resort is constantly transporting people they don't use the lift. If there are only a couple of people skiing on a day they'll use snowmobiles instead, because the lift is more expensive to operate.

[Anonymous No.4212337]

>>4212328
>implying NASA aren't fucking awesome
>implying Skylon isn't a British project

[Anonymous No.4212338]

http://www.alcor.org/

[Anonymous No.4212342]

>>4212334
Dude. If you freeze flesh just as that you can't revive it because of ice crystals that form in the cytoplasm. They first need to develop some type of serum or genetic treatment to prevent that. You know like frogs can.

[Anonymous No.4212351]

>>4212342
Vitrification involves no crystals.

[Anonymous No.4212355]

>>4212351
No, it involve crystals with no large scale structure.

[Anonymous No.4212373]

>>4212355
>>4212351
>>4212342
You don't know what the technology of the future will be like, remember Leeloo? And at the very least they could clone you, which is better than nothing, at least your face would be walking around, potentially forever

[Anonymous No.4212379]

>>4212373
No, I'm saying vitrification turns you into glass and glass is an amorphic crystalline state of being.

[Anonymous No.4212435]

I got a desktop model of Skylon for Christmas. Certainly one of my more awesome presents.

[Anonymous No.4212475]

>>4212435

I'm incredibly jealous right now.

[Anonymous No.4212509]

>>4212373
>at least your face would be walking around, potentially forever

Not even, it'd be like your identical twin, it wouldn't be yours.

[Anonymous No.4212546]

>>4212435
So goddamn jealous.

[Anonymous No.4214670]

>>4212171 sea dragon

You say that like it isn't the most retarded and wasteful way to get into space...

[Anonymous No.4214676]

>>4212221 I very much doubt it. Look critically at these cost predictions. They said the same about shuttle, and reality was the polar opposite. Noone has much of an idea of what the cost per kg will be until its actually tried.


But what happens when the facts say that you're a faggot that doesn't know what you're talking about?

[Anonymous No.4214709]

>>4214670
[insert childish ad-hom here] and therefore, you should read this:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/searagon.htm

Quote from above article:
>The design was reviewed with Todd Shipyards, who concluded that it was well within their capabilities, and not too unlike making a submarine hull. 8 mm thick maraging steel was used, similar to the Aerojet 260 inch solid motor of the time. NASA Marshall gave the Aerojet designs to TRW for evaluation. TRW fully confirmed Aerojet's costs and engineering, a great surprise to both TRW and NASA. Aerojet was considering purchasing Sudden Ranch as a launch site for Sea Dragon. This property included several kilometers of coastline between Santa Barbara and Vandenberg AFB. This was the only site on the continental United States that could launch directly into a polar orbit without overflying populated areas (and was later incorporated into Vandenberg).
Let me stress that:
>TRW fully confirmed Aerojet's costs and engineering, a great surprise to both TRW and NASA.
Pic related, a life-sized Sea Dragon next to an american supercarrier.

As to why it never happened, it almost did if it hadn't been for Nixon.

[Anonymous No.4214736]

>>4214709

>You say that like it isn't the most retarded and wasteful way to get into space...

[Anonymous No.4214745]

>>4214736
You say that like you're a broken record.

[Anonymous No.4214758]

>>4214745
Ok, I'll take a whole extra minute or two to refute Sea Dragon semi-properly.

It doesn't take a genius to stick a serious fuckload of fuel into an extremely heavy casing for the sake of lifting a mediocre payload. There is nothing special about the Sea Dragon at all. It's rare enough that we would want something at 100t reaching orbit or further and when we do want 100t payloads the Sea Dragon will be a shit way to do it.

It's viable thought masturbation but it's not worthwhile.

[Anonymous No.4214857]

>>4214758
I see you still haven't spent any time doing research.
You don't really have any points there, just opinions based on nothing concrete.

[Anonymous No.4214863]

>>4214857
Excellent work refuting the valid points I made.

[Anonymous No.4214875]

>>4214863
Valid points?

>it's stupid
>it's retarded
>it might be cheaper and more powerful than what we have now, but it's still stupid

That's a collection of your so-called valid points. If that's the level of your debating skills, you have a bright career as a conservative republican politician ahead of you.

[Anonymous No.4214877]

>>4212119
>Skylon spaceplane
>Sylon spaceplane
>Cylon spaceplane

[Anonymous No.4214890]

>>4212289
Why did I read this post? Now I'm going to be depressed.

[Anonymous No.4214894]

>>4214875
>It doesn't take a genius to stick a serious fuckload of fuel into an extremely heavy casing
>mediocre payload
>single-use
>unnecessary
>not more powerful at all
>wasteful

Sea Dragon is a fatass 1970's muscle car
Skylon is a Bugatti Veyron

[Anonymous No.4214896]

>>4214890
check the video in >>4212206

See if that lifts your spirits.

[Anonymous No.4214898]

>>4212289
Stop being a fuck and play a part in making those dreams come true for the next generation

>implying any country is planning anything beyond 2020

[Anonymous No.4214905]

>>4214898
I'm pretty sure China has the next 100 years wrapped up nicely.
Step one: drain Africa of all natural resources.
Step two: ply Europe with debt until permanently indentured.

[Anonymous No.4214919]

>>4214894
>implying a less-complex and cheaper model can't be better than a more expensive, more complex and thus more failure-prone model
>mediocre payload
What the hell does that even mean?
>implying single-use actually matters with a cheap rocket
>implying payload capacity and cost aren't the greatest impediments in our way of expansion into space
>payload capacity 480 metric tonnes is not powerful
>ẃasteful
See first and third lines

>Sea Dragon is an 18-wheeler, Skylon is a van
fix'd

[Anonymous No.4214925]

>Is this fully reusable spaceplane the way to finally enable routine and cheap spaceflight capability?

From the specifications, it seems to be an aircraft meant to service satellites, nothing more. Read the description of the project, it says it's an unmanned spacecraft.

[Anonymous No.4214945]

>>4214925
Uhm, my bad. Apparently the cabin can be fitted to include a passenger module, in which life-supporting conditions can be accommodated for up to 14 days.

So yeah, it could be used for passenger spaceflight for several days.

>The conclusion was that a trip to orbit in the upright seat, suitable for stays in zero-g up to 14 days, would cost around $500,000.
http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/skylon_pax.html

But it seems that the main purpose of this spaceplane is to service something like the ISS.

>Once the SKYLON flight experience is enough to get full passenger certification without escape systems, the module is reconfigured to the Final Configuration which can carry 20 passengers and 1.5 tonnes of supplies to an ISS orbit. The lower number of passengers from the 2002 study is due to the supplies carried and the need for the module to be lighter to reach the higher altitude high inclination orbits used by the ISS.

[Anonymous No.4214952]

>>4214945
Its main purpose is to launch 12 tons of payload.

[Anonymous No.4214998]

>>4214952
>half the payload of the space shuttle

[Anonymous No.4215016]

>>4214998
yes but at a fraction the cost, the vast vast majority of payloads will fit and there will still be heavy launch systems.

[Anonymous No.4216155]

>>4214998

A major issue with the Space shuttle was that most of the payload space was wasted. Skylon is more in line with what we know we need to carry into space.