|
Post by tangent on Jun 30, 2013 9:17:25 GMT
Three days ago, Chancellor George Osborne tweeted: "Just seen SABRE -a rocket engine that cools air from 1000 degrees to -150 in fraction of a second.We're backing the future with £60m funding" It's quite cool, on the day he announced £11 billion of cuts in government spending, he says the SABRE engine that is to power Skylon is a high priority project. Still, the majority of funding is coming from private investors.
|
|
|
Post by ProdigalAlan on Jun 30, 2013 22:55:40 GMT
It's not the job of the government to back private development. It is the job of the developers to seek private backing, with or without government assistance. UK governments of all shades have ended up with too much egg on their face when they forget what the job of government is and starts to thing it's a panelist on Dragons Den.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Jul 1, 2013 0:41:37 GMT
Skylon's developers aim to do just that (seek private backing without government money). They are intending to raise more than 99% of the development money from private investors. But the reasons for the government backing the project at this stage are complex.
It's not unusual for the government to encourage promising ideas that are at the forefront of science and technology. But the project needs to reach a stage where investors can be convinced that it will succeed, and the current grant is intended to do just that. On the other hand, if it comes off, it will boost British trade enormously and the government will make a packet out of it. (Britain's satellite industry is currently worth £8 billion per year and that's going to double, at least, when Skylon starts flying.)
Skylon's developers, however, prefer the government not to give them a lot of money, they want just enough to convince private investors that it is a respectable project. Furthermore, political changes will be required, for example the spaceplane will be unmanned when it flies and so aviation regulations need to change to accommodate it. The statement George Osborne has made is not so much a gift of money as a commitment to back it politically. The money is almost incidental.
|
|
|
Post by ProdigalAlan on Jul 1, 2013 12:03:32 GMT
I can see the point of trying to "kick start" a project and I take on board what is said about the satellite industry. Maybe I'm being too negative about this, it's just that we can all run off a string of projects that have had government involvement and which have burnt taxpayers fingers.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Jul 1, 2013 13:37:20 GMT
Yes, that's right, TSR2, Concorde, Black Knight in the 1960s and 70s. But we haven't seen anything like that since Margaret Thatcher put her foot down and said 'no'. However, government money is a two edged sword. It can be pulled at the very last minute, as happened with the TSR2. (America was secretly very worried about the TSR2 because it was streets ahead of the F111 and threatened to eclipse it. But fortunately for them, Duncan Sands pulled the plug after the prototype had flown and proved itself.) And Black Knight was pulled just as satellites entered the commercial era so we missed the opportunity to recover the development cost. Instead, we gave the technology to the French to build Ariane, although I suspect Ariane also cost the French government a lot of money.
When it comes to technology, governments are idiots. They can't distinguish between a huge potential and a costly white elephant. This is why the Skylon developers are insisting that this project is managed by private investors. But there are too many political factors involved. What will the French government say when Skylon makes Ariane redundant (with launch costs one tenth of Ariane)? How will America react when Skylon turns out to be half the cost of a reusable Falcon 9 and who will service the space station? It's too political for the Skylon developers to go it alone without solid government support.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Jul 4, 2013 1:21:15 GMT
I am still not sure what this thing is, other than something that cools air down very quickly. Can someone tell me?
|
|
|
Post by Alvamiga on Jul 4, 2013 7:49:06 GMT
Is spaceplane not a clue?
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Jul 4, 2013 11:12:38 GMT
It's a plane that takes off from an ordinary runway and accelerates all the way into low earth orbit. It deposits its cargo and then returns to the airport. It is checked over and refuelled and is ready to fly again two days later.
The engines have two components, a precooler that cools down the air intake rapidly, and a jet engine which doubles up as a rocket engine. The precooler is an essential part and is considered revolutionary because of the way it cools the air down.
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Jul 4, 2013 12:26:34 GMT
We could do with some of that in the office. It's sweltering here.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Jul 4, 2013 13:19:04 GMT
Do you have space in your office where you could store the liquid hydrogen it uses?
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Aug 6, 2013 21:17:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Shake on Aug 26, 2013 16:16:47 GMT
Very cool!
|
|
DGoeij
Very Regular
Pan Narrans
Poehee
Posts: 601
|
Post by DGoeij on Aug 28, 2013 14:21:39 GMT
Re-usable launch vehicle for space equipment, is that what I'm looking at?
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Aug 28, 2013 21:22:00 GMT
Yes, that is it.
|
|
DGoeij
Very Regular
Pan Narrans
Poehee
Posts: 601
|
Post by DGoeij on Aug 29, 2013 18:44:43 GMT
That is cool and possibly a good idea. Unless some other solution is right around the corner of course. Don't know the industry that well.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Aug 29, 2013 21:06:24 GMT
A lot of people in the UK who are familiar with the development think it is as significant a development as the jet engine. That is to say, it will be a game change. I've been following it for a while and believe that is right. It will make access to space very much cheaper (like 40 times cheaper than the Space Shuttle).
|
|
DGoeij
Very Regular
Pan Narrans
Poehee
Posts: 601
|
Post by DGoeij on Sept 22, 2013 11:14:01 GMT
Completely missed that answer. Interesting stuff indeed.
|
|