Skylon Spaceplane Engine Endorsed By European Space Agency

Now this is illustration of future technology is really cool and I mean that in the most positive way! When I see a modern advance illustration of a air plane design that I cannot tell if it's coming or going, that is futuristic and yes so COOL!

There is a great article on this on bbc. Its one of the top stories in the science section.

Robot, what does your comment have to do with this breakthrough engine design? The pic is an independant artists concept and likely has nothing to do with the real design.

What a revolutionary concept. If indeed this bird does fly, not only can we have a cheap and steady supply to the ISS, we could also have tourist flights around the moon, and opens the door to a whole host of possibilities.

A reuseable engine that can achieve orbit in a single stage fireing; this tech has the poss to reduce the cost of commercel space flight by 100 fold.

If you read the previous article, you would see how important such tech is to the future of space colonization.

"To Mars or bust!"

calin385,
You wishing for a medal as a whiner. I said nothing negative about this air plane. I like the drawing, ok.

My point exactly. This is a forum for scientific discussion, as Popsci knows only to well, some of the greatest advances come from crowd sourceing, or why else would they offer Innovation challanges with large sums of money out to the general public.

Popsci is doing its best to bring the advent of new tech to the general populace.

Its curious why you would react so defensively when I merely ask what your comment, "oh pretty plane!" has to do with an artical that is about a Conceptual Design for a new type of engine.

I can see how you would mistake theoretical applications for a theoretical concept, as "whiner"

calin385,
I think you live alone or with your mother and seek out others to chat with, perhaps by creating arguments.

Science is not for only a few individuals for all humankind; the purpose of science is for the benefits towards humanity and in this humanity has a right to comment in its regard.

In addition, this is a blog, open to the public and that make general conversational comments permissible.

Oh, overall though, I do appreciate your comments, but please stop slandering or arguments to create conversations for the sake of chatting.

Finally, you speak as if are PoPSCi. In case you forgot, you are not. See ya. ;)

While this SSTO launch vehicle concept makes for a great PopSci article, it's unlikely it will ever become a reality. The key point made in this article is that the Skylon was found to be "conceptually sound". The Skylon propulsion system is far more complex than that of the Space Shuttle. The original goal of the Space Shuttle program was for 50 launches per year, and for the Space Shuttle's main engines to be capable of up to 50 launches between overhaul. The reality of the Space Shuttle program was around 5 launches per year, and the main engines required major servicing after each flight.

However, while the Skylon SSTO vehicle itself will never likely become a reality, there are some technologies developed for it that may become useable. Specifically, the high-performance heat exchanger design developed for the engine.

lnwolf41
Based on what was written, the engine works as a computer model, but no actual engine has been built. Though I have hopes for the engine, just because it is possible does not mean it is probable. At least not in the near future.

calin385:
"The pic is an independant artists concept and likely has nothing to do with the real design."

What makes you think it is ok to make unsubstantiated and unresearched factual claims?

Do you think that is a scientific approach? I recommend doing perhaps even two minutes research in future before you wade in with your Doc Martens and assumptions.

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

These former British Aerospace and Rolls Royce Engineers have been working on this for more than 30 years. It is as complete a design as you are going to get prior to starting the project.

Skylon D1 is the latest revision and is not shown on the website, but this is a recent quote about that from Mark Hempsell, director at Reaction Engines:

"I am sorry but at the moment D1 will be kept under wraps, (too much new IPR) but the SKYLON you see is a good indication of what you will get."

riff_raff:
"The Skylon propulsion system is far more complex than that of the Space Shuttle."

Skylon just isn't more complex than the shuttle by a LONG way. It is a MUCH more simple and safe system.

It is a pre-cooler (now validated - hence this article) and a gas turbine / rocket system. Gas turbine and rocket systems have both been been flying for more than 60 years so they are very well understood!

I adore when Unicorns fly!!!!!!!!

Happy sigh....

"Skylon just isn't more complex than the shuttle by a LONG way. It is a MUCH more simple and safe system."

johnmcsmith-

Apparently, you do not fully understand how the Space Shuttle propulsion system functioned and/or how the Skylon SSTO propulsion system functions.

The Shuttle used a combination of solid fuel boosters and LH2/LOx liquid fuel rocket engines using stored propellants. Skylon uses a complex system of hypersonic turbine engines, on-board systems for cryogenic cooling, separation, handling, and storage of oxygen from the atmosphere, and a liquid fueled LH2/LOx rocket engine capable of in-flight starting.

If you look at a picture of the Skylon vehicle, you would also note that the two propulsion units are located well off of the vehicle's lateral CofG. In the event of loss of thrust from one of the turbine/rocket engine units at mach 5+, this would create a catastrophic asymmetric thrust condition.

Lastly, the heat exchanger design used by Skylon has several miles of very small diameter, super thin walled Inconel tubing and almost 1 million brazed joints. Such a delicate device would not seem to be capable of enduring the difficult acoustic environment produced by a rocket engine.