mike2000 is back
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2015
- Messages
- 8,513
- Reaction score
- 19
- Country
- Location
Spaceplanes vs super rockets: Expert reveals who will win the battle of cheap space
PUBLISHED: 22:00, 14 December 2015 | UPDATED: 23:33, 24 January 2016
Launching satellites, spacecraft and people into space is expensive because we only use our launch vehicles once.
After delivering their payloads into orbit, our rockets either burn up in the atmosphere or crash into the ocean.
But what if you could reuse the launch vehicles?
Engineers have spent decades on this problem, and finally two different solutions have emerged; spaceplanes and super rockets.
Scroll down for video
Britain's Skylon is compared to two rockets from SpaceX, the Falcon 9 and the Falcon Heavy, its bigger brother due to launch for the first time in April. Skylon costs about 30 times more than a Falcon 9 and 20 times more than a Falcon Heavy
SKYLON VS FALCON 9
- Skylon costs about 30 times more than a Falcon 9 and 20 times more than a Falcon Heavy.
- Using an exotic and relatively expensive combination of jet and rocket propellants, it costs about six times more to refuel Skylon than a Falcon 9, and twice as much as a Falcon Heavy.
- It also needs to take off from and land on a 5km-long runway, while the Falcon 9 can launch from an area about the size of an oversized helipad.
- This introduces greater operational and maintenance costs, though these could fall were Skylon to gain approval to use commercial airports.
US-based SpaceX has built a rocket that can return to base, using its rocket engines to land vertically.
Meanwhile, UK-based Reaction Engines is touting Skylon, a spaceplane built around its hybrid turbojet/rocket SABRE engine, which can travel into space – but takes off and lands on a runway like an aircraft.
Both solutions are promising. Both have significant financial support. But which approach is more economically sound? Will one solution render the other obsolete?
Using the best information available, with support from BBC Sky at Night Magazine, I’ve tackled this question.
I've created a graph that summarises the answer to this question in terms of the cost per kg to take a payload into low Earth orbit (LEO), and the effect of using reusable launch vehicles.
The Skylon is able to take off and land at a normal airport, reducing the cost of space flight
Here Skylon is compared to two rockets from SpaceX, the Falcon 9 and the Falcon Heavy, its bigger brother due to launch for the first time in April.
The most cost-effective expendable rockets are also included for comparison.
The graph – notice the two different x-axes – reveals that Skylon is vastly more expensive and requires many more reuses before its launch costs fall to the same as reusable rockets.
Even then, Falcon rockets can be cheaper still.
The graph – notice the two different x-axes – reveals that Skylon is vastly more expensive and requires many more reuses before its launch costs fall to the same as reusable rockets. Even then, Falcon rockets can be cheaper still
US-based SpaceX has built a rocket, dubbed Falcon 9 that can return to base, using its rocket engines to land vertically
With this in mind, it’s a wonder that the European Space Agency is still pushing forward with its ludicrously expensive Ariane 6 launch vehicle.
Even with a significant drop in launch costs, it’s questionable whether the commercial market for launch services would grow sufficiently large to provide Skylon with the use needed to drive down its overall costs.
HOW THE SABRE ENGINE WORKS
Modern-day traditional aviation engines have to carry tanks of liquid oxygen when travelling at more than 1,900mph because they can't 'breathe' oxygen.
Oxygen helps an engine to burn the fuel needed to power its propulsion.
Reaction Engine's Sabre design uses a system of pipes, filled with helium.
The air passes through these pipes and the helium helps remove any heat and the oxygen is carried to the engine.
Once in space, the engine is capable of switching into rocket mode.
This means the craft can travel in orbit for around 36 hours and used to launch satellites, for example.
Last year the total number of rocket launches worldwide was just 92.
There are several reasons why Skylon remains uncompetitive when compared with even the partially reusable (let alone the fully reusable) Falcon rockets:
Skylon costs about 30 times more than a Falcon 9 and 20 times more than a Falcon Heavy.
While it is hypothetically more reliable (though I question this), such an enormous difference has a significant impact on insurance costs, which drives up operating costs further.
Using an exotic and relatively expensive combination of jet and rocket propellants, it costs about six times more to refuel Skylon than a Falcon 9, and twice as much as a Falcon Heavy.
It also needs to take off from and land on a 5km-long runway, while the Falcon 9 can launch from an area about the size of an oversized helipad.
This introduces greater operational and maintenance costs, though these could fall were Skylon to gain approval to use commercial airports or dedicated runaways/launch sites by the British government.
Reaction Engines recently partnered with BAE Systems to speed up the program.
There would need to be a decade of development and testing – and £14 billion in investment – before Skylon makes it near a runway.
Using an exotic and relatively expensive combination of jet and rocket propellants, it costs about six times more to refuel Skylon (pictured) than a Falcon 9, and twice as much as a Falcon Heavy
Space X is no more than a few years away from a fully operational 1st-stage reusable Falcon rocket programme. Pictured is the Falcon Heavy rocket
On the other hand SpaceX, a company valued at £8 billion with around 4,000 staff and currently turning a profit, is perhaps no more than a few years away from a fully operational 1st-stage reusable Falcon rocket programme.
Recent tests have demonstrated that it has almost perfected the tricky automatic rocket landing. Once they do, they will dismantle and study the vehicle.
The design will be optimised, reliability improved and costs lowered further.
In 1996, a Chinese Long March 3B rocket crashed on launch, and the US suspected Chinese authorities stole US encryption technology attached to the rocket’s payload, an Intelsat satellite.
The political firestorm that followed created significant, heavy-handed changes to US legislation relating to satellites and other space technologies.
A consequence of this is that SpaceX has difficulty attracting non-US customers and little chance of working with foreign governments – which now make up two-thirds of the launch market worldwide.
This gives the UK’s Skylon a huge competitive advantage as it faces no such restrictions – in fact, within the non-US market, Skylon would have no real competition at all.
However, moves are already afoot to relax these rules. Only time will tell if these changes extend to commercial launch operators like SpaceX.
In terms of tackling the problem of expendable rockets, it seems that Reaction Engines is about a decade too late compared to it's U.S counterparts.
SpaceX has nearly cracked it. However, the SABRE engine is a remarkable technological leap forward, technology that could find a place in civil aviation as the keystone in hypersonic passenger and transport aircraft of the future.
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
@Technogaianist , @C130 ,@Blue Marlin , @Vauban ,@Hamartia Antidote ,@F-22Raptor ,@Taygibay , @gambit , @Nihonjin1051 ,@Penguin et al. Your take on this.
Seems to me that our government,BAE and reaction engines will have to be patient since Skylon will cost a lot more than other during it's early days/launch, but costs will come down significantly more than almost any other rocket out there bar falcon. so we should be in it for the long run. Interesting times we live in. Cant wait to see how things will play out these coming years/2 decades from now.
- Bristol University academic compares Skylon to Falcon 9 to Falcon Heavy
- Skylon is more expensive and requires more reuses before its costs fall
- It also has the contraint of needing to take off from and land on a runway
- It costs 6 times more to refuel Skylon than a Falcon 9, the research found
PUBLISHED: 22:00, 14 December 2015 | UPDATED: 23:33, 24 January 2016
Launching satellites, spacecraft and people into space is expensive because we only use our launch vehicles once.
After delivering their payloads into orbit, our rockets either burn up in the atmosphere or crash into the ocean.
But what if you could reuse the launch vehicles?
Engineers have spent decades on this problem, and finally two different solutions have emerged; spaceplanes and super rockets.
Scroll down for video
Britain's Skylon is compared to two rockets from SpaceX, the Falcon 9 and the Falcon Heavy, its bigger brother due to launch for the first time in April. Skylon costs about 30 times more than a Falcon 9 and 20 times more than a Falcon Heavy
SKYLON VS FALCON 9
- Skylon costs about 30 times more than a Falcon 9 and 20 times more than a Falcon Heavy.
- Using an exotic and relatively expensive combination of jet and rocket propellants, it costs about six times more to refuel Skylon than a Falcon 9, and twice as much as a Falcon Heavy.
- It also needs to take off from and land on a 5km-long runway, while the Falcon 9 can launch from an area about the size of an oversized helipad.
- This introduces greater operational and maintenance costs, though these could fall were Skylon to gain approval to use commercial airports.
US-based SpaceX has built a rocket that can return to base, using its rocket engines to land vertically.
Meanwhile, UK-based Reaction Engines is touting Skylon, a spaceplane built around its hybrid turbojet/rocket SABRE engine, which can travel into space – but takes off and lands on a runway like an aircraft.
Both solutions are promising. Both have significant financial support. But which approach is more economically sound? Will one solution render the other obsolete?
Using the best information available, with support from BBC Sky at Night Magazine, I’ve tackled this question.
I've created a graph that summarises the answer to this question in terms of the cost per kg to take a payload into low Earth orbit (LEO), and the effect of using reusable launch vehicles.
The Skylon is able to take off and land at a normal airport, reducing the cost of space flight
Here Skylon is compared to two rockets from SpaceX, the Falcon 9 and the Falcon Heavy, its bigger brother due to launch for the first time in April.
The most cost-effective expendable rockets are also included for comparison.
The graph – notice the two different x-axes – reveals that Skylon is vastly more expensive and requires many more reuses before its launch costs fall to the same as reusable rockets.
Even then, Falcon rockets can be cheaper still.
The graph – notice the two different x-axes – reveals that Skylon is vastly more expensive and requires many more reuses before its launch costs fall to the same as reusable rockets. Even then, Falcon rockets can be cheaper still
US-based SpaceX has built a rocket, dubbed Falcon 9 that can return to base, using its rocket engines to land vertically
With this in mind, it’s a wonder that the European Space Agency is still pushing forward with its ludicrously expensive Ariane 6 launch vehicle.
Even with a significant drop in launch costs, it’s questionable whether the commercial market for launch services would grow sufficiently large to provide Skylon with the use needed to drive down its overall costs.
HOW THE SABRE ENGINE WORKS
Modern-day traditional aviation engines have to carry tanks of liquid oxygen when travelling at more than 1,900mph because they can't 'breathe' oxygen.
Oxygen helps an engine to burn the fuel needed to power its propulsion.
Reaction Engine's Sabre design uses a system of pipes, filled with helium.
The air passes through these pipes and the helium helps remove any heat and the oxygen is carried to the engine.
Once in space, the engine is capable of switching into rocket mode.
This means the craft can travel in orbit for around 36 hours and used to launch satellites, for example.
Last year the total number of rocket launches worldwide was just 92.
There are several reasons why Skylon remains uncompetitive when compared with even the partially reusable (let alone the fully reusable) Falcon rockets:
Skylon costs about 30 times more than a Falcon 9 and 20 times more than a Falcon Heavy.
While it is hypothetically more reliable (though I question this), such an enormous difference has a significant impact on insurance costs, which drives up operating costs further.
Using an exotic and relatively expensive combination of jet and rocket propellants, it costs about six times more to refuel Skylon than a Falcon 9, and twice as much as a Falcon Heavy.
It also needs to take off from and land on a 5km-long runway, while the Falcon 9 can launch from an area about the size of an oversized helipad.
This introduces greater operational and maintenance costs, though these could fall were Skylon to gain approval to use commercial airports or dedicated runaways/launch sites by the British government.
Reaction Engines recently partnered with BAE Systems to speed up the program.
There would need to be a decade of development and testing – and £14 billion in investment – before Skylon makes it near a runway.
Using an exotic and relatively expensive combination of jet and rocket propellants, it costs about six times more to refuel Skylon (pictured) than a Falcon 9, and twice as much as a Falcon Heavy
Space X is no more than a few years away from a fully operational 1st-stage reusable Falcon rocket programme. Pictured is the Falcon Heavy rocket
On the other hand SpaceX, a company valued at £8 billion with around 4,000 staff and currently turning a profit, is perhaps no more than a few years away from a fully operational 1st-stage reusable Falcon rocket programme.
Recent tests have demonstrated that it has almost perfected the tricky automatic rocket landing. Once they do, they will dismantle and study the vehicle.
The design will be optimised, reliability improved and costs lowered further.
In 1996, a Chinese Long March 3B rocket crashed on launch, and the US suspected Chinese authorities stole US encryption technology attached to the rocket’s payload, an Intelsat satellite.
The political firestorm that followed created significant, heavy-handed changes to US legislation relating to satellites and other space technologies.
A consequence of this is that SpaceX has difficulty attracting non-US customers and little chance of working with foreign governments – which now make up two-thirds of the launch market worldwide.
This gives the UK’s Skylon a huge competitive advantage as it faces no such restrictions – in fact, within the non-US market, Skylon would have no real competition at all.
However, moves are already afoot to relax these rules. Only time will tell if these changes extend to commercial launch operators like SpaceX.
In terms of tackling the problem of expendable rockets, it seems that Reaction Engines is about a decade too late compared to it's U.S counterparts.
SpaceX has nearly cracked it. However, the SABRE engine is a remarkable technological leap forward, technology that could find a place in civil aviation as the keystone in hypersonic passenger and transport aircraft of the future.
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
@Technogaianist , @C130 ,@Blue Marlin , @Vauban ,@Hamartia Antidote ,@F-22Raptor ,@Taygibay , @gambit , @Nihonjin1051 ,@Penguin et al. Your take on this.
Seems to me that our government,BAE and reaction engines will have to be patient since Skylon will cost a lot more than other during it's early days/launch, but costs will come down significantly more than almost any other rocket out there bar falcon. so we should be in it for the long run. Interesting times we live in. Cant wait to see how things will play out these coming years/2 decades from now.
Therein lies the main advantage we will nave over our U.S counterparts(not withstanding the fact that Richard Branson is British. lol). 
something like this one
