They have proven an innovative pre-cooling system which does not require the development of new materials to handle the heat of hypersonic flight speeds.
The US Air Force Research Labs are already working with them. They would need to partner with US companies like Lockheed or Boeing to get the big military contract.
The pre-coolers are made from thousands of thin-walled tubes to provide high surface area to low weight. Each tube is joined to an inlet and outlet manifold, which allows coolant to be injected and removed for the cooling process. We’re the only people in the world with the heat exchanger manufacturing experience to bond thousands of joints in a single operation, and achieve zero leakage. The joints in our pre-cooler modules are hermetically sealed, meaning that the gas which escapes can be measured by the molecule.
SABRE engines allow aircraft to fly much faster than traditional jet engines.– they can be used for efficient air travel at over five times the speed of sound. Unlike jet engines, they can also operate in a rocket mode outside the atmosphere, allowing the next generation of truly reusable space launch vehicles. SABRE powered vehicles will be capable of cutting the flight time from London to Australia to four and a half hours, or flying into orbit from a runway before returning to base and doing it all over again.
The Fast Track to Flight Vehicles
Another way in which SABRE is unique as a high-speed propulsion system is that most development testing can be done on the ground. This fact enables a much faster, more affordable and less risky journey towards achieving operational high-speed vehicles. Following the ground testing programme, flight testing will be used to validate many key airframe and engine integration technologies while we work with our partners to finalise the design of the first operational SABRE powered vehicle.
Hypersonic Mission Applications
SABRE is capable of achieving air-breathing flight from Mach 0 to Mach 5+ as a single propulsion installation and is well suited for a variety of potential high-speed mission areas. SABRE enables more capable high-speed vehicles able to operate within and between expansive and unique flight envelopes, which improves many critical mission characteristics. SABRE’s rocket mode adds the additional flexibility to increase thrust or transition to sub-orbital flight regimes on demand.
Space Access
More capable space access systems are achievable through the high efficiency of the SABRE engine and the elimination of the need to carry on-board oxidizer during air-breathing flight segments.
Hypersonic Transport
SABRE will make the world smaller through high-speed point-to-point transport. To demonstrate the uses for SABRE in Mach 5 cruise applications, Reaction Engines engaged in a 50% EU-funded project as part of Framework 6, called LAPCAT — Long-term Advanced Propulsion Concepts and Technologies. This study examined the technologies required to reduce long-distance flights, e.g. From Brussels to Sydney, to just over 4 hours while cruising at Mach 5.
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
Concorde had a range of only about 4500 miles, not far enough to do trans-pacific routes or western Europe to southeast Asia or N. America to Africa. The engines were terribly inefficient. It was a huge limiting factor and is why it is not flying.
Concorde had a range of only about 4500 miles not far enough to do trans-pacific routes or western Europe to southeast Asia or N. America to Africa. The engines were terribly inefficient. It was a huge limiting factor and is why it is not flying.
Concorde had a range of only about 4500 miles, not far enough to do trans-pacific routes or western Europe to southeast Asia or N. America to Africa. The engines were terribly inefficient. It was a huge limiting factor and is why it is not flying.
I believe the SR-71’s variable geometry inlet air ducts bypassed much of the flow around the P&W J-58 engines at high speed. And this arrangement was described as a “partial ramjet”. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/89/SR71_J58_Engine_Airflow_Patterns.svg/800px-SR71_J58_Engine_Airflow_Patterns.svg.png
I believe the SR-71’s variable geometry inlet air ducts bypassed much of the flow around the P&W J-58 engines at high speed. And this arrangement was described as a partial ramjet””.https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/89/SR71_J58_Engine_Airflow_Patterns.svg/800px-SR71_J58_Engine_Airflow_Patterns.svg.png“””
The speed of sound at sea level is actually higher because though the air is thinner, it’s also much colder at high altitudes. Note, NASA does think it’s harder to dampen the boom at higher Mach numbers. Also note, if the routes where not an issue, the Concorde would probably still be flying. Flexibility is important to airlines and having expensive but limited planes is a risk for them. By the way, the current work on producing low boom supersonic aircraft is probably hypersonic aircrafts biggest hurdle because if airlines switch over to them the market for hypersonic aircraft will get a lot smaller.
The speed of sound at sea level is actually higher because though the air is thinner it’s also much colder at high altitudes. Note NASA does think it’s harder to dampen the boom at higher Mach numbers. Also note if the routes where not an issue the Concorde would probably still be flying. Flexibility is important to airlines and having expensive but limited planes is a risk for them. By the way the current work on producing low boom supersonic aircraft is probably hypersonic aircrafts biggest hurdle because if airlines switch over to them the market for hypersonic aircraft will get a lot smaller.
I believe the SR-71’s variable geometry inlet air ducts bypassed much of the flow around the P&W J-58 engines at high speed. And this arrangement was described as a “partial ramjet”.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/89/SR71_J58_Engine_Airflow_Patterns.svg/800px-SR71_J58_Engine_Airflow_Patterns.svg.png
The speed of sound at sea level is actually higher because though the air is thinner, it’s also much colder at high altitudes. Note, NASA does think it’s harder to dampen the boom at higher Mach numbers. Also note, if the routes where not an issue, the Concorde would probably still be flying. Flexibility is important to airlines and having expensive but limited planes is a risk for them. By the way, the current work on producing low boom supersonic aircraft is probably hypersonic aircrafts biggest hurdle because if airlines switch over to them the market for hypersonic aircraft will get a lot smaller.
No ramjets in SR-71.
No ramjets in SR-71.
Also, I’m just a layperson, but I thought the SR-71’s speed was limited by heating of the ramjet engines, not the air-frame? Much above mach 3.5 slowing the air coming into the engines to subsonic speed would cause it to heat up so much that it would melt the engine. Ways around this problem include designing an engine where the air is not slowed down below supersonic speeds – a supersonic ramjet, or the Reaction Engines approach of slowing the air down, but also cooling it down with a heat exchanger to avoid engine melt.
Cooler must have quite a dP with that surface area.
Cooler must have quite a dP with that surface area.
I don’t think the routes would be a major issue. It would be only useful for inter-continental routes where it would fly over the sea most of the time. Its also capable of very high sub-orbital at an altitude were sonic booms are not a big issue. A sonic boom produced at 100k feet (proposed cruise altitude of the A2) in a plane designed with a shape to help lower the noise, is not very audible on the ground. The speed it takes to produce a boom is higher at higher altitudes due to the lower air pressure. Also at higher altitudes sound dissipates quicker. The SR-71 had a very low decibel boom and it flew at 80,000 ft up.
I don’t think the routes would be a major issue. It would be only useful for inter-continental routes where it would fly over the sea most of the time. Its also capable of very high sub-orbital at an altitude were sonic booms are not a big issue. A sonic boom produced at 100k feet (proposed cruise altitude of the A2) in a plane designed with a shape to help lower the noise is not very audible on the ground. The speed it takes to produce a boom is higher at higher altitudes due to the lower air pressure. Also at higher altitudes sound dissipates quicker. The SR-71 had a very low decibel boom and it flew at 80000 ft up.
This seems to be the most viable reusable STO, spaceplane engine concept around. Also, its applications are endless. It is unlikely to beat the BFR (if successful) in terms of orbital launch cost and interplanetary capability, but it has a greater range of military applications due to it’s ability to be used in a hypersonic sub-orbital aircraft. Also, the ability to use a basic aircraft runway instead of a launch facility helps it over other launch systems currently available or being proposed, in that it can be launched in a much greater range of situations and environments. It will also be able to fly in a much wider range of weather conditions versus a traditional rocket. For military and civilian use, that is very important.
This seems to be the most viable reusable STO spaceplane engine concept around. Also its applications are endless. It is unlikely to beat the BFR (if successful) in terms of orbital launch cost and interplanetary capability but it has a greater range of military applications due to it’s ability to be used in a hypersonic sub-orbital aircraft. Also the ability to use a basic aircraft runway instead of a launch facility helps it over other launch systems currently available or being proposed in that it can be launched in a much greater range of situations and environments. It will also be able to fly in a much wider range of weather conditions versus a traditional rocket. For military and civilian use that is very important.
Suppose the Skylon engines work like a charm, then what? If you fly a plane at Mach 5+, heating issues with the airframe will be a real problem because of atmospheric friction. The barely Mach 4 SR-71 had a titanium skin and it was at the edge of being viable. If you fix that issue, this leaves you with question are there viable routes for it to fly? The thing that killed the Concorde in the end was it had few viable routes. The reason for this was it couldn’t fly at supersonic speed over land because of it’s sonic boom. There is research into lowering sonic booms but it seems to work best around Mach 1.5. The total weight of these issues adds up and I doubt there will ever be a viable commercial Hypersonic aircraft build.
Suppose the Skylon engines work like a charm then what? If you fly a plane at Mach 5+ heating issues with the airframe will be a real problem because of atmospheric friction. The barely Mach 4 SR-71 had a titanium skin and it was at the edge of being viable. If you fix that issue this leaves you with question are there viable routes for it to fly? The thing that killed the Concorde in the end was it had few viable routes. The reason for this was it couldn’t fly at supersonic speed over land because of it’s sonic boom. There is research into lowering sonic booms but it seems to work best around Mach 1.5. The total weight of these issues adds up and I doubt there will ever be a viable commercial Hypersonic aircraft build.
Jet engine is general don’t scale down very well.
Jet engine is general don’t scale down very well.
Reaction Engines / Alan Bond has explicitly been uninterested in ramjets, supersonic combustion or otherwise. With respect to Skylon, they want nothing to do with the exotic structural materials and complex aerothermodynamic issues that come with air-breathing at high Mach numbers. Around Mach 4, they’re happy to switch to all-rocket, and get out of the atmosphere.
Reaction Engines / Alan Bond has explicitly been uninterested in ramjets supersonic combustion or otherwise.With respect to Skylon they want nothing to do with the exotic structural materials and complex aerothermodynamic issues that come with air-breathing at high Mach numbers.Around Mach 4 they’re happy to switch to all-rocket and get out of the atmosphere.
Reaction engines built and successfully a full scale precooler years ago. I’m amazed they have not built a small scale remotely controlled aircraft, with a simplified prototype engine powering it. One piece of operating hardware would generate more interest than a thousand computer models. An aircraft the size of a Piper Cub that could go transonic, or even just supersonic, day after day would result in contracts signed. Not only that, think what they could learn making it work. The skunk works used to do that sort of thing, nowadays anything a bit new takes a decade. Heck, with today’s avionics, you don’t even have to risk a test pilot’s life, and the point of experimental aircraft is not to fly them for years, as to learn by building. This country developed hardware to go to the moon, and back in a decade, what gives? I suppose it’s emblematic of management by bureaucracy, financed by taxpayers. The point of the exercise is not to achieve anything but a pension, and delivery of contracts to the right congressional cronies.
Reaction engines built and successfully a full scale precooler years ago. I’m amazed they have not built a small scale remotely controlled aircraft with a simplified prototype engine powering it.One piece of operating hardware would generate more interest than a thousand computer models. An aircraft the size of a Piper Cub that could go transonic or even just supersonic day after day would result in contracts signed. Not only that think what they could learn making it work.The skunk works used to do that sort of thing nowadays anything a bit new takes a decade. Heck with today’s avionics you don’t even have to risk a test pilot’s life and the point of experimental aircraft is not to fly them for years as to learn by building. This country developed hardware to go to the moon and back in a decade what gives?I suppose it’s emblematic of management by bureaucracy financed by taxpayers. The point of the exercise is not to achieve anything but a pension and delivery of contracts to the right congressional cronies.
The scramjet turbo engine will surpass this technology, but elements of it, like the pre cooling system and transtioning to rocket may become useful in the scramjet turbo engine.
The scramjet turbo engine will surpass this technology but elements of it like the pre cooling system and transtioning to rocket may become useful in the scramjet turbo engine.
No ramjets in SR-71.
Also, I’m just a layperson, but I thought the SR-71’s speed was limited by heating of the ramjet engines, not the air-frame? Much above mach 3.5 slowing the air coming into the engines to subsonic speed would cause it to heat up so much that it would melt the engine. Ways around this problem include designing an engine where the air is not slowed down below supersonic speeds – a supersonic ramjet, or the Reaction Engines approach of slowing the air down, but also cooling it down with a heat exchanger to avoid engine melt.
Re heating – it would seem weird that the engineers had forgotten about this problem and do not already have a solution lined up.
At mach 5 you can fly from any coastal city to any other coastal city in less time than a conventional jet aircraft while remaining over the oceans. London to Sydney or London to LA would be flown over the north pole.
At mach 5 you can fly from any coastal city to any other coastal city in less time than a conventional jet aircraft while remaining over the oceans. London to Sydney or London to LA would be flown over the north pole.
Re heating – it would seem weird that the engineers had forgotten about this problem and do not already have a solution lined up.
Cooler must have quite a dP with that surface area.
I don’t think the routes would be a major issue. It would be only useful for inter-continental routes where it would fly over the sea most of the time. Its also capable of very high sub-orbital at an altitude were sonic booms are not a big issue. A sonic boom produced at 100k feet (proposed cruise altitude of the A2) in a plane designed with a shape to help lower the noise, is not very audible on the ground. The speed it takes to produce a boom is higher at higher altitudes due to the lower air pressure. Also at higher altitudes sound dissipates quicker. The SR-71 had a very low decibel boom and it flew at 80,000 ft up.
This seems to be the most viable reusable STO, spaceplane engine concept around. Also, its applications are endless. It is unlikely to beat the BFR (if successful) in terms of orbital launch cost and interplanetary capability, but it has a greater range of military applications due to it’s ability to be used in a hypersonic sub-orbital aircraft. Also, the ability to use a basic aircraft runway instead of a launch facility helps it over other launch systems currently available or being proposed, in that it can be launched in a much greater range of situations and environments. It will also be able to fly in a much wider range of weather conditions versus a traditional rocket. For military and civilian use, that is very important.
Suppose the Skylon engines work like a charm, then what? If you fly a plane at Mach 5+, heating issues with the airframe will be a real problem because of atmospheric friction. The barely Mach 4 SR-71 had a titanium skin and it was at the edge of being viable. If you fix that issue, this leaves you with question are there viable routes for it to fly? The thing that killed the Concorde in the end was it had few viable routes. The reason for this was it couldn’t fly at supersonic speed over land because of it’s sonic boom. There is research into lowering sonic booms but it seems to work best around Mach 1.5.
The total weight of these issues adds up and I doubt there will ever be a viable commercial Hypersonic aircraft build.
Jet engine is general don’t scale down very well.
Reaction Engines / Alan Bond has explicitly been uninterested in ramjets, supersonic combustion or otherwise.
With respect to Skylon, they want nothing to do with the exotic structural materials and complex aerothermodynamic issues that come with air-breathing at high Mach numbers.
Around Mach 4, they’re happy to switch to all-rocket, and get out of the atmosphere.
Reaction engines built and successfully a full scale precooler years ago. I’m amazed they have not built a small scale remotely controlled aircraft, with a simplified prototype engine powering it.
One piece of operating hardware would generate more interest than a thousand computer models. An aircraft the size of a Piper Cub that could go transonic, or even just supersonic, day after day would result in contracts signed. Not only that, think what they could learn making it work.
The skunk works used to do that sort of thing, nowadays anything a bit new takes a decade. Heck, with today’s avionics, you don’t even have to risk a test pilot’s life, and the point of experimental aircraft is not to fly them for years, as to learn by building. This country developed hardware to go to the moon, and back in a decade, what gives?
I suppose it’s emblematic of management by bureaucracy, financed by taxpayers. The point of the exercise is not to achieve anything but a pension, and delivery of contracts to the right congressional cronies.
The scramjet turbo engine will surpass this technology, but elements of it, like the pre cooling system and transtioning to rocket may become useful in the scramjet turbo engine.