# Hypersonic aircraft gets ESA backing



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jul 13, 2016)

The European Space Agency has invested $11 million toward the development of an engine that could one day allow aircraft to fly anywhere in the world in just four hours.

Oxfordshire-based Reaction Engines has been developing a turbine that combines both jet and rocket technologies to achieve rates five times the speed of sound.
http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/


According to the firm, the new agreement with the ESA and the UK Space Agency, along with the existing partnership with BAE Systems, means that the first ground demonstrator engine could be ready for testing by 2020.



*FUTURE OF FLIGHT? HOW THE SABRE JET ENGINE WORKS*






They say the first ground demonstrator Sabre engine could be ready for testing by 2020

The revolutionary Sabre engine could allow aircraft to take off from a runway and accelerate to five times the speed of sound, before switching to a rocket mode, propelling it into orbit.

The Sabre engine works by burning atmospheric air in combustion chambers. 

It then uses the heat to turbo-charge the engine.

At the moment, rockets have to carry liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen to power them and the cost of carrying this heavy fuel is expensive. 

The new engine creates its own liquid oxygen by cooling air entering the engine from 1,000°C to minus 150°C in a hundredth of a second – six times faster than the blink of an eye – without creating ice blockages.

This new class of aerospace engine is designed to enable aircraft to operate from standstill on the runway to speeds of over five times the speed of sound in the atmosphere. 

It can then transition to a rocket mode of operation, allowing spaceflight at speeds up to orbital velocity, equivalent to 25 times the speed of sound.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 13, 2016)

That looks more like a rocket than a turbine.  I think the size of the fuel tanks confirm as much.  That is *not* economical.  I like the scramjet designs a lot better because they aren't rockets:





Compare the two.  Sabre engine looks like a dead end to me.


----------



## Recon-UK (Jul 13, 2016)

This is very interesting since it will make things more efficient, though it's far from efficient to any common joe like me LOL.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jul 13, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I like the scramjet designs a lot better because they aren't rockets:




A scramjet needs air, a rocket doesnt.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 13, 2016)

It has a turbine, turbine requires air too.

If the intent of sabre engine is to be able to take a payload from earth to orbit, then the design makes sense and it may be more fuel efficient than current, purely rocket, solutions.  The turbine amplifies the power of the rocket and the wings, albeit small, produce some lift.  The turbine would also likely be enough to move the craft around on the ground before launching.  In that light, it is an interesting concept.  Still looks inefficient but getting to space generally isn't.


At the same time, throw some rockets on to the SR-72 design and it could likely get from the edge of space to space using less fuel.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jul 13, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It has a turbine, turbine requires air too.
> 
> If the intent of sabre engine is to be able to take a payload from earth to orbit, then the design makes sense and it may be more fuel efficient than current, purely rocket, solutions.  The turbine amplifies the power of the rocket and the wings, albeit small, produce some lift.  The turbine would also likely be enough to move the craft around on the ground before launching.  In that light, it is an interesting concept.  Still looks inefficient but getting to space generally isn't.
> 
> ...


aherm i just let those here, since most of what i've seen make the SABRE (Synergetic Air-breathing Rocket Engine) more efficient than a Scramjet for atmospheric with additional rocket for orbital combination. (thus the "using less fuel" ... i doubt of it  it  would still need rocket, inclusive fuel and oxydizer, to be carried in addition to the fuel for the scramjet, which the SABRE is already meant to but in a "all-in-one" package )

cost efficient indeed :
" the cost of putting cargo into orbit falling from £15,000 per kilo to £650."


"A hybrid jet engine like SABRE needs only reach low hypersonic speeds inside the lower atmosphere before engaging its closed cycle mode, whilst climbing, to build speed._* Unlike ramjet or scramjet engines, the design is able to provide high thrust from zero speed up to Mach 5.5,[37] with excellent thrust over the entire flight, from the ground to very high altitude, with high efficiency throughout. In addition, this static thrust capability means the engine can be realistically tested on the ground, which drastically cuts testing costs.[5]"*_

"_*the vehicle reaching orbit with more payload mass per take-off mass than just about any non-nuclear launch vehicle ever proposed*_"

"The designed thrust-to-weight ratio of SABRE is 14 compared to about 5 for conventional jet engines, and _*2 for scramjets.*_[5] This high performance is a combination of the denser, cooled air, requiring less compression, and, more importantly, the low air temperatures permitting lighter alloys to be used in much of the engine. _*Overall performance is much better than the RB545 engine or scramjets*_."


" It could carry 15 tonnes of cargo to a 300 km equatorial orbit on each trip, and up to 11 tonnes to the International Space Station, almost 45% more than the capacity of the European Space Agency's ATV vehicle." ask a SR-72 to do that 

ofc American design ought to be always better than European i ... agree  (joking not targeting any of the Atlantic's side with that)

meanwhile : US Military Set to Unveil Concepts Based on Skylon Space Plane Tech
http://www.space.com/32115-skylon-space-plane-engines-air-force-vehicle.html


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 13, 2016)

SR-72 uses a combined engine: scramjet + jet engine.  Because it can control airflow, it is also similar to a ramjet.  The ramjet has a maximum capability of mach 3 but the faster it goes, the more power it gets from the scramjet eventually switching entirely to the scramjet for _sustained_ hypersonic flight.  The sabre engine can't do sustained flight because it guzzles fuel.  Rocket engines do produce more thrust to weight because they deal in fuel that is more energy dense (liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen).  Thrust to weight doesn't take into consider the weight of the fuel.  SR-72 requires very little compared to sabre.

Sabre is no doubt better than existing rocket motors because it does make use of atmospheric air while possible.  The article is also absolutely right that hypersonic aircraft are difficult to design and test.  Sabre will likely get to space before a hybrid ramjet/scramjet/rocket does.  A hybrid ramjet/scramjet/rocket would also take longer to get there (has to accelerate to mach 6 at maximum altitude before considering leaving the atmosphere).

We have no idea how much payload the SR-71, nevermind the SR-72, can handle.  The aircraft are similar in size and, except the addition of the scramjet, performance (mach 3.5 versus mach 3).


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jul 13, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> SR-72 uses a combined engine: scramjet + jet engine.  Because it can control airflow, it is also similar to a ramjet.  The ramjet has a maximum capability of mach 3 but the faster it goes, the more power it gets from the scramjet eventually switching entirely to the scramjet for _sustained_ hypersonic flight.  The sabre engine can't do sustained flight because it guzzles fuel.  Rocket engines do produce more thrust to weight because they deal in fuel that is more energy dense (liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen).  Thrust to weight doesn't take into consider the weight of the fuel.  SR-72 requires very little compared to sabre.
> 
> Sabre is no doubt better than existing rocket motors because it does make use of atmospheric air while possible.  The article is also absolutely right that hypersonic aircraft are difficult to design and test.  Sabre will likely get to space before a hybrid ramjet/scramjet/rocket does.  A hybrid ramjet/scramjet/rocket would also take longer to get there (has to accelerate to mach 6 at maximum altitude before considering leaving the atmosphere).
> 
> We have no idea how much payload the SR-71, nevermind the SR-72, can handle.  The aircraft are similar in size and, except the addition of the scramjet, performance (mach 3.5 versus mach 3).


still nope ...

otherwise that statement would be void and the "domestic design" would be choosen instead of approving that


GreiverBlade said:


> meanwhile : US Military Set to Unveil Concepts Based on Skylon Space Plane Tech
> http://www.space.com/32115-skylon-space-plane-engines-air-force-vehicle.html



also ... as i said Scramjet alone could not do what the SABRE could achieve, hint ... a Scramjet would need rocket to get above Atmospheric escape velocity : Mach 6 will not get you there and reaching Mach 25 need rocket


GreiverBlade said:


> *more efficient than a Scramjet for atmospheric with additional rocket for orbital combination. (thus the "using less fuel" ... i doubt of it  it  would still need rocket, inclusive fuel and oxydizer, to be carried in addition to the fuel for the scramjet, which the SABRE is already meant to but in a "all-in-one" package )*



playload of the SR-71? ... nonexistant (save for the 2 crew ... ) SR-72? probably not much more (we talk about 14 TTWR Versus 2 TTWR  ofc ... i know 2 TTWR is for a standard Scramjet and not a combined cycle type)




FordGT90Concept said:


> That looks more like a rocket than a turbine. I think the size of the fuel tanks confirm as much. That is *not* economical. *I like the scramjet designs a lot better because they aren't rockets
> Compare the two.  Sabre engine looks like a dead end to me.*


off course the SABRE engine is a rocket ... it's intended to be one,with a hybrid functionality (a turbin that serve as a compressor, here you have your turbine derivative) that make possible to reduce the quantity of liquid oxygen needed ) also ... to make the design efficient you would still need rocket, the SABRE still need hydrogen yep ... but need way less  liquid oxygen (it need it only for the closed cycle ) the Scramjet need oxygen all the time, which means it would be a dead end to it, for space use (even with additional rocket, as they would also need hydrogen in addition of oxygen ... liquid this time, again.)

Combined Cycle Scramjet type were a revolution, SABRE is the next revolution

(and i only got into searching info on it after @CAPSLOCKSTUCK  posted that thread  )

and for the weight of carburant ratio ... i see your point no worries


at last that pics is .... interesting as a "resumé" (opening in new tab recommended)


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 13, 2016)

GreiverBlade said:


> otherwise that statement would be void and the "domestic design" would be choosen instead of approving that


US military always buys domestic if it can.  It was odd that BAE got a contract for the railgun--perhaps because there was no other US defense company interested.



GreiverBlade said:


> playload of the SR-71? ... nonexistant (save for the 2 crew ... ) SR-72? probably not much more (we talk about 14 TTWR Versus 2 TTWR  ofc ... i know 2 TTWR is for a standard Scramjet and not a combined cycle type)


Reconnaissance equipment is not light.

Edit: 3,500 lbs of sensors (1.5 metric tons)

You're right though, it's payload is mostly fuel too. 



GreiverBlade said:


> the Scramjet need oxygen all the time, which means it would be a dead end to it, for space use (even with additional rocket, as they would also need hydrogen in addition of oxygen ... liquid this time, again.)


Indeed, but not as much due to requiring less acceleration from the rocket.


Edit: At pic: Jesus, 273 feet long.  SR-71/SR-72 are about 100 feet long.  That landing gear looks entirely insufficient for the weight.  The more I look at it, the more problems I see with it.  The engine may be novel but that airframe isn't going to work.

Precoolers?  How the hell is it going to cause that drastic of cooling in that small of an area?

That pic shows commercial.  Mach 5, "half way around the world."  Combined ram/scramjet can go faster and around the world several times (not that it needs to).  That notion is ridiculous.  And for airlines, fuel is their #1 cost.  Liquid hydrogen is very expensive.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Jul 13, 2016)

@FordGT90Concept If you cant see that each engine has their own applications and functions, then you need to take your blinders off. 

I can see the SABRE engines used in the commercial application of taking people to and from the ISS or even the moon evenually. Scramjets tho, will remain strictly military.


----------



## dorsetknob (Jul 13, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> At the same time, throw some rockets on to the SR-72 design and it could likely get from the edge of space to space using less fuel.



Probably impractical
strap rockets to the SR 72  and when they light up the thrust would destroy the Air frame
it would need a massive re design and Strengthening which also has the unfortunate weight penalty ect ect


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 13, 2016)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> I can see the SABRE engines used in the commercial application of taking people to and from the ISS or even the moon evenually. Scramjets tho, will remain strictly military.


SR-72 would have to be successful and it will likely have to see several other military applications (e.g. bomber) before it sees translation into a commercial design.  I think it could happen eventually.  SABRE?  No way.  The SABRE prototype is 80% liquid hydrogen.  No commercial airline, nor airport, would touch that thing.  The airframe itself may be cheap but the fuel prohibits it from being economical.  The moment the aircraft is fueled...well, I'll just let NASA spell it out:


			
				NASA said:
			
		

> Liquid hydrogen must be stored at minus 423°F and handled with extreme care. To keep it from evaporating or boiling off, rockets fuelled with liquid hydrogen must be carefully insulated from all sources of heat, such as rocket engine exhaust and air friction during flight through the atmosphere. Once the vehicle reaches space, it must be protected from the radiant heat of the Sun. When liquid hydrogen absorbs heat, it expands rapidly; thus, venting is necessary to prevent the tank from exploding. Metals exposed to the extreme cold of liquid hydrogen become brittle. Moreover, liquid hydrogen can leak through minute pores in welded seams.


The less of the stuff you have to use, the better.



dorsetknob said:


> it would need a massive re design and Strengthening which also has the unfortunate weight penalty ect ect


No doubt.  The intakes would likely have to be moved to the top of the aircraft to make way for better heat shielding on the underside, for example.

Perhaps the best solution is a combination of all three: ramjet (mach 3), scramjet (mach 6), and SABRE (mach 20+).


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jul 14, 2016)

Russia reveals hypersonic stealth bomber 

Russia's next generation hypersonic stealth nuclear bomber could fly by 2020, it has been claimed. 






The test engine is expected to be showcased at the Army-2016 International Military Technology Forum, which is set to take place on September 6-11 in the Moscow Region. 

Colonel-General Sergei Karakayev, commander of Russian Strategic Missile Forces, confirmed the model engine for the bomber has been built and successfully tested at the Serpukhovo branch of the Military Academy. 





A prototype of a next generation Russian vbomber design being wind tunnel tested

Two engines—one for the airplane and another for the spaceship—will be combined within the bomber's engine setting. 

According to the Academy of Strategic Missiles Forces, in plane mode, the engine will use kerosene fuel. 

For space flight, it will use methane and oxygen.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (May 8, 2017)

Reaction Engines has begun constructing the test facility where it plans to undertake the first ground-based demonstration of its Sabre air-breathing rocket engine.

The firm hopes that the new test site will allow it to test the Sabre engine core as early as 2020.


The test centre will feature an assembly building, workshops, offices and a control room, along with various test engine configurations.

The company plans on putting the Sabre engine in a reusable spaceplane called Skylon - a vehicle capable of launching heavy telecommunications satellites.

Mark Thomas, CEO at Reaction Engines, said: 'This is another exciting step forward in development of Reaction Engines' Sabre engine and a visible demonstration of the UK's commitment to the programme.








Reaction Engines has now has secured over £50 million ($66 million) in funding from the British government, with more than £42 million ($55 million) from the UK Space Agency, and the ESA contribution acting as the final piece.


----------



## dont whant to set it"' (May 11, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It has a turbine, turbine requires air too.



nope, a turbine is a thing that can extract energy from a fluid in motion converting sayd energy in shaft torque.

I thought along the line of a small to 0bypass ratio turbo fan/jet ,  and instead of using regular fuel for afterburning but a more energy dense fuel,


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (May 11, 2017)

dont whant to set it"' said:


> nope, a turbine is a thing that can extract energy from a fluid in motion converting sayd energy in shaft torque.
> 
> I thought along the line of a small to 0bypass ratio turbo fan/jet ,  and instead of using regular fuel for afterburning but a more energy dense fuel,



turbine
ˈtəːbʌɪn,ˈtəːbɪn/
_noun_

a machine for producing continuous power in which a wheel or rotor, typically fitted with vanes, is made to revolve by a fast-moving flow of water, steam, gas, air, or other fluid.


----------



## dorsetknob (May 11, 2017)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> a machine for producing continuous power in which a wheel or rotor, typically fitted with vanes, is made to revolve by a fast-moving flow of water, steam, gas, air, or other fluid.



or Hampsters


----------



## dont whant to set it"' (May 11, 2017)

did your hamster gif resolved how to get 1kilonewton worth of thrust per milligram fuel ? please explain ,I maybe drunk.


----------



## dorsetknob (May 11, 2017)

dont whant to set it"' said:


> did your hamster gif resolved how to get 1kilonewton worth of thrust per milligram fuel ? please explain



Yes you use Strawberry jam  50g worth


----------



## R-T-B (May 11, 2017)

dorsetknob said:


> Yes you use Strawberry jam  50g worth



As a owner of rodents, at least for Rats, they went batshit insane for peanuts, so this is recommended for the most efficient fuel source.

If you want to be really efficient, you can use an "afterburner" (this one burns their turds for the methane).


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (May 11, 2017)

The Ram Air Turbine (RAT) is at the heart of an aircraft’s emergency power system. In extremely rare instances when airplanes lose power, the ram air turbine deploys from the airplane's wing or fuselage and rotates to extract sufficient power from the airstream to control and land the aircraft



F 105





Boing 757


----------



## Kanan (May 12, 2017)

Great thread 

That sabre engine is very very interesting and astounding if it's actually realised some time soon.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (May 12, 2017)

How long before we get the backing for hypersonic drones?


----------



## Kanan (May 12, 2017)

I hate drones.


----------

