Space Solar Power ? Recent Conceptual Progress
On Jul 12, 7:59 pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...
Nothing would ever get built if nothing was ever built before it had
been built.
On paper, Sabre has the characteristics required for an SSTO, and Skylo
n
itself isn't designed around unobtanium. So far no show stoppers have
been identified.
On paper.
The show stoppers are the flight rate and reliability of bleeding edge
technologies. In order to make a profit (and pay off development
costs), Skylon will have to fly quite often and have an extremely high
reliability (hardware losses will be very expensive for such a complex
engine/vehicle).
The engine doesn't have any more moving parts than a conventional
aircraft turbine. True, the vehicle is big, but not as heavy as a
747.
A more conventional approach to reusable SSTO using VTVL and plain old
liquid fueled rocket engines would be a far more sane approach when you
take into account economics.
How do you get it back? If you put wings on it and land, then the
structure mass eats the whole mass budget.
That said, even SpaceX didn't use this
approach, instead choosing to build an expendable in order to minimize
development costs and time.
There are no existing markets which would require the high flight rates
needed to justify the development costs for Sabre and Skylon.
I agree entirely with you statement. There is only one projected
market I know about where Skylon makes sense (SBSP) and even for that
market it takes something extreme for the second stage.
Power satellites really need $100/kg to GEO to make economic sense.
Keith
It's a
research project which belongs in Popular Science magazine.
Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011
|