
Reaction Engines begins construction of UK rocket engine test facility - rbanffy
https://www.reactionengines.co.uk/reaction-engines-begins-construction-uk-rocket-engine-test-facility/
======
paullth
I really hope this company survives/thrives in spite of brexit, I havent seen
much about the relationship with ESA recently but from memory its quite
separate from the EU.

~~~
greglindahl
Here's a short article on the issue from Feb 2017: [http://spacenews.com/u-k-
could-be-locked-out-of-some-aspects...](http://spacenews.com/u-k-could-be-
locked-out-of-some-aspects-of-galileo-because-of-brexit/) and a better one
from last summer: [http://spacenews.com/britains-quitting-the-eu-but-will-it-
be...](http://spacenews.com/britains-quitting-the-eu-but-will-it-be-forced-
out-of-eu-space-programs/)

TLDR: ESA is separate from the EU, but there are significant projects like
Galileo which are EU projects - and the EU wants to be built in the EU.

Surrey Satellite Technology is a UK company -- despite being majority owned by
Airbus -- and currently builds the navigation payload for Galileo.

------
ZeljkoS
Sorry to disappoint you guys, but Reaction Engines was founded in 1989
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_Engines_Limited](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_Engines_Limited))
and every year they issue press releases stating they are on a brink of
revolutionary engine. In this 18 years they didn't produce anything that
actually works. Skylon is a "design"
[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon_(spacecraft)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon_\(spacecraft\))]
and SABRE is a "concept under development"
[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SABRE_(rocket_engine)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SABRE_\(rocket_engine\))].

~~~
avmich
And this is a "hardware testing":
[https://www.reactionengines.co.uk/1522-2/](https://www.reactionengines.co.uk/1522-2/)

------
marktangotango
The Brits have engineered some amazing propulsion over the years and they have
some really cool tech in this engine. It's hard to see how the Skylon vehicle
will be able to compete with Spacex on cost.

~~~
WilliamDhalgren
Why? Its supposed to be significantly more efficient, given that its breathing
air for launch which enables much higher specific impulse than anything a
chemical rocket even could do, and it'd have the operational advantages of
being a pure single stage to orbit skyplane, which SpaceX also can't do.

Hard to imagine what else one could even _want_ a launch system to do (except
perhaps to be a nuclear turborocket ala
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C46Dt-X0V8c](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C46Dt-X0V8c)
, if that were politically feasable). And you can hardly say that of anything
SpaceX is doing, given that those are simply incremental improvements of
existing rocketry tech.

Presuming they ever manage to make it work (which is prob the big question),
it should bring significantly more to cheap launch than SpaceX ever could on
their current trajectory.

~~~
7952
The real question is why would you want to waste payload capacity hauling an
aeroplane into orbit.

Skylon uses that extra efficiency to haul extra components into space. Such as
the wings, landing gear etc. Based on the rocket equation it will only have
usable payload if the mass of the craft can be kept very low. This would
require lots of new technology and materials. Even with a better engine that
would be very difficult.

The thing is that all that new technology could also be used by Spacex to
improve a conventional rocket. And without the extra mass you would have have
much higher payload. And the payload could be used by customers and not wasted
on wings.

The best way to use new engine is probably to strap it onto a conventional
rocket. Less complex and more payload. And maybe that extra payload could
allow second stage reuse. That would make things even more competitive.

~~~
andygates
A payload hit is acceptable if the reusability is very great: they can just
truck up bits of spacecraft, fuel for depots, crew modules and so on in many
runs.

A fully-featured spaceplane is a paradigm-shifter. SpaceX decided not to try
because the tech was too far down the line. Novel propulsion takes decades to
prove out, and Reaction are working through it reasonably. The sticking point
was the hypersonic precooler, and they've cracked that. A whole-engine scale
demonstrator should be a relatively straightforward next step.

~~~
7952
Why is a space plane a paradigm-shifter?

------
_Adam
I recall seeing this technology in Popular Science many years ago. It's a
great idea but they have yet to demonstrate a full scale prototype.

There's probably a lot of technical hurdles just to making a whole new type of
engine. But they also need to design and build a new space plane. That's a
brand new supersonic airframe.

There's a lot of engineering needed here. I hope we can see some indication of
progress soon.

~~~
rbanffy
They don't need to start from a spaceplane - an air-breathing booster that
could give a delta-v higher than a Falcon 9 and still land would certainly be
cool enough.

If they manage to get enough speed from the air-breathing phase, they may even
have a single-stage-to-orbit + VTOL vehicle. Now that's a seriously cool tech
to have.

The reason we do aerobraking and parachutes is that our engines are not
efficient enough and we can't carry enough propellant to decelerate to a
landing but if we have engines efficient enough, we can have a single stage
drop a payload close enough to LEO that a cheap second stage can finish the
job and the booster can still do a powered landing after circling the planet
once, we have a game changer.

