Actual metal being welded in support of the UK's first orbital 'launch platform' UK rocketeers Orbex have thrown their hat in the ring of Blighty's very own space race by kicking off construction of a Scottish launch platform for its Prime rocket. Orbex Launch Platform Orbex launch platform While UK launch platforms have been heavy on the PowerPoint and CGI-powered visualisations over the years, the …
Well, good to see something actually happening, although, I did get a bit disoriented by the second photo, which seems to be sideways, rather than the right way up. Still, I'm sure the Orbex Engineers will get things the right way up for the test rig.
One question I've wondered about is that in the live fire tests of rocket engines, they do tend to just waste all that energy. Couldn't there be some way of capturing it, it does seem an awful waste.
Maybe you could take along some marshmallows and a (very) long stick to the next test. That's about all that energy is good for.
Basically, I suspect setting up the infrastructure to collect energy from events that happen a few times a year during the development of a rocket engine really isn't worth the effort.
According to https://www.engineeringclicks.com/ionized-gas-as-fuel/
"Electricity generation
Ionized gases are used in magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) generators to produce electricity. Ionized gases are made to pass through a magnetic field, thereby generating an electric current. These systems are said to be approximately 25% more efficient than nuclear power plants, in electricity generation."
I noticed the same thing.
A closer look at the metalwork in the image does indeed show that it has been welded. That is, tack-welded. A few spots have been put on it here and there to make sure it doesn't move around or warp while they do the actual proper welding. That'll be going where the edges have been cleaned up to a shiney metal surface.
The tack welds likely won't hold up under the structure's weight, which is why it's currently being stored on it's side. I'm guessing the image is rotated 90 degrees to give the impression that it's actually standing under it's own weight.
I am very conflicted about these plans (Orbex and Skylora)
I _love_ the idea of actual space launch tech coming back to the UK but when SpaceX is really close to plausibly being able to launch a 100 tons or more to the same orbit in a fully re-useable vehicle, what is the point in this?
Is it going to be cost effective per-kg compared to SpaceX? Or can it offer something else that a group small-sat or rideshare can't provide from SpaceX?
It just feels a bit like we are proudly announcing a new fleet of disposable one-way mopeds to carry post from London to Edinburgh at the same time as someone else is building a fully re-useable train...
My thinking is there's the angle of having a home-grown capability, so UK government/industry can spend money with a UK-based organisation for lofting things into space rather than sending money overseas.
Imagine how good that would be....if the UK had its own sovereign capability to launch rockets and satellites into space...once that'd been achieved it'd be something that the government would never throw away and....ah...OK...as you were....
"Indeed, one would have to cast one's mind back more than half century and the glory days of British rocketry for the last time such facilities were set-up locally (helpfully documented by our Geeks Guide series.)"
If we waited for any British government to get something into space that wasn't bought from another country (US), it would likely be a big length of tube hammered into the ground for the stick to go into.
A British launch capability for smaller items would be useful for many projects that don't require the energy output of a small country to get into space.
Or can it offer something else that a group small-sat or rideshare can't provide from SpaceX?
Yes, it can send small groups of satellite in to other orbits faster/cheaper than booking the whole Space-X payload. I think one of Skyrora's selling points is the upper stage can be shut-down and re-ignited several times, allowing you to deploy payloads in different (so some degree) orbits from the same basic launch.
Whether that turns out to be enough of a USP to make the business work remains for the market to decide.
We all agree that testing is a Good Thing.
But it seems a bit odd to build a complete test launch facility somewhere that it can't be used later as a live facility? Why not build the test rigs at the real spaceport and then certify them for use when the tests are complete?
Or are they planning some big, messy 'failures' to see what an exploding booster and fuel tank look like?
"Somewhere that it's expensive to get people and kit to and there are no local welding companies"
They're going to have to get people, kit and a welding company to the launch site before they go operational. But what's the planning situation regarding launch sites atm?
According to the Orbex press release:
Space Hub Sutherland is the world’s first carbon neutral spaceport and the only spaceport in the UK to have received full planning permission. Construction of the spaceport is due to begin early in 2022 ahead of the first expected launch of Orbex Prime later in the year.
I'm guessing that what Kinloss has to offer is acres of unused ex-RAF base with plenty of concrete hard standing. It may be easier to get planning permission to do dangerous, noisy things there than most other places.
We already have a number to choose from. The Cayman Islands or Bermuda might be a good choice. Low tax rates there too, although launching over Cuba might not be good, so maybe not the Caymans!
Ascension would be another obvious choice. Near the equator, nice big RAF base with a long runway and a local NASA tracking station. Logistics a little awkward though.
Ascension & British Virgin Islands are probably best in terms of a nice clear down range.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
