Whatever happened to HOTOL?
John Sargeant
Didn't it just quietly fade away because nobody was prepared to but up the
umpteen billion it would take to develop it?
There was a program on the telly a while back about various single-stage-to-orbit
projects in the US. Wish I could remember the details...
John
Damien Burke
On 27 Feb 1997 14:17:42 GMT, jo...@cs.man.ac.uk (John Sargeant) wrote:
>Didn't it just quietly fade away because nobody was prepared to but up the
>umpteen billion it would take to develop it?
Nah, the CIA built it, it's called the Aurora now and crashed at Boscombe Down
a while back. More recently it shot down TWA800 and is flown by Elvis.
--
Damien Burke (to reply, delete the 'nojunkmail' part from my address)
British military aircraft page: http://www.jetman.demon.co.uk/tal/
Malcolm Weir
Pete Finlay wrote:
>
> Remember HOTOL? Whatever happened to it?
>
> I seem to remember that the British guy who invented the revolutionary
> type of Jet/RamJet/Rocket engine to power the beast couldn't get funding
> from the government, or something like that.
The engine evolved into a RR proposal. The UK government was asked to
find about UKP 100,000,000 to fund development, which approximates to 1
pittance. I'm not sure whether that sum of money would result in a
usable HOTOL vehicle or just a multi-function engine, but still I think
it would have been a damned good reason for you folks to pay more taxes.
> Did he (and his engine, presumably) go off to NASA or something?
They tried, but NASA's budget was at that time committed to (a) the
Space Station, and (b) the National Aerospace Plane. Further out, the
Rockwell Orbiter's successor would have been the ideal platform for such
an engine, but the politics of US defense contractors
(Boeing/McD/Lockheed-Martin) prohibited RR from being a major part of
that process (companies like Morton-Thiokol are too valuable "on the
team" for political reasons to be ousted by some foreigner. This is a
fact of US procurement, despite the fact that it sucks -- for example,
why were Challenger's SRB's built in Utah, thereby needing O-rings?).
Another example of this phenomena is the current wrangle over
RR/Boeing's proposal to re-engine a bunch of B-52H's to use 4 RR engines
instead of the 8 P&W dual-podded beasts. Even though the USAF would
save tons of cash, they can't figure out how to put the program into
effect. This one might get the OK, though, since Boeing gets to build
the new pods and modify the wings, which they like!
> Pete Finlay
How are your wiring ducts?
Malc.
Pete Finlay
Remember HOTOL? Whatever happened to it?
I seem to remember that the British guy who invented the revolutionary
type of Jet/RamJet/Rocket engine to power the beast couldn't get funding
from the government, or something like that.
Did he (and his engine, presumably) go off to NASA or something?
Pete Finlay
~@~@~@~@~@~@~@~@~@~@~@~@~@~@~@~@~@~@~@~@~@~@~@~@
'Twas a woman who drove me to drink......
....and I never had the courtesy to thank her for it.'
(W.C.Fields)
~@~@~@~@~@~@~@~@~@~@~@~@~@~@~@~@~@~@~@~@~@~@~@~@
Pete Finlay
I have this thought in the back of my head that the guy in question
departed these shores for the good ol' US of A.
But since then - nothing. You'd think that such a revolutionary engine
design would have attracted a bit more media interest, wouldn't you.
Maybe he's in Area 51..............
Rob Whythe
In article <3316a5db...@news.demon.co.uk>,
dam...@jetman.nojunkmail.demon.co.uk (Damien Burke) wrote:
>On Thu, 27 Feb 1997 12:45:38 -0800, Malcolm Weir <ma...@deltanet.com> wrote:
>
>>The engine evolved into a RR proposal. The UK government was asked to
>>find about UKP 100,000,000 to fund development, which approximates to 1
>>pittance.
>
or several hundred interesting UK high-tech jobs, with other spin-offs.
Speaking personally, I'd rather our government had the vision to fund BOTH,
and I'd be prepared to 'donate' more in taxes to support it. But that's
another thread....
>If the proposal was *that* good why hasn't anybody else done it?
Because the wizard who dreamed up the engine was clever enough to patent it
before he started trying to get a few purse-string-holders interested....
Rob
why...@logica.com or 10043...@compuserve.com
Opinions expressed are my own
"Problems worthy of attack
prove their worth by hitting back" - Piet Hein
Malcolm Weir
Pete Finlay wrote:
> >How are your wiring ducts?
>
> on?
Obviously, not well.
Perhaps I should have asked: Do you happen to know if the UK CAA
following the FAA's example and requiring inspections of the wiring
conduits of 747 Classics to check for chafing on the conductors leading
to the fuel boost pumps?
But the other way seemed more fun.
> Pete Finlay
Malc.
Damien Burke
On Thu, 27 Feb 1997 12:45:38 -0800, Malcolm Weir <ma...@deltanet.com> wrote:
>The engine evolved into a RR proposal. The UK government was asked to
>find about UKP 100,000,000 to fund development, which approximates to 1
>pittance.
Or several hospitals and schools, or better policing, or...
> I'm not sure whether that sum of money would result in a
>usable HOTOL vehicle or just a multi-function engine, but still I think
>it would have been a damned good reason for you folks to pay more taxes.
Ah, but we don't want to pay more and the entire UK electoral system is based on
us all voting for the party we reckon will give us the lowest taxes.
If the proposal was *that* good why hasn't anybody else done it?
--
Damien Burke (remove nojunkmail part of my address to reply)
Thunder & Lightnings - British military aircraft pictures - at
http://www.jetman.demon.co.uk/tal/index.html
Opinions are mine alone and do not represent RNSETT
Michael Carley
Pete Finlay <pe...@meads.demon.co.uk> writes:
>I have this thought in the back of my head that the guy in question
>departed these shores for the good ol' US of A.
He's now working on something very similar called Skylon.
--
"You got your highbrow funk, you got your lowbrow funk, you even
got a little bit of your pee-wee, pow-wow funk" (Dr. John)
Michael Carley, Mech. Eng., TCD, IRELAND. m.ca...@leoleo.mme.tcd.ie
<A HREF="http://www.mme.tcd.ie/~m.carley/Welcome.html">Home page</A>
Damien Burke
On 28 Feb 1997 13:14:36 GMT, why...@logica.com (Rob Whythe) wrote:
>or several hundred interesting UK high-tech jobs, with other spin-offs.
But still lots of people suffering despite the lovely high tech jobs for a few
people...
>Speaking personally, I'd rather our government had the vision to fund BOTH,
>and I'd be prepared to 'donate' more in taxes to support it. But that's
>another thread....
Indeed.
>>If the proposal was *that* good why hasn't anybody else done it?
>
>Because the wizard who dreamed up the engine was clever enough to patent it
>before he started trying to get a few purse-string-holders interested....
If it's *that* good why aren't they doing it anyway and giving the guy his due?
I Johnston
Pete Finlay (pe...@meads.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: Remember HOTOL? Whatever happened to it?
There was a fair bit of development work done on it - I worked with a group
which looked at cryogenenic hydrogen diffusion through carbon fibre
composites as part of the fuel tank design.
I think that the essential problem was economic: the projected running costs
were huge with a ticket from the UK to Australia - one of the proposed
routes - at several tens of thousands of pounds. In short, there was no
prospect of sufficient revenue to operate the thing in passenger service.
Ian
Pete Finlay
In article <3315F2...@deltanet.com>, Malcolm Weir
<ma...@deltanet.com> writes
>How are your wiring ducts?
Great. Had them re-bored last Thursday. How's your brain re-build coming
on?
Pete Finlay
In article <331722...@deltanet.com>, Malcolm Weir
<ma...@deltanet.com> writes
<<snipity snip snip>>
>
>Perhaps I should have asked: Do you happen to know if the UK CAA
>following the FAA's example and requiring inspections of the wiring
>conduits of 747 Classics to check for chafing on the conductors leading
>to the fuel boost pumps?
AFAIK, nothing has come out of the CAA regarding the fuel pump wiring.
Going by previous incidents, they'll hold an entry-level enquiry first.
Then someone will be tasked into doing a feasibility study taking into
account the safety versus commercial implications. Meanwhile the CAA
Press Office will leak a statement saying that all UK registered 747's
could be grounded. Then they'll send some investigators over to Boeing
in Seattle for a while. By that time all the bookings for all UK
airlines using 747's will have plumetted. Then a junket will depart for
the FAA in Washington. The Airlines will meanwhile lobby MP's and the
CAA to sort out the CAA. Then the person doing the feasibility study
will be moved to another department. The person in charge of the Press
Department will be promoted, and a junior clerk will be sacked. The new
Feasibility Person will conduct a more recent, updated study that will
be a re-hash of the previous one. And then Bob Ayling will be made a
Life Peer for his services to the Aviation Industry. Etc....etc...etc...
Meanwhile, the airlines will have scheduled the inspections into the
servicing programmes, all the U.K. registered aircraft will have been
done as per a Boeing Notice the previous month, and the CAA will issue a
directive afterwards. Then they'll go back to sleep again.
Not that I'm sceptical, you understand.
>
>But the other way seemed more fun.
>
With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, it was.
mark.mc...@btinternet.com
> Didn't it just quietly fade away because nobody was prepared to but up the
> umpteen billion it would take to develop it?
>
> projects in the US. Wish I could remember the details...
>
> John
Basically, it favoured the travelling customer.
It worked.
The airlines went nuts, other aircraft companies went nuts, oil companies went nuts.
Their revenue streams would have been hit big-time if the design had gone ahead.
The designer/inventor from Newcastle-upon-Tyne was bought off by a UK/US security detail and the pats applied for were taken of the UK register and handed to an FAA aquisitions bureau.
The now fabulously rich bloke from Newcastle-u-Tyne emigrated to the USA and had the economics spelled out to him and has not been heard from since.