Hello Rocketeer,

Yes, I have some sympathy with your feelings following the lecture; much of the same and Skylon focused.

I am also fond of the New Space activities that are under way - Blue Origin, Masten etc and the X prizes and it is a real shame that the UK seems to lack incentives to stimulate private ventures of this type. (Someone at the RAF was thinking horizontally and found a couple of EJ2000's for a land speed record, hopefully similar people can think vertically and help to organise some airspace to ease the development of sub orbital commercial services.)

But, after some further thought I do hesitate to criticise Bond's approach and I wonder whether the comment 'Old Space done better' is correct. The end goal for commercial/new space is something similar to the commercial airliner industry. The engineering is necessarily large, complex and mutli billion dollar, but provides the return on investment that is required by virtue of reuseability acting on an elastic market. Surely Bond is steering in that direction and ignoring the incremental steps some people claim the sub orbital ventures will provide.

A UK/European thrust to mirror the embryonic stage of NewSpace under way in the US would prove to be a distraction from the real end goal of the New Space age. I don't for a moment suggest that this embryonic NewSpace should be ignored; if it is going to profitable then support it, but it should not be a policy focus but a policy by product. The real future and money lies in reusable access to orbit and that is where the focus should lie, lest European launchers succumb to Asian development and a funded SpaceX.

Whilst a successful NewSpace suborbital service may improve a lay investors confidence, it does not provide the technologies needed for reusable spaceplanes. For that the structural concepts and materials proposed for the skylon are needed, as well as advanced propulsion.

If the UK (well, Europe) is to take the lead in space it should work to take the launch market lead, and that means developing Skylon, or a two stage launcher. This will cost but it will steal the market, probably stun it.

Is Bond's approach therefore a policy and NewSpace as it should be, with the sub orbital legal wranglings being pushed to the second order where they belong, the introduction of the requirement for government investment in space launchers to be repaid and the ability to do that being a trigger for full development of a space launcher? Maybe the concept of Skylon demonstrates policy through its commercial approach. It overrides sub orbital distractions and quite possibly will cement Europe's space industry for the century. It pushes the space industry to where it needs to be, both commercially and technically.

The international legal frameworks needed to allow a spaceliner to function may provide the backbone for future space policy i.e. to support development and regulation of the new space industry. New markets post introduction of a spaceliner would be left for the markets to decide and are less of a concern to policy makers who are there to ensure the correct regulation and support is available for wherever the markets choose to go.

Perhaps a project like Skylon is too large or risky to ever be given full support, in which case let's have fun with focusing on growing NewSpace from the bottom up and see what happens because the end result will no doubt be the same, it just may take a little longer, be a little more dangerous, and give a different level of UK involvement in future space activities. I do think that if Virgin, Masten, Blue Origin et al start to look like they are making cash, the UK government will open up the market this side of the Atlantic pretty sharpish, and UK engineers can catch up with that level of technology.

The technology program at Reaction Engines will be over in 2 - 3 years so I guess that will be decision time and we can see what happens. If the European investors go for it, it could floor the American and Asian space launch industries, and bring about some very exciting decades of developments.

Looking forward to your 'cheats guide'. I really do wish we had groups of engineers dotted around the country competing and drumming up people's interest and business models!

Regards,