NASASpaceFlight.com Forum
International Space Station (ISS) => ISS Section => Topic started by: PeterAlt on 12/04/2010 06:19 am
-
Just a thought, why not send the X37B spaceplane on a test mission to ISS? If successful, it would be a great vehicle to send and return payloads to and from the station. I'm not sure what size payloads it could carry compared to other logistics ships already planned for operation but I'm sure it's down-mass and it's longevity in orbit could definitely be advantageous. Besides the minor issue
-
(continued from last post)
Besides the minor issue of the X38B being owned by the Defense Department, any reason not to fly it to ISS?
-
From what I have heard(could be false) it's payload is around 500 pounds. really not enough for either cargo or crew transport. With luck dragon will be on line next year and it can carry far more up and down.
-
The payload is only 1mT, and that mass would include a berthing mechanism, which it currently lacks.
-
It doesn't have docking system, which would take up most payload capability of 500 lbs. It doesn't have rendezvous capability. It doesn't have a pressurized container. NASA doesn't own one.
While we are at it, why not fly MSL to the ISS and use it to return stuff from the ISS.
-
NASA doesn't own one.
Sad but true
-
(continued from last post)
Besides the minor issue of the X38B being owned by the Defense Department, any reason not to fly it to ISS?
Why bother flying it to ISS? The mission is entirely different and has nothing to do with ISS.
-
Bumped as this old thread is good enough to continue chat on.
Been reading bits and pieces of info on this program. Some things open up more questions than answers so here we go.
Can see several DoD uses when this project was picked up.
First the design was intended to be launched from inside the Shuttle bay.
Then after Columbia the program was moved to launch on Delta II but moved to Atlas 5.
Now where the ? comes in:
Found this strange that the move from Delta II required a covering fairing. My understanding at least in the material provided that the new metallic TPS would be tested. Same one designed for the X33. If it’s the same TPS why would it need to be covered?
-
From what I have heard(could be false) it's payload is around 500 pounds. really not enough for either cargo or crew transport. With luck dragon will be on line next year and it can carry far more up and down.
The payload question is interesting.
As a testbed (the current design) the payload is around 500lbs in a 4f x7 ft payload area.
Looking at the design however the fuel tanks are very large for the 270 day testing mission? Some reuse of the design could increase payload area, and weight by a reduction of fuel storage. Can you see that?
-
A bit of random neuron sparking generated this mission profile;
Critical external ORU mission;
requires grapple fixture on spacecraft and on payload,
requires ORU that fits dimensional and weight limits,
spacecraft is grappled by Station arm, payload is extracted by Kibo arm,
I don't really see any way to do a pressurized payload.
This idea is just about worth what you paid for it.
;D
-
A bit of random neuron sparking generated this mission profile;
Critical external ORU mission;
requires grapple fixture on spacecraft and on payload,
requires ORU that fits dimensional and weight limits,
spacecraft is grappled by Station arm, payload is extracted by Kibo arm,
I don't really see any way to do a pressurized payload.
This idea is just about worth what you paid for it.
;D
How about a pressurized tank inside the payload bay with a grapple built on the outside?
A fuel or water tanker?
-
While we are at it, why not fly MSL to the ISS and use it to return stuff from the ISS.
I love it! ;) ;D
-
Bumped as this old thread is good enough to continue chat on.
Been reading bits and pieces of info on this program. Some things open up more questions than answers so here we go.
Can see several DoD uses when this project was picked up.
First the design was intended to be launched from inside the Shuttle bay.
Then after Columbia the program was moved to launch on Delta II but moved to Atlas 5.
Now where the ? comes in:
Found this strange that the move from Delta II required a covering fairing. My understanding at least in the material provided that the new metallic TPS would be tested. Same one designed for the X33. If it’s the same TPS why would it need to be covered?
The fairing eliminates the aero forces on the wings.
-
How about a pressurized tank inside the payload bay with a grapple built on the outside?
A fuel or water tanker?
How does the fuel or water get used? It is still in the tank. there are no exterior connections on the ISS to the water. The propellant would need to interface with the Russian docking system.
500lbs doesn't leave much for actual fluid.
-
From what I have heard(could be false) it's payload is around 500 pounds. really not enough for either cargo or crew transport. With luck dragon will be on line next year and it can carry far more up and down.
The payload question is interesting.
As a testbed (the current design) the payload is around 500lbs in a 4f x7 ft payload area.
Looking at the design however the fuel tanks are very large for the 270 day testing mission? Some reuse of the design could increase payload area, and weight by a reduction of fuel storage. Can you see that?
No, because it is a major redesign.
-
From what I have heard(could be false) it's payload is around 500 pounds. really not enough for either cargo or crew transport. With luck dragon will be on line next year and it can carry far more up and down.
The payload question is interesting.
As a testbed (the current design) the payload is around 500lbs in a 4f x7 ft payload area.
Looking at the design however the fuel tanks are very large for the 270 day testing mission? Some reuse of the design could increase payload area, and weight by a reduction of fuel storage. Can you see that?
Launching on a more capable launch vehicle would enable greater payload mass to be carried.
Would need to develop a canister and some method of berthing. Cheaper than designing a vehicle from scratch I expect.
Nathan
-
Launching on a more capable launch vehicle would enable greater payload mass to be carried.
No, it isn't a launch vehicle driven constraint, it is an airframe constraint.
-
Launching on a more capable launch vehicle would enable greater payload mass to be carried.
No, it isn't a launch vehicle driven constraint, it is an airframe constraint.
Expand on that
-
Launching on a more capable launch vehicle would enable greater payload mass to be carried.
No, it isn't a launch vehicle driven constraint, it is an airframe constraint.
Expand on that
The 500lb limit was an X-37 constraint. There was excess performance on the Atlas
-
Launching on a more capable launch vehicle would enable greater payload mass to be carried.
No, it isn't a launch vehicle driven constraint, it is an airframe constraint.
Expand on that
The 500lb limit was an X-37 constraint. There was excess performance on the Atlas
Interesting. I wonder how extensive the changes would need to be to improve that performance? I assume that simple bracing bars are not the answer. Or could a lower g trajectory help (on an appropriate launch vehicle)?
I get that extra performance was not designed into the vehicle given the mission it had but this thread is about expanding that mission.
Still even a small payload could be delivered an plucked out of the bay if there wad no requirement for actual berthing
-
Still even a small payload could be delivered an plucked out of the bay if there wad no requirement for actual berthing
It can't be plucked out if the X-37 is not docked, berthed, or otherwise held rigid.
-
I get that extra performance was not designed into the vehicle given the mission it had but this thread is about expanding that mission.
The basic premise is wrong, the X-37 has no viable role in going to the ISS.
-
Launching on a more capable launch vehicle would enable greater payload mass to be carried.
No, it isn't a launch vehicle driven constraint, it is an airframe constraint.
your talking about 500lbs return downmass?
-
Bumped as this old thread is good enough to continue chat on.
Been reading bits and pieces of info on this program. Some things open up more questions than answers so here we go.
Can see several DoD uses when this project was picked up.
First the design was intended to be launched from inside the Shuttle bay.
Then after Columbia the program was moved to launch on Delta II but moved to Atlas 5.
Now where the ? comes in:
Found this strange that the move from Delta II required a covering fairing. My understanding at least in the material provided that the new metallic TPS would be tested. Same one designed for the X33. If it’s the same TPS why would it need to be covered?
The fairing eliminates the aero forces on the wings.
It does look like two different types of TPS were tested, true?
Know that two different types of fuels were tested and used.
-
Still even a small payload could be delivered an plucked out of the bay if there wad no requirement for actual berthing
It can't be plucked out if the X-37 is not docked, berthed, or otherwise held rigid.
What of the suggestion above using two robotic arms?
Could design a complete new architecture. Would have to research more on what works well on the ISS. The Japanese module has much that might work.
-
Launching on a more capable launch vehicle would enable greater payload mass to be carried.
No, it isn't a launch vehicle driven constraint, it is an airframe constraint.
Expand on that
The 500lb limit was an X-37 constraint. There was excess performance on the Atlas
Interesting. I wonder how extensive the changes would need to be to improve that performance? I assume that simple bracing bars are not the answer. Or could a lower g trajectory help (on an appropriate launch vehicle)?
I get that extra performance was not designed into the vehicle given the mission it had but this thread is about expanding that mission.
Still even a small payload could be delivered an plucked out of the bay if there wad no requirement for actual berthing
Simple straight wings might be the real answer. However that starts a complete redesign/testing process.
-
How about a pressurized tank inside the payload bay with a grapple built on the outside?
A fuel or water tanker?
How does the fuel or water get used? It is still in the tank. there are no exterior connections on the ISS to the water. The propellant would need to interface with the Russian docking system.
500lbs doesn't leave much for actual fluid.
correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the first Russian module (owned, paid for by USA) used for fuel storage etc.?
alot more research would need to be done but a means to do the job by some new architecture is possible. Remember Hubble taught us a great deal.
-
I get that extra performance was not designed into the vehicle given the mission it had but this thread is about expanding that mission.
The basic premise is wrong, the X-37 has no viable role in going to the ISS.
Let's try a mission ? What is the life of a Centaur stage?
If you could keep the Centaur locked into the X37 all the way to the ISS, how long a life would the Centaur have?
-
Question for Jim or other expert: Copy that X-37 has no role for ISS given absence of docking systems and very limited payload. Understand that if you are going to buy an Atlas you might as well put a DreamChaser or CST with their greater payload capability on top of the booster.
Given that, would it make economic sense to scale X-37 up? Would that be so much of a different vehicle that it is no longer X-37? Or are you better off just putting another launch vehicle on top of your Atlas?
Another X-37 question. If a pressing national security need arose, is the Atlas system flexible enough that you can change payloads on the pad? In other words could you pull MSL off the top of the rocket and replace it with an X-37 in a period of hours to days?
Thanks
-
I get that extra performance was not designed into the vehicle given the mission it had but this thread is about expanding that mission.
The basic premise is wrong, the X-37 has no viable role in going to the ISS.
Let's try a mission ? What is the life of a Centaur stage?
If you could keep the Centaur locked into the X37 all the way to the ISS, how long a life would the Centaur have?
You just drastically modified the premise of this thread by adding a major new requirement for no particular purpose.
-
sorry if this is 20 questions but:
Is there a mission or way to take a payload outside the ISS, using the one of the Arm(s) move the payload into an airlock?
How would this be done?
-
How about a pressurized tank inside the payload bay with a grapple built on the outside?
A fuel or water tanker?
How does the fuel or water get used? It is still in the tank. there are no exterior connections on the ISS to the water. The propellant would need to interface with the Russian docking system.
500lbs doesn't leave much for actual fluid.
correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the first Russian module (owned, paid for by USA) used for fuel storage etc.?
If this is an attempt to gain access to fluid transfers on the Russian segment by invoking the 1990s contract, it won't work. FGB no longer has any available docking ports, and even if there were ports available, X-37 would have to be outfitted with a Russian docking port, which ain't gonna happen.
If you want to transfer water, use a bag.
As for a reason to send X-37 to ISS, in that world where cheap responsive launch were available, an X-37 would make a great way to transfer a single crew member back from ISS, in theory. ::)
-
If you could keep the Centaur locked into the X37 all the way to the ISS, how long a life would the Centaur have?
Can't do rendezvous with a Centaur. RCS not in the proper locations. The life of a Centaur is less than 10 hours.
-
Know that two different types of fuels were tested and used.
No, they weren't "tested", it used a standard biprop, MMH and N2O4
-
How about a pressurized tank inside the payload bay with a grapple built on the outside?
A fuel or water tanker?
How does the fuel or water get used? It is still in the tank. there are no exterior connections on the ISS to the water. The propellant would need to interface with the Russian docking system.
500lbs doesn't leave much for actual fluid.
correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the first Russian module (owned, paid for by USA) used for fuel storage etc.?
alot more research would need to be done but a means to do the job by some new architecture is possible. Remember Hubble taught us a great deal.
No, HST taught nothing about fluid transfer. No means are feasible without large expenditures.
-
Question for Jim or other expert: Copy that X-37 has no role for ISS given absence of docking systems and very limited payload. Understand that if you are going to buy an Atlas you might as well put a DreamChaser or CST with their greater payload capability on top of the booster.
Given that, would it make economic sense to scale X-37 up? Would that be so much of a different vehicle that it is no longer X-37? Or are you better off just putting another launch vehicle on top of your Atlas?
Another X-37 question. If a pressing national security need arose, is the Atlas system flexible enough that you can change payloads on the pad? In other words could you pull MSL off the top of the rocket and replace it with an X-37 in a period of hours to days?
Thanks
No, it would take weeks and there would have to be a X-37 Centaur and Fairing on site.
-
sorry if this is 20 questions but:
Is there a mission or way to take a payload outside the ISS, using the one of the Arm(s) move the payload into an airlock?
How would this be done?
No, because the airlocks are manual. They open from the inside.
-
How about a pressurized tank inside the payload bay with a grapple built on the outside?
A fuel or water tanker?
How does the fuel or water get used? It is still in the tank. there are no exterior connections on the ISS to the water. The propellant would need to interface with the Russian docking system.
500lbs doesn't leave much for actual fluid.
Would be ammonia or nitrogen top off be possible? As for justifying this to DOD/AF; it would be a great exercise in rapid, flexible response. :)
-
sorry if this is 20 questions but:
Is there a mission or way to take a payload outside the ISS, using the one of the Arm(s) move the payload into an airlock?
How would this be done?
While refraining from expressing any judgements about the original question of flying the X37 to the ISS, may I suggest that you look at the Altius Space Machines thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22738.0) for a proposal for bringing packages to and into the ISS?
-
sorry if this is 20 questions but:
Is there a mission or way to take a payload outside the ISS, using the one of the Arm(s) move the payload into an airlock?
How would this be done?
Kibo has this capability, and will use it next year to deploy CubeSats from ISS.
-
sorry if this is 20 questions but:
Is there a mission or way to take a payload outside the ISS, using the one of the Arm(s) move the payload into an airlock?
How would this be done?
Kibo has this capability, and will use it next year to deploy CubeSats from ISS.
going the wrong direction. Bringing a cubesat into the ISS serves no purpose
-
How about a pressurized tank inside the payload bay with a grapple built on the outside?
A fuel or water tanker?
How does the fuel or water get used? It is still in the tank. there are no exterior connections on the ISS to the water. The propellant would need to interface with the Russian docking system.
500lbs doesn't leave much for actual fluid.
Would be ammonia or nitrogen top off be possible? As for justifying this to DOD/AF; it would be a great exercise in rapid, flexible response. :)
X-37 response time is no quicker than any other spacecraft launching on an Atlas
-
No, because the airlocks are manual. They open from the inside.
Not strictly true - the outer hatch of the JPM A/L is automated I believe.
going the wrong direction. Bringing a cubesat into the ISS serves no purpose
Altius Space Machines has a whole business concept based around that very proposal - launching small independent payloads to ISS on Nanosat launch vehicles, then bringing them inside the ISS via robotics and the JPM A/L.
-
Cubesats are different from nanosats
-
How about a pressurized tank inside the payload bay with a grapple built on the outside?
A fuel or water tanker?
How does the fuel or water get used? It is still in the tank. there are no exterior connections on the ISS to the water. The propellant would need to interface with the Russian docking system.
500lbs doesn't leave much for actual fluid.
correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the first Russian module (owned, paid for by USA) used for fuel storage etc.?
alot more research would need to be done but a means to do the job by some new architecture is possible. Remember Hubble taught us a great deal.
No, HST taught nothing about fluid transfer. No means are feasible without large expenditures.
Didn’t fully make my point on the HST. The HST taught us to adapt (maybe not even the right word). Talking about devices, and parts, not designed to be replaced in space.
-
How about a pressurized tank inside the payload bay with a grapple built on the outside?
A fuel or water tanker?
How does the fuel or water get used? It is still in the tank. there are no exterior connections on the ISS to the water. The propellant would need to interface with the Russian docking system.
500lbs doesn't leave much for actual fluid.
correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the first Russian module (owned, paid for by USA) used for fuel storage etc.?
As for a reason to send X-37 to ISS, in that world where cheap responsive launch were available, an X-37 would make a great way to transfer a single crew member back from ISS, in theory. ::)
I’m not confident enough to even think of use for HSF. The history is spread out over a lot of years and locations etc. The x37 seems to come out of a few short years when the thinking was that composites would solve all the cost/weight problems. Don’t have the data, but my gut tells me the X37 might have “Toxic” issues for HSF.
-
Know that two different types of fuels were tested and used.
No, they weren't "tested", it used a standard biprop, MMH and N2O4
Congrats Jim !! You just corrected some of the history out there. Most history tends to say that one model of x37 used RP1/H2o2 and the other model used MMH and N2O4.
-
sorry if this is 20 questions but:
Is there a mission or way to take a payload outside the ISS, using the one of the Arm(s) move the payload into an airlock?
How would this be done?
While refraining from expressing any judgements about the original question of flying the X37 to the ISS, may I suggest that you look at the Altius Space Machines thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22738.0) for a proposal for bringing packages to and into the ISS?
thx, will do.
-
If you could keep the Centaur locked into the X37 all the way to the ISS, how long a life would the Centaur have?
Can't do rendezvous with a Centaur. RCS not in the proper locations. The life of a Centaur is less than 10 hours.
good info thx, maybe I should have looked at the 2nd stage of the Delta II for an off the shelf solution.
-
good info thx, maybe I should have looked at the 2nd stage of the Delta II for an off the shelf solution.
It has a shorter life
-
Ok I'm tossing some ideas around.
Progress M-10
The Progress will deliver the following cargo items to the station:
Prop in the propulsion system tanks for the ISS needs - 250kg
Prop in the refueling system tanks - 627kg
Gas in the oxygen supply system containers - oxygen 51kg
Water in the Rodnik system tanks - 420kg
The items in the cargo compartment - 1297kg
Equipment for the systems:
Gas supply system - 24kg
Water supply system - 20kg
Thermal control system - 14kg
On-board hardware control system - 12kg
Maintenance and repair equipment - 10kg
Sanitary and hygienic items - 118kg
Individual protection items - 62kg
Food containers, fresh products - 192kg
Medical equipment, linen, personal hygienic and prophylactics items - 94kg
FGB hardware - 54kg
Science experimental hardware, including experimental - 141kg
Russian crew’s items - 88kg
On-board documentation files, crew provisions, video- and photo-equipment - 22kg
USOS hardware - 444kg
Total mass of the cargo delivered - 2645kg
======================
If one wanted to design a new Progress type system…
What ISS supplies will be in great need for later in the program?
Does L2 have details on how the fluids are transferred via Progress? Does the US side have fluids transfer designs in place for near future?
-
Does the US side have fluids transfer designs in place for near future?
no
-
If one wanted to design a new Progress type system…
That is what Dragon and Cygnus do
-
Does L2 have details on how the fluids are transferred via Progress? Does the US side have fluids transfer designs in place for near future?
You don't need L2 for finding out about Progress water transfer, they use the Rodnik system, which is basically a tube leading from the tank in Progress to the Russian segment tanks; an analogous system is used to transfer urine from the Russian segment back into the empty water tank in Progress.
-
Does L2 have details on how the fluids are transferred via Progress? Does the US side have fluids transfer designs in place for near future?
You don't need L2 for finding out about Progress water transfer, they use the Rodnik system, which is basically a tube leading from the tank in Progress to the Russian segment tanks; an analogous system is used to transfer urine from the Russian segment back into the empty water tank in Progress.
Its a good thing then Progress burns up on return.
-
According to Leonard David at SPACE.com, this proposal might not be as far off as we think. :)
Meanwhile, Boeing has begun to look at derivatives of their X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle — including flying cargo and crew to the International Space Station.
For one, the X-37B, as is, can be flown to the space station and dock to the facility's common berthing mechanism. No new technology is required for X-37B to supply cargo services to the ISS, Grantz said. Also, an X-37C winged vehicle has been scoped out, a craft that would ride atop an Atlas 5 in un-shrouded mode.
The Boeing roadmap, Grantz added, also envisions a larger derivative of the X-37B space plane, one that can carry up to seven astronauts, as well as tote into Earth orbit a mix of pressurized and unpressurized cargo.
http://www.space.com/13156-secret-x37b-space-plane-longer-mission.html
-
For one, the X-37B, as is, can be flown to the space station and dock to the facility's common berthing mechanism. No new technology is required for X-37B to supply cargo services to the ISS, Grantz said.
just marketing spin, there is no mass available for any appreciable cargo to be transferred.
-
The Boeing roadmap, Grantz added, also envisions a larger derivative of the X-37B space plane, one that can carry up to seven astronauts, as well as tote into Earth orbit a mix of pressurized and unpressurized cargo.
http://www.space.com/13156-secret-x37b-space-plane-longer-mission.html
[/quote]
These is a different part of Boeing talking. They wouldn't develop this and CST-100 at the same time. It is one or the other.
-
According to Leonard David at SPACE.com, this proposal might not be as far off as we think. :)
Meanwhile, Boeing has begun to look at derivatives of their X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle — including flying cargo and crew to the International Space Station.
For one, the X-37B, as is, can be flown to the space station and dock to the facility's common berthing mechanism. No new technology is required for X-37B to supply cargo services to the ISS, Grantz said. Also, an X-37C winged vehicle has been scoped out, a craft that would ride atop an Atlas 5 in un-shrouded mode.
The Boeing roadmap, Grantz added, also envisions a larger derivative of the X-37B space plane, one that can carry up to seven astronauts, as well as tote into Earth orbit a mix of pressurized and unpressurized cargo.
http://www.space.com/13156-secret-x37b-space-plane-longer-mission.html
For one, the X-37B, as is, can be flown to the space station and dock to the facility's common berthing mechanism. No new technology is required for X-37B to supply cargo services to the ISS, Grantz said.
interesting, if true Boeing should have bid for ISS supply.
Might have a method myself to bring up fluids equil to what the Progress does now with very little alteration.
edit wrong model
-
The Boeing roadmap, Grantz added, also envisions a larger derivative of the X-37B space plane, one that can carry up to seven astronauts, as well as tote into Earth orbit a mix of pressurized and unpressurized cargo.
http://www.space.com/13156-secret-x37b-space-plane-longer-mission.html
These is a different part of Boeing talking. They wouldn't develop this and CST-100 at the same time. It is one or the other.
[/quote]
the amazing part..... this design is one of the few test designs that has gotten this far in tests.
Boeing could leap a few years in the commercial market if they wanted to.
-
The Boeing roadmap, Grantz added, also envisions a larger derivative of the X-37B space plane, one that can carry up to seven astronauts, as well as tote into Earth orbit a mix of pressurized and unpressurized cargo.
http://www.space.com/13156-secret-x37b-space-plane-longer-mission.html
These is a different part of Boeing talking. They wouldn't develop this and CST-100 at the same time. It is one or the other.
the amazing part..... this design is one of the few test designs that has gotten this far in tests.
Boeing could leap a few years in the commercial market if they wanted to.
Boeing must have figured the CST-100 was easier and cheaper. If the X-37 derivative was easier, it would have been proposed instead.
-
The Boeing roadmap, Grantz added, also envisions a larger derivative of the X-37B space plane, one that can carry up to seven astronauts, as well as tote into Earth orbit a mix of pressurized and unpressurized cargo.
http://www.space.com/13156-secret-x37b-space-plane-longer-mission.html
These is a different part of Boeing talking. They wouldn't develop this and CST-100 at the same time. It is one or the other.
the amazing part..... this design is one of the few test designs that has gotten this far in tests.
Boeing could leap a few years in the commercial market if they wanted to.
Boeing must have figured the CST-100 was easier and cheaper. If the X-37 derivative was easier, it would have been proposed instead.
or maybe the x37 got locked in for a while as an AF baby.
-
Might have a method myself to bring up fluids equil to what the Soyuz does now with very little alteration.
Apart from this, the only other unique use of X-37B at ISS that I can see is the return of external payloads from ISS (eg. the Pump Module returned on STS-135).
-
For one, the X-37B, as is, can be flown to the space station and dock to the facility's common berthing mechanism. No new technology is required for X-37B to supply cargo services to the ISS, Grantz said.
interesting, if true Boeing should have bid for ISS supply.
Might have a method myself to bring up fluids equil to what the Soyuz does now with very little alteration.
No, it has no payload capacity for ISS supply. It only can lift 500lbs without a docking adapter.
No, it cant do what Progress (not Soyuz) does. It would need to use Russian hardware to dock at the Russian ports with the appropriate fluid connections.
There is no issue with other fluids (water, air), there is no need for exterior connections. Once a supply vehicle docks/berths and the hatch is opened, the crew has access to any type of fluid container and its connection.
-
the amazing part..... this design is one of the few test designs that has gotten this far in tests.
Boeing could leap a few years in the commercial market if they wanted to.
Not true, it could be too expensive for commercial. Especially since a manned X-37 type vehicle is further behind the CST-100.
-
the amazing part..... this design is one of the few test designs that has gotten this far in tests.
Boeing could leap a few years in the commercial market if they wanted to.
Not true, it could be too expensive for commercial. Especially since a manned X-37 type vehicle is further behind the CST-100.
Maybe you misunderstood when I said "Commercial". So we are on the same page I am talking supplies. You will come back and say only 500lbs. I say its 500lbs more than we can send up and return ATM.
Further as you know the X37B is just in testbed form. The next model could be more payload etc for the same given size?
With some changes in mission and HW (sounds like Boeing has done this on paper or more). This would make a great resupply/return craft.
-
the amazing part..... this design is one of the few test designs that has gotten this far in tests.
Boeing could leap a few years in the commercial market if they wanted to.
Not true, it could be too expensive for commercial. Especially since a manned X-37 type vehicle is further behind the CST-100.
Maybe you misunderstood when I said "Commercial". So we are on the same page I am talking supplies. You will come back and say only 500lbs. I say its 500lbs more than we can send up and return ATM.
And a lot less than Dragon can send up and return a few months from now.
Further as you know the X37B is just in testbed form. The next model could be more payload etc for the same given size?
With some changes in mission and HW (sounds like Boeing has done this on paper or more). This would make a great resupply/return craft.
Depends on when they can make it available and at what price.
-
1. I say its 500lbs more than we can send up and return ATM.
Further as you know the X37B is just in testbed form. The next model could be more payload etc for the same given size?
2. With some changes in mission and HW (sounds like Boeing has done this on paper or more). This would make a great resupply/return craft.
1. It isn't 500lb to the ISS. It would less than 100 lb because it has to include the berthing system and the payload retention system. And that is only unpressurized payload, X-37 does not have a pressurized volume. No, the next model could not provide any relevant increase in payload for the same size.
2. Boeing is saying it can build a larger version
Lets just end this discussion, it is not viable and it is not going to happen.
-
1. I say its 500lbs more than we can send up and return ATM.
Further as you know the X37B is just in testbed form. The next model could be more payload etc for the same given size?
2. With some changes in mission and HW (sounds like Boeing has done this on paper or more). This would make a great resupply/return craft.
Lets just end this discussion, it is not viable and it is not going to happen.
Sorry you feel this way......btw this design is on China's radar they will turn these out like sausages.
Too bad we should have a US flag on these
-
Sorry you feel this way......btw this design is on China's radar they will turn these out like sausages.
Too bad we should have a US flag on these
Huh? Based on what?
It will be just as useless to them.
-
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/asd/2011/10/06/01.xml&headline=Boeing%20Studies%20X-37B%20Evolved%20Crew%20Derivative&channel=defense
This story says Boeing is looking at an evolved version for crew and cargo with the current version used for demo flights to iss. Study only at this point.
-
If they ever get electromagnet railgun launch technology off the ground (and its nano satellite payloads to orbit), I see how it might be possible to use such a system to send small presurized cargo packages to ISS and delivered via Kibo. Anyone know what the progress is thus far on the military's electromagnet railgun development?
-
If they ever get electromagnet railgun launch technology off the ground (and its nano satellite payloads to orbit), I see how it might be possible to use such a system to send small presurized cargo packages to ISS and delivered via Kibo.
No, it wouldn't Be feasible
-
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/asd/2011/10/06/01.xml&headline=Boeing%20Studies%20X-37B%20Evolved%20Crew%20Derivative&channel=defense
This story says Boeing is looking at an evolved version for crew and cargo with the current version used for demo flights to iss. Study only at this point.
Pure speculation on my part. But if Boeing is serious about the commercial crew version of the X-37, they could ask Bigelow to become the lead partcipant for the CST-100 for CCDev-3 (remember that Bigelow had its own proposal for CCDev-1). Boeing's own proposal for CCDev-3 would then be the commercial crew version of the X-37. Another option would be for Boeing to team up with somebody else (Virgin Galactic maybe) for a commercial crew version of the X-37.
-
Here an article on the crewed X-37c:
http://www.space.com/13230-secretive-37b-space-plane-future-astronauts.html
-
Here an article on the crewed X-37c:
http://www.space.com/13230-secretive-37b-space-plane-future-astronauts.html
Any news of a paper released on this topic AIAA-2011-7315? Would enjoy comparing my redesigns with their thinking.
Edit: added paper #
-
well here it is, X-37B to iss concept. Very much like the HTV/Cygnus/Dragon concept, looks pretty solid for commercial cargo. Still would be pretty expensive incremental costs for an Atlas V for cargo flights, however perhaps if they can use the existing craft combined with reusability might be possible. However, very limited market for only ORU's, and really cant see the market for a new, bigger craft or even a new X-37B other than what has been built.
-
It's not very elegant, but there is no reason why it should not work. I think the cost effectiveness of the x-37B is limited and maybe that's why the C version would have some appeal.
-
Remember, the OSC CCDev entry had points against it in the evaluation for using a larger Atlas V variant, while the X-37C will use the largest variant as its basepoint, meaning if weight increases then would have to move to Delta Heavy or Atlas heavy. Nto to mention the new development costs.
From the scale of 1-10 on possibility of flying on NASA's dime, the X-37B would be about a 5. The X-37C, about a 2 with a margin of +/- 2.
-
That's at most 40 cents ;)
-
It's not very elegant, but there is no reason why it should not work. I think the cost effectiveness of the x-37B is limited and maybe that's why the C version would have some appeal.
I think the biggest advantage is it can test all the rendezvous systems for a larger vehicle at a much lower cost.
Still the Atlas V 501 is massive overkill for a vehicle of this size.
-
It's not very elegant, but there is no reason why it should not work. I think the cost effectiveness of the x-37B is limited and maybe that's why the C version would have some appeal.
I think the biggest advantage is it can test all the rendezvous systems for a larger vehicle at a much lower cost.
Still the Atlas V 501 is massive overkill for a vehicle of this size.
Not sure if the specs are correct (might have changed). Seen info of a dry weight for the x37b of aprox 8000lbs.
-
I think the biggest advantage is it can test all the rendezvous systems for a larger vehicle at a much lower cost.
Don't need the X-37 for that
-
I hesitate to continue this thread since many have tried to conclude it, but no-one seems to have explicitly stated the one clear advantage the X-37B/Atlas-V may offer over other transportation options to the ISS, namely the ability to bring up large, odd-sized cargo, perhaps something like a new SSRMS.
Forget the payload bay. Cargo could be mounted on an external support-structure that's attached to the X-37B exterior at hard points, but also to the Centaur upper stage to handle launch loads. This structure also includes a grapple fixture that the Station RMS grabs.
In reality, such an option would only be used for cargo that:
a] would not fit in an HTV unpressurized section, or Dragon trunk.
b] would fit in the odd-shaped space left between the X-37B/Centaur and the fairing.
If there's no possible cargo that fits this criteria, then that's the end of the discussion, but to finish this out logically:
+ This cargo support structure would be jettisoned before re-entry, and would burn up. Perhaps it would have two halves, connected either side of the wings, with room for cargo above and below the fuselage. For jettison, split the two halves with good old explosive bolts?
+ If the X-37B/structure is grappled by the SSRMS, then cargo needs to be offloaded by EVA. That's inconvenient, or perhaps even a deal killer.
+ Given Atlas-V payload capability, I'm assuming very heavy cargo could be lofted. But too massive, and it could perhaps overwhelm the X-37B RCS?
+ I'm essentially ignoring the payload bay on the X-37B.
+ Some payloads may need some active thermal management, which will increase the complexity, cost, and weight of this external carrier.
It might not be needed, but I think this idea is pretty neat. It requires almost zero changes to the X-37B and turns the addition of a fairing into a significant advantage.
For crewed lifting-body designs, I'm a fan of Dream Chaser rather than X-37, but they have no fairing so this isn't an option.
(http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/A131.jpg)
-
1. Forget the payload bay. Cargo could be mounted on an external support-structure that's attached to the X-37B exterior at hard points,
2. but also to the Centaur upper stage to handle launch loads. This structure also includes a grapple fixture that the Station RMS grabs.
snip
2, It requires almost zero changes to the X-37B and turns the addition of a fairing into a significant advantage.
1. There are no hard points to attach to. They have to be designed in from the beginning. Bomb racks aren't just put on airliner wings and then there is the matter of holes in the TPS. Also, there is RCS plume interferences not to mention CG issues.
2. The Centaur has no attach points other than the place the X-37 is attached.
3. It requires major changes
-
Well OK, it was just silly of me to say "nearly zero changes". But the point was this has drastically *fewer* changes when compared to other proposals discussed, such as build a larger X37-C with a usable cargo bay. Or design a new ferry to take large unpressurized cargo to the ISS.
I'm not about to defend this idea very far, but I will say I'd put the hard points on lee-side of the wings, and look at the design of the ET attach points on the shuttle.
But back to bigger issues: is this needed at all? Say, for a new SSRMS?
-
I'm not about to defend this idea very far, but I will say I'd put the hard points on lee-side of the wings, and look at the design of the ET attach points on the shuttle.
The ET attach points were designed and built into the thrust structure of the orbiter. They weren't an afterthought, also they had doors over them.
-
Well OK, it was just silly of me to say "nearly zero changes". But the point was this has drastically *fewer* changes when compared to other proposals discussed, such as build a larger X37-C with a usable cargo bay. Or design a new ferry to take large unpressurized cargo to the ISS.
No, it is about the same, since it would take major changes to the X-37. Look at the SCA.
-
I'm surprised no one has suggested side-mounting the X-37!
-
I'm surprised no one has suggested side-mounting the X-37!
To what?
-
1. Forget the payload bay. Cargo could be mounted on an external support-structure that's attached to the X-37B exterior at hard points,
2. but also to the Centaur upper stage to handle launch loads. This structure also includes a grapple fixture that the Station RMS grabs.
snip
2, It requires almost zero changes to the X-37B and turns the addition of a fairing into a significant advantage.
For sake of this topic let’s assume the payload inside the cargo bay is locked down.
Let’s also assume some means to launch a payload (spring means).
Given means to lock in open the payload doors, or just hold down.
So using your thinking, the inside cargo bay can be used to lock down the cargo. The top of the x37b can be used to carry kind of the fashion of a “roof rack”.
-
I hesitate to continue this thread since many have tried to conclude it, but no-one seems to have explicitly stated the one clear advantage the X-37B/Atlas-V may offer over other transportation options to the ISS, namely the ability to bring up large, odd-sized cargo, perhaps something like a new SSRMS.
Large, oddly sized cargo... that is *less* than X-37B's 500 lbm payload capacity?
SSRMS is way too heavy for X-37B. So is just about anything else. That's why they're proposing X-37C in the first place.
-
Just to be perfectly clear, I agree the volume and mass capacity of the X-37Bs cargo bay makes it very uninteresting for ISS cargo transfer.
Prober: yes, the exterior support structure is essentially a roof-rack. (Although you need to allow for the solar arrays to deploy from the top of the fuselage, so there's more room underneath.)
I'm not sure where the 500lbs limit figure came from, but my guess is it's the cargo bay. Once you're attaching cargo to a structure that's outside the X-37B, the limiting factors are Atlas V total payload, and controlling launch loads, etc.
But as Jim has made clear (once again), while this may be fun to speculate about, it's science fiction. If we did have a sudden emergency at the ISS that required cargo that won't fit on current ISS-bound spacecraft, there are many other options to consider first.
-
I hesitate to continue this thread since many have tried to conclude it, but no-one seems to have explicitly stated the one clear advantage the X-37B/Atlas-V may offer over other transportation options to the ISS, namely the ability to bring up large, odd-sized cargo, perhaps something like a new SSRMS.
Large, oddly sized cargo... that is *less* than X-37B's 500 lbm payload capacity?
SSRMS is way too heavy for X-37B. So is just about anything else. That's why they're proposing X-37C in the first place.
I think the main advantage of the X-37B is Boeing gaining experience with sending unmanned vehicles to ISS now vs later.
When the X-37C or CST-100 is ready they'll be able to say they have done this before.
Yes there are other ways to do this but I don't think there are better ways to do it.
For example another Orbital Express type mission probably would end up costing a similar amount and taking much longer.
-
I'm not sure where the 500lbs limit figure came from, but my guess is it's the cargo bay. Once you're attaching cargo to a structure that's outside the X-37B, the limiting factors are Atlas V total payload, and controlling launch loads, etc.
no, the X-37 structure, controls and propulsion still would put limits on could be carried on it before Atlas performance is a constraint.
-
I think the main advantage of the X-37B is Boeing gaining experience with sending unmanned vehicles to ISS now vs later.
When the X-37C or CST-100 is ready they'll be able to say they have done this before.
Yes there are other ways to do this but I don't think there are better ways to do it.
For example another Orbital Express type mission probably would end up costing a similar amount and taking much longer.
Yes, there is a better way, the fact that they have already done it.
They got the experience with Orbital Express, no need for X-37B mission to ISS. The little experience gained is not worth the cost, much like Ares I-X.
-
I'm not sure where the 500lbs limit figure came from, but my guess is it's the cargo bay. Once you're attaching cargo to a structure that's outside the X-37B, the limiting factors are Atlas V total payload, and controlling launch loads, etc.
no, the X-37 structure, controls and propulsion still would put limits on could be carried on it before Atlas performance is a constraint.
Some early X-37 propulsion for those interested.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20060004795_2006003679.pdf
-
Just to be perfectly clear, I agree the volume and mass capacity of the X-37Bs cargo bay makes it very uninteresting for ISS cargo transfer.
Prober: yes, the exterior support structure is essentially a roof-rack. (Although you need to allow for the solar arrays to deploy from the top of the fuselage, so there's more room underneath.)
I'm not sure where the 500lbs limit figure came from, but my guess is it's the cargo bay. Once you're attaching cargo to a structure that's outside the X-37B, the limiting factors are Atlas V total payload, and controlling launch loads, etc.
But as Jim has made clear (once again), while this may be fun to speculate about, it's science fiction. If we did have a sudden emergency at the ISS that required cargo that won't fit on current ISS-bound spacecraft, there are many other options to consider first.
Any exterior cargo would have to attach to an adapter between the X-37 and Atlas
-
But as Jim has made clear (once again), while this may be fun to speculate about, it's science fiction. If we did have a sudden emergency at the ISS that required cargo that won't fit on current ISS-bound spacecraft, there are many other options to consider first.
Any exterior cargo would have to attach to an adapter between the X-37 and Atlas
Speculating further...
Wouldn't the Delta IV be a better launcher for such a mission? Delta IV can have a larger fairing. Wonder what is the largest fairing might be used ?
With the ECC (External Cargo Carrier) used in this way the X37 becomes a space tug.
-
But as Jim has made clear (once again), while this may be fun to speculate about, it's science fiction. If we did have a sudden emergency at the ISS that required cargo that won't fit on current ISS-bound spacecraft, there are many other options to consider first.
Any exterior cargo would have to attach to an adapter between the X-37 and Atlas
Speculating further...
Wouldn't the Delta IV be a better launcher for such a mission? Delta IV can have a larger fairing. Wonder what is the largest fairing might be used ?
With the ECC (External Cargo Carrier) used in this way the X37 becomes a space tug.
Atlas 5m fairing is larger that Delta's
-
New Mission for Secret Spaceplane? (http://news.discovery.com/space/mini-military-space-shuttle-mission-111130.html)
(Do not copy and paste articles. Copyright should be obvious to most people).
-
This thread seems to pretty much explain why X37B was not seriously considered for COTS
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/03/x-37b-expanded-capabilities-iss-missions/
To meet the upmass you're looking to hang a load of carrying racks on it and a large orbital support modules of some kind.
While the X37B seems to have been an excellent test vehicle (as far as any one can tell) it seem to be too small for this mission and by the time you factor in either the additional equipment or a scaling up of the design you might as well start with a clean slate.
As for crew rating this was never designed with that in mind. This does not have to be a major issue but how serious it is also unknown.