X-37B crew launcher

[Free2Think]

Maybe it is time for NASA to consider an X-37B derivative for a near term crew vehicle.  X-37B is flying this November on an Atlas. http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/SPACE07298.xml&headline=USAF%20Sets%20Orbital%20Spaceplane%20Test%20Flight&channel=space

[Jim]

Maybe it is time for NASA to consider an X-37B derivative for a near term crew vehicle.  X-37B is flying this November on an Atlas. http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/SPACE07298.xml&headline=USAF%20Sets%20Orbital%20Spaceplane%20Test%20Flight&channel=space

This is an old and tired subject
NASA did consider for OSP and it lost to the capsule design.  Wing vehicles do not have passive abort and entry capabilities

[toddbronco2]

Is there really any chance of making the X-37 a crew vehicle in the short term?  I thought that the complexity and weight of the life support systems were the major challenge of a crew vehicle.  This doesn't sounds like a viable option to me.

[Jim]

Is there really any chance of making the X-37 a crew vehicle in the short term?  I thought that the complexity and weight of the life support systems were the major challenge of a crew vehicle.  This doesn't sounds like a viable option to me.

It is test vehicle with a payload bay.  It is the size of a BD-5J, i.e. no room for crew

[Free2Think]

This is an old and tired subject
NASA did consider for OSP and it lost to the capsule design.  Wing vehicles do not have passive abort and entry capabilities

The light weight capsule of OSP is one of NASA's decisions that I agree with.  On the other hand here we are 4 years after the demise of OSP and further away from a shuttle replacement than we were at the start of OSP. Desperate times can lead to interesting bed fellows.

[Patchouli]

    It's possible but a crewed version of the X37 would be 3 to 4x larger then this test article.
A crewed version would have to be as large as a learjet 55 though with a smaller wing span.
The HL20 shape might be a better bet mass wise though the X37 shape has better low speed handling.
Who knows it might result in a crew vehicle eventually esp if constellation goes belly up.

[sandrot]

[...] Who knows it might result in a crew vehicle eventually esp if constellation goes belly up.

From what we hear it is the launcher that has a risk to go belly up, not the spacecraft.

[Patchouli]

[...] Who knows it might result in a crew vehicle eventually esp if constellation goes belly up.

From what we hear it is the launcher that has a risk to go belly up, not the spacecraft.

LV development effects the entire program lack of performance in Ares for example results in an Orion that is stripped of capability and possibly unsafe due to removal of redundant systems due to mass cuts.

[sandrot]

LV development effects the entire program lack of performance in Ares for example results in an Orion that is stripped of capability and possibly unsafe due to removal of redundant systems due to mass cuts.

You've got to read what they did with the LM, then.

Orion is being stripped of all that is not related to the core mission. Some systems lost redundancy but before screaming it's unsafe, compare with Apollo. Anyway all systems left in the parking lot have the possibility to be bought back, when the launcher characteristics will be refined. Altair is following the same criteria for its development.

If Ares I is scrubbed Orion will be launched by EELV or some other ESAS flavored launcher.

[MrTim]

Maybe it is time for NASA to consider an X-37B derivative for a near term crew vehicle.  X-37B is flying this November on an Atlas. http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/SPACE07298.xml&headline=USAF%20Sets%20Orbital%20Spaceplane%20Test%20Flight&channel=space

This is an old and tired subject
NASA did consider for OSP and it lost to the capsule design.  Wing vehicles do not have passive abort and entry capabilities

Airliners do not have passive abort capabilities either, but we put an amazing number of innocent, unsuspecting men, women, and children on to them every year. Funny that when I point out how insanely risk-averse our society is getting, people get upset and argue that we have not become that risk-averse, but when somebody suggests a winged RLV, the risk-aversion argument arises.

I worry that you are correct that we have indeed become too risk-averse for something like this, but I continue to hope that we either have not, or will soon "snap out of it".

As to this being an old and tired subject, well, I suspect that things like this will just continue to arise as long as it looks like the Ares-I/Orion combo has a future only slightly brighter than an Edsel.

[DfwRevolution]

Maybe it is time for NASA to consider an X-37B derivative for a near term crew vehicle.  X-37B is flying this November on an Atlas. http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/SPACE07298.xml&headline=USAF%20Sets%20Orbital%20Spaceplane%20Test%20Flight&channel=space

This is an old and tired subject
NASA did consider for OSP and it lost to the capsule design.  Wing vehicles do not have passive abort and entry capabilities

Airliners do not have passive abort capabilities either, but we put an amazing number of innocent, unsuspecting men, women, and children on to them every year. Funny that when I point out how insanely risk-averse our society is getting, people get upset and argue that we have not become that risk-averse, but when somebody suggests a winged RLV, the risk-aversion argument arises.

I worry that you are correct that we have indeed become too risk-averse for something like this, but I continue to hope that we either have not, or will soon "snap out of it".

Commercial aviation safety is measured in fatalities per millions passengers carried. Manned spaceflight is measured in fatalities per hundreds of passengers carried. You can't seriously be comparing the two? 

[MrTim]

Is there really any chance of making the X-37 a crew vehicle in the short term?  I thought that the complexity and weight of the life support systems were the major challenge of a crew vehicle.  This doesn't sounds like a viable option to me.

It is test vehicle with a payload bay.  It is the size of a BD-5J, i.e. no room for crew

He might have meant to suggest a slightly scaled-up (perhaps 3 to 6 seats, no cargo) version... Try giving people some benefit of the doubt before trouncing on them. There was, after-all, an actual proposal for a not-super-sized 12-man DynaSoar at one point.

BTW:  the BD-5 is certainly at the low-end of the manned-vehicle size range, but it is indeed a real aircraft and one person fits in it just fine (albeit sans space suit, etc. ) .... in case somebody thinks it was just some sort of movie prop. I'd bet an airframe only twice the size would carry a suited person and enough life support for a few orbits (not arguing about propulsion, GNC, or TPS)

[MrTim]

Maybe it is time for NASA to consider an X-37B derivative for a near term crew vehicle.  X-37B is flying this November on an Atlas. http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/SPACE07298.xml&headline=USAF%20Sets%20Orbital%20Spaceplane%20Test%20Flight&channel=space

This is an old and tired subject
NASA did consider for OSP and it lost to the capsule design.  Wing vehicles do not have passive abort and entry capabilities

Airliners do not have passive abort capabilities either, but we put an amazing number of innocent, unsuspecting men, women, and children on to them every year. Funny that when I point out how insanely risk-averse our society is getting, people get upset and argue that we have not become that risk-averse, but when somebody suggests a winged RLV, the risk-aversion argument arises.

I worry that you are correct that we have indeed become too risk-averse for something like this, but I continue to hope that we either have not, or will soon "snap out of it".

Commercial aviation safety is measured in fatalities per millions passengers carried. Manned spaceflight is measured in fatalities per hundreds of passengers carried. You can't seriously be comparing the two? 

No, No, No... not at all!
Just throwing a wet towel on a wet blanket.
Somebody (probably innocently) posted a query about using the X-37 design for people and it got a summary, and simplistic, dismissal that it was dumped for lack of "passive abort...". I was just making the point that if it was that simple and basic of a criteria (as-in... "it has no passive abort mode, we can't put an astronaut on THAT!") , which was the impression the original poster might have been left with, then airliners would be ruled out for astronauts travel. The answer was not an informative response to the original poster. I think that if we are to resume manned RLV work, a pure lifting body would be preferable to an X-37 because the X-37 (like the current orbiters) has vulnerable thin wings which may be needed for DoD-desired cross-range capabilities but which (as demonstrated by the HL-10, X-24, etc) are not needed for manned soft-landings on runways. The original poster should be aware that both the thin wings and the lack of ascent abort modes probably contributed to some LOC number calculations that worked against vehicles like the X-37 in a post-Challenger era.

[Jim]

Airliners do not have passive abort capabilities either, but we put an amazing number of innocent, unsuspecting men, women, and children on to them every year. Funny that when I point out how insanely risk-averse our society is getting, people get upset and argue that we have not become that risk-averse, but when somebody suggests a winged RLV, the risk-aversion argument arises.

You keep coming with the wrong comparisons every time  the risk-aversion argument arises.  Spaceflight is not the same as air travel.  apples and oranges.  you keep making false arguments.

Airliners have multiple engines and continue takeoff with one engine out, they can go around, they can glide, etc.  Airliners  have systems with redundancy to allow them to survive almost problems except for ones caused by outside influences (i.e. collision, very severe weather, pilot error, bombs).  A 767 completely ran out of fuel do to a loading error and yet was able to glide to a safe landing with it hydraulics powered by a deployable generator

Fighter aircraft who are subject to outside influences have ejection seats.

I would call gliding passive abort capability.  Airlines always keep their nose forward.  They don't try to fly tail first.   That is all what passive abort and passive entry mean.

It doesn't do any good if the abort system pulls of the spacecraft and it can't land.  But it is really for entry  in an emergency

[Ronsmytheiii]

People seem to be thrown off by the TPS and aerodynamic shape of the vehicle into thinking that the X-37 is like the shuttle.  Rather think of it as a recoverable satellite.  Put an imaging system or EW package inside, then launch it when needed over a battlefield.  That way you can quickly and relatively cheaply orbit much needed battlefield awareness over a hot spot to provide battle preparation and/or battle assessment.

[sandrot]

Well, as big as Spaceship One... we could stuff a brave astronaut in it

[Jose]

Would a massive parachute a la CRV be out of the question as a passive abort system?

[sandrot]

No, you have to have a vehicle shape that rights itself up in case the vehicle takes a dive in the atmosphere belly up.

BTW is that true that Orion doesn't have a passive reentry mode, because of center of gravity issues?

[sdsds]

Well, as big as Spaceship One... we could stuff a brave astronaut in it

The USAF is comfortable sending service personnel on missions that put them in harm's way. NASA shouldn't ever get comfortable doing that with civilian astronauts.

[Analyst]

The USAF is comfortable sending service personnel on missions that put them in harm's way. NASA shouldn't ever get comfortable doing that with civilian astronauts.

NASA already has been and still is, or there wouldn't have been any US manned spaceflight. NASA has to do so in the future or there won't be US manned spaceflight. I say putting astronauts into harms way is much more useful for mankind than that USAF (or any army in the world) does, but I don't want a politics discussion.

Analyst