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

[Antares]

Well, wait.  The Administrator said something like we don't cut the Navy to pay for hurricane damage, when asked about NASA funding after Katrina.  So some evidently think NASA is like the armed forces in some ways.  We can't have it both ways, i.e. a protected, military-like program and one that is also risk-averse, civilian.

[Analyst]

Best of both worlds: Civilian, e.g. not protected (Why should NASA be something special, why the military?), and not risk averse. Is this too much to ask?

Analyst

[MrTim]

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.

(snip) 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

Wrong. There are no airliners which can make an uncontrolled safe descent based purely upon aerodynamic forces. Deprived of aircrew and avionics there is no airliner that will make anything other than a smoking hole upon touchdown from 20k ft. There is nothing passive about anything you cited; these examples are all good arguments in favor of a winged vehicle with no passive abort modes, a pilot aboard, redundant flight controls and some Level-A avionics.

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

Even a perfect seat cannot get a pilot out of every possible situation, so this is an argument in favor of a winged vehicle provided things like ejection seats can reduce, but not eliminate, the black zones. An ejection seat has nothing to do with a passive abort and was not even part of the discussion, so I'm not sure what this is doing here.

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. (snip)

You can call that a passive abort mode if you like, but that just don't make it so. Deprived of aircrew and autopilot, those big shiny airliners will not make a nice safe straight-and-level descent to a touchdown. A capsule may be designed to self-stabilize  without input from a pilot or an autopilot, but a completely uncontrolled airliner will eventually depart from stable flight. Period. A real airframe is not a mathematical model in perfect trim and balance and it is subject to weather, turbulence, etc. An aircraft which remains in level flight while someone or something is applying control inputs cannot, by any stretch, be referred to as being in a "passive abort" mode. As for an engine loss on departure... I have never heard anybody call that procedure a "passive abort". 

[Jim]

1.  Deprived of aircrew and avionics there is no airliner that will make anything other than a smoking hole upon touchdown from 20k ft. There is nothing passive about anything you cited;

2.  these examples are all good arguments in favor of a winged vehicle with no passive abort modes, a pilot aboard, redundant flight controls and some Level-A avionics.

3.  Even a perfect seat cannot get a pilot out of every possible situation, so this is an argument in favor of a winged vehicle provided things like ejection seats can reduce, but not eliminate, the black zones. An ejection seat has nothing to do with a passive abort and was not even part of the discussion, so I'm not sure what this is doing here.

4.  You can call that a passive abort mode if you like, but that just don't make it so. Deprived of aircrew and autopilot, those big shiny airliners will not make a nice safe straight-and-level descent to a touchdown. A capsule may be designed to self-stabilize  without input from a pilot or an autopilot, but a completely uncontrolled airliner will eventually depart from stable flight. Period. A real airframe is not a mathematical model in perfect trim and balance and it is subject to weather, turbulence, etc. An aircraft which remains in level flight while someone or something is applying control inputs cannot, by any stretch, be referred to as being in a "passive abort" mode. As for an engine loss on departure... I have never heard anybody call that procedure a "passive abort". 

1.  That's were you wrong again Who said crew was part of the issues but anyways.  Airliners will always have extra crew* and avionics (and electrical and hydraulic power)  because it can afford the extra weight.  Passengers are even a backup. 

2.  An ejection seat is part of the argument because it is an abort system for an aircraft

3.  I never said gliding is  passive.  It is "equivalent" to passive abort.   It is the last resort after other failures.

But gliding is passive wrt to propulsion.  Without propulsion, a airliner or capsule can land. 

4.  Been there, done that




 

[kevin-rf]

Don't know, one of the now retired F-106's did a passive landing in a Montana after the plane entered a spin and pilot ejected.

http://www.f-106deltadart.com/71fis.htm

I do remember seeing an article once on it being pressed back into service after the incident.

I would call that pretty passive.

 

[nobodyofconsequence]

...
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.
...

Knew someone who routinely flew one. Used a shaving kit bag stuffed under the knees as his "baggage". Said that if he added a toothbrush or pen, he could feel the difference. More like wearing a plane than flying in one ...

[possum]

Don't know, one of the now retired F-106's did a passive landing in a Montana after the plane entered a spin and pilot ejected.

http://www.f-106deltadart.com/71fis.htm

I do remember seeing an article once on it being pressed back into service after the incident.

I would call that pretty passive.

 

There was a DC-3 in World War II that landed itself in a field after the crew bailed out due to severe damage in flight.  But they don't make them like that anymore, and it was flying lower than 20K ft.

[Patchouli]

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?

It should be noted Apollo could not perform a passive reentry during a lunar return.
During lunar return it had to function as a lifting and steerable craft.
I remember one of the Apollo astronauts mentioning this during a documentary.
 If the angle was wrong etc it would either bounce back into space or dive too deeply into the atmosphere and the Gs would build up to around 20g and then the vehicle would be crushed.
But at least you wouldn't be conscious by the time that happens.

[kevin-rf]

There was a DC-3 in World War II that landed itself in a field after the crew bailed out due to severe damage in flight.  But they don't make them like that anymore, and it was flying lower than 20K ft.

You are right, I think the point is, some planes can and do have passive modes that let the glide in with no input on the controls.

One thing I have always loved about the Rutan Long EZ design is with the forward canard allows a passive failure mode where the canard will stall before the wing preventing stalls.

I guess the question comes down to, "can a non capsule winged shape have passive reentry at hypersonic speeds."

Rutan got around the problem on the SS-1 using the shuttle cock, but the speeds where not orbital, much less lunar...

[Jim]

It should be noted Apollo could not perform a passive reentry during a lunar return.
During lunar return it had to function as a lifting and steerable craft.
I remember one of the Apollo astronauts mentioning this during a documentary.
 If the angle was wrong etc it would either bounce back into space or dive too deeply into the atmosphere and the Gs would build up to around 20g and then the vehicle would be crushed.
But at least you wouldn't be conscious by the time that happens.

Incorrect as usual.  passive entry has nothing to do with the entry angle.  The CM (nor any capsule) can not control the entry angle.  That is a function of the SM

[Free2Think]

All of this discussion about safest options, passive abort and roomy accommodations is interesting but in my opinion is avoiding the real issue.  Under NASA’s current plan America will rely on Soyuz for crew access to ISS until 2015. Based on the last 4 years of NASA led Ares/Orion development this is only likely to get longer.  Yes, we can hope and pray that Falcon/Dragon will come in and save the day but do we really want to bet America’s $100B national space laboratory on SpaceX?

The Soyuz is extremely cozy to say the least and has had serious reentry issues on the last two missions.  Yes, the X-37B is small and not perfect, but is it good enough?  I would think that a X-37B minimal derivative crew vehicle might be able to fly on an Atlas in under 3 years.  This seems like a very attractive near term alternative.  This certainly provides a viable cargo return option.

Some interesting details on the X-37B:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/aw080408p2.xml

[vt_hokie]

The Soyuz is extremely cozy to say the least and has had serious reentry issues on the last two missions.  Yes, the X-37B is small and not perfect, but is it good enough?  I would think that a X-37B minimal derivative crew vehicle might be able to fly on an Atlas in under 3 years.  This seems like a very attractive near term alternative. 

That's been my preferred path ever since the OSP days.  It seems to make a lot of sense for an agency that simply doesn't have the funding for the lunar program that seems to be on life support.

[Jim]

I would think that a X-37B minimal derivative crew vehicle might be able to fly on an Atlas in under 3 years. 

A lot longer.    Not even 3 years before drop tests.  Nothing from the current vehicle is usable except the shape

There would be bigger issues.  A larger winged vehicle couldn't fit in the fairing.  Wing vehicle on an LV causes control problems

[Lampyridae]

HL-20 / X-38 is a much better design for human use than X-37B.

-lower g loading
-more stable re-entry (less angle of attack control required)
-lower heat loading on nose, leading edges
-has been studied to death (was heavily based on Russian design with several reentry tests)
-designed for humans from the start: life support, windows, abort engines
-will probably fly anyway as Dreamchaser

If you really, really want to launch a human into space with an X-37B you can put somebody in a spacesuit in a couch inside the cargo bay and pray. This would be some sort of Apollo-13 "put a square peg into a round hole" emergency though.

[Propforce]

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 

Well... I don't believe the issue is as simplistic as you've stated.

1) The X-37B is small enough to be place inside of an Atlas V fairing.  This solves a whole bunch of launch issues & risks associated with non-fairing launch of bigger size P/L sitting on top of an Atlas V (as depicted in the OSP program).  Apples & oranges.

2)  Wing vs capsule designs really has to do with other figure of merits, such as cross-range capability of your reentry vehicle (RV), CONOPS, as well as the state of key critical technologies readiness, e.g., wing leading edge TPS, etc. Some of these technologies, such as TPS, were not ready then.

3)  The X-37B is a 'risk reduction' flight test as one step closer to a reusable re-entry vehicle for operations.  NASA could not afford to take this risk for the CEV (Orion) from both schedule & publicity point of view.

[Propforce]

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.

Yes, but why design a recoverable satellite with wings? 

[FunFlying]

The grass is always greener on the other side.  Some may view Dreamchaser as a better option, or OSP or any number of other studies.  Today, Dreamchaser is nothing more than a mockup and some 40 year old wind tunnel tests, OSP is a pile of aging paper weights.  X37B will be the real enchilada in a couple of months.  Stop moaning over what could be, what should be.

[vt_hokie]

I'd be curious to know how the development cost of the HL-20 derived Dreamchaser/Atlas V system compares with that of Ares I/Orion.

[lewis886]

This is an old and tired subject
NASA did consider for OSP and it lost to the capsule design.

Yes, and NASA chose the Ares I too...   let's ponder how well that's turned out thus far   



(not ragging on you jim, just the Ares I   haha)

[nobodyofconsequence]

... Nothing from the current vehicle is usable except the shape ...

TPS? Avionics? Airframe? Orbital test of flight systems? Successful launch and reentry?

[Jim]

Bump

[Lee Jay]

Bump

What?  Is something happening here?

[mlorrey]

Bump

What?  Is something happening here?

No, Jim just wants to promote the fact that he thinks he won an argument.

[Jason1701]

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

If it was an "old and tired subject" three years ago, I wonder what it classifies as now.

[Silmfeanor]

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

If it was an "old and tired subject" three years ago, I wonder what it classifies as now.

It still is!
It would need LAS, have it's size, structure and systems dramatically changed. You'd need a whole new lifting-body spacecraft, instead of prodding on with the X-37b.

( and it's name is dream chaser and that is not the same as the X-37 )

Rockets are not legos...

[go4mars]

Is X37b for delivering munitions? 

[grakenverb]

Was this the reason for the "bump"?

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2011/10/10/AW_10_10_2011_p47-378479.xml&headline=X-37B%20Vehicle%20Derivative%20Plan%20Revealed

[Kharkov]

Is X37b for delivering munitions? 

The X-37B? No.

I'd say the X-37B is a prototype for an eventual weapons platform which will be quite similar to (and bigger than) the X-37.

The US Airforce/DOD is probably envisioning a fleet (not more than 20, I'd say) of them in inclined orbits & retrograde equatorial & polar orbits, capable of launching a small interceptor missile (or missiles) to take out selected 'enemy' satellites.

Once they run out of ammo, they can re-enter the Earth's atmosphere, using their cross-range capability to speedily return to an airbase for rearming & return to a launch site.

[douglas100]

That makes no sense to me. You don't need a spaceplane to launch an ASAT weapon. You certainly don't need a "fleet" of them. Operationally it makes much more sense to keep your weapons on the ground, (whether direct impact weapons or perhaps directed-energy weapons) and out of harms way and launch them only as required.

[Ben the Space Brit]

I've long thought that the X-37 is the aerodynamic and hardware prototype for a re-usable quick-reaction vehicle of some sort.  What it is supposed to react quickly to and its mission is unknown but, given the difficulties of orbital mechanics, ASAT or orbital attack is unlikely; a ballistic missile would carry out both these missions better.

The only reason why X-37 could be the prototype of a weapons platform would be if there is a tacit understanding between the superpowers that land- and submarine-based ballistic missiles will only carry nuclear warheads for ease of international threat identification.  In such a scenario, some kind of mid-duration robot delivery vehicle that stays on the ground until needed and is then launched into an orbit overflying its target is one possible solution for sub-nuclear QR attack.

[Kharkov]

Do you need a spaceplane to launch an ASAT weapon? No.

Is there a benefit to launching from one? Yes.

Imagine a scenario. The US decides to destroy the satellites belonging to... let's say Russia or China. Launching ASAT weapons from the ground means a fairly significant time between launch & arrival on target. Even worse, you can only target part of the enemy's satellite fleet. Part of it will be too far away - you'll need to wait until orbital mechanics bring them closer, into reach. Even if that wasn't an issue, the time lag between launch & arrival on target would be so long that the target would have time to manoeuvre away.

Even worse, a launch from the ground would be detected by an enemy's early-warning system - the thermal bloom when the rocket launches.

On the other hand, if you launch from a small, winged weapons platform in orbit, you could have all your platforms firing, targeting all the enemy's satellites at once. The travel time would be greatly reduced & the chance of the launch not being noticed (or not being noticed in time to do anything about it) would be increased. The complete removal of the enemy's satellites would cause chaos for the enemy.

This, incidentally, is why I strongly disapprove of the X-37 program. It doesn't advance space technology as anything it learns will be classified & buried. I suspect that one of the reasons that American aerospace companies aren't trying to develop an SSTO (without being instructed/paid to by NASA) is the fear that, halfway down the road, they'll be informed by the Air Force/DOD that they're impinging on classified X-37 technology.

Even worse, such weapons would be very destabilising and so would hamper civilian access to orbit & the civilian development of space.

[Jim]

Is X37b for delivering munitions? 

The X-37B? No.

I'd say the X-37B is a prototype for an eventual weapons platform which will be quite similar to (and bigger than) the X-37.

The US Airforce/DOD is probably envisioning a fleet (not more than 20, I'd say) of them in inclined orbits & retrograde equatorial & polar orbits, capable of launching a small interceptor missile (or missiles) to take out selected 'enemy' satellites.

Once they run out of ammo, they can re-enter the Earth's atmosphere, using their cross-range capability to speedily return to an airbase for rearming & return to a launch site.

It is nothing of the sort.

It isn't a prototype.  It is an "X" vehicle, which is a test vehicle.

[aquanaut99]

Even worse, such weapons would be very destabilising and so would hamper civilian access to orbit & the civilian development of space.

And finally, the last thing we need is armed space assets shooting at other space assets in LEO. We already have a huge space debris problem there. After a few rounds of satellite-killing, we would almost certainly get a runaway Kessler syndrome, making LEO unusable for anything and anyone for decades to come.

[Jim]

Is there a benefit to launching from one? Yes.

Imagine a scenario. The US decides to destroy the satellites belonging to... let's say Russia or China. Launching ASAT weapons from the ground means a fairly significant time between launch & arrival on target. Even worse, you can only target part of the enemy's satellite fleet. Part of it will be too far away - you'll need to wait until orbital mechanics bring them closer, into reach. Even if that wasn't an issue, the time lag between launch & arrival on target would be so long that the target would have time to manoeuvre away.

Even worse, a launch from the ground would be detected by an enemy's early-warning system - the thermal bloom when the rocket launches.

On the other hand, if you launch from a small, winged weapons platform in orbit, you could have all your platforms firing, targeting all the enemy's satellites at once. The travel time would be greatly reduced & the chance of the launch not being noticed (or not being noticed in time to do anything about it) would be increased. The complete removal of the enemy's satellites would cause chaos for the enemy.

Wrong in so many different ways.
There is no benefit and it is just as detectable.

Having the platform on orbit means it is less able to hit targets and slower reaction time.  The only viable method for an ASAT on orbit, is the coorbital type, where the ASAT in the same orbit as the target.
Direct ascent ASATs such as the MHV or the SM3 use lower velocities than orbital, can hit multiple inclinations, have quicker response and reaction times.

It takes a lot more energy to do a direct ascent type intercept from orbit, since the orbital energy would be working against it. 

You really don't understand orbital mechanics.

[Jim]

1.  This, incidentally, is why I strongly disapprove of the X-37 program. It doesn't advance space technology as anything it learns will be classified & buried.

2.  I suspect that one of the reasons that American aerospace companies aren't trying to develop an SSTO (without being instructed/paid to by NASA) is the fear that, halfway down the road, they'll be informed by the Air Force/DOD that they're impinging on classified X-37 technology.

That is not a legitimate reason and also wrong.

1.  It isn't any different than what the DOD/NRO have done in the past.  They have always secretly tested space technology, which has remained classified.

2.  Huh?  That is just plain nonsense.  There is no such connection.  The X-37 is not being tested, what is carries is being tested.  The X-37 is a spacecraft and not a launch vehicle.  It has nothing to do with SSTO.  It requires a launch vehicle to put it in orbit. Data from X-37 operations such as entry is available.   

[Jim]

Launching ASAT weapons from the ground means a fairly significant time between launch & arrival on target.

no, it is less than 10 minutes.  Current ASATs are only for LEO.  There are no ASATs for GPS or GSO orbits. Anyway, a co orbital or "orbital direct ascent" would take hours.

[Kharkov]

Wow, Jim had a lot to say...

Ok, yes, you're right - the X-37 IS a test vehicle & not intended to be a weapon itself. The upcoming X-37C (bigger) will not be a weapon either. I'm still of the opinion that it is intended to pave the way for a small orbital weapons platform. Various X-craft provided the answers that allowed the next generation of aircraft to be designed.

I agree with aquanaut99. Space is the last place we should be militarising.

Back to Jim again...

I admit that I don't know that an orbital vehicle launching a missile would be more or less detectable than launching from the ground. That said, I reason or suppose that, unless all of LEO is being observed, you could launch something from something already in LEO without it being noticed, or noticed in time to matter.

I'm a former accountant, not an engineer so I bow to you on orbital mechanics but it seems to me, if you've got a weapon platform & a target satellite in a 45 degree inclined orbit at the same (or almost the same) height then you should be able to shoot from one to the other without too much trouble.

If the target is heading southeast & the launch vehicle is heading northeast & they're going to pass close to each other, surely a missile from one would hit the other at 90 degrees with only a short flight time. Intercepting an incoming warhead (ICBM's, say) is tricky but a satellite? You'd have its orbit plotted in & you'd know where it was going to be.

And Jim again...

Yes, I disapprove (not that that means anything, I know) of the DOD/NRO hiding their earlier efforts too.

My point about SSTO, which, truth be told, I didn't put forward well, was that anything learned by a classified program which might be of use to a civilian SSTO program, won't be made available.

I don't think I mentioned GPS or GSO.

Anyway, perhaps it would be useful to ask, what is the X-37 for? A manned mini-spaceplane? Dream Chaser is already there so it seems like unnecessary duplication. If it's not intended to lead to a weapons platform, then what is it for?

[Jim]

Wow, Jim had a lot to say...

Ok, yes, you're right - the X-37 IS a test vehicle & not intended to be a weapon itself. The upcoming X-37C (bigger)

There is no upcoming X-37C.  It is just dead proposal.

[Jim]

Anyway, perhaps it would be useful to ask, what is the X-37 for? A manned mini-spaceplane? Dream Chaser is already there so it seems like unnecessary duplication. If it's not intended to lead to a weapons platform, then what is it for?

The X-37 predates Dreamchaser by 10 years.
X-37 is a reusable spacecraft platform. 

[Jim]

I'm still of the opinion that it is intended to pave the way for a small orbital weapons platform.

It has no relation to orbital weapons platforms.

[Jim]

Yes, I disapprove (not that that means anything, I know) of the DOD/NRO hiding their earlier efforts too.

Which is an opinion that is wrong for many reasons. There is nothing sacrosanct about space, it is just another medium which the military has legitimate to operate within.

[Kharkov]

Yes, but what is the X-37 for?

If it's not going to lead to a military weapon, then why did one Major Jameson say, "Its payload could also support Space Control (Defensive Counter-Space, Offensive Counter-Space), Force Enhancement and Force Application systems." according to wikipedia?

I don't see anything non-weapons-related that it could do that couldn't be done more cheaply, and in a simpler fashion, by NASA or some other civilian agency.

[Jim]

Yes, but what is the X-37 for?

If it's not going to lead to a military weapon, then why did one Major Jameson say, "Its payload could also support Space Control (Defensive Counter-Space, Offensive Counter-Space), Force Enhancement and Force Application systems." according to wikipedia?

I don't see anything non-weapons-related that it could do that couldn't be done more cheaply, and in a simpler fashion, by NASA or some other civilian agency.

The DOD has its own reasons to perform research in space and does.  Not all of its research is weapons related.  There is no reason for the DOD to have other agencies perform its research when it can do it on its own.  And having NASA or some other civilian agency do the research doesn't mean it would be cheaper or simpler.

And how do you know the research could be simpler than the current method?

[Prober]

Jim has been extra clear about the X-37B.  Reread the info if your looking for clues.

[parham55]

According to what i gathered of Jim's clues, it seems the X-37 is testing a non-weapons platform inside the payload bay.
I might be thinking too small, but I can only come up with some type of hardware test. Either observational or some type of signals intelligence.
This is all complete speculation and off topic from the title of this thread.

[Moe Grills]

 

Paint me most confused.

This topic webpage is supposed to be dedicated to?...
COMMERCIAL spaceflight?

 So how in blazes is X-37B supposed to be commercial if it is
a top-secret unmanned military spacecraft?
What? Is the Pentagon going to RENT out slots in its cargobay?   
Is the Pentagon going to slap advertising logos on its hull?
Let's get real, folks!


about

     

[Elmar Moelzer]

I think the idea is that Boeing might build a larger version of it, the X37C, that could be used for resupplying the ISS with cargo and crew. I think that the proposal has very little chance of realization though.

[Jim]

I think the idea is that Boeing might build a larger version of it, the X37C, that could be used for resupplying the ISS with cargo and crew. I think that the proposal has very little chance of realization though.

it has no chance

[HMXHMX]

I think the idea is that Boeing might build a larger version of it, the X37C, that could be used for resupplying the ISS with cargo and crew. I think that the proposal has very little chance of realization though.

Boeing won't go that route since it plans to sink or swim with CST-100.

[Prober]

Paint me most confused.

This topic webpage is supposed to be dedicated to?...
COMMERCIAL spaceflight?

 So how in blazes is X-37B supposed to be commercial if it is
a top-secret unmanned military spacecraft?
What? Is the Pentagon going to RENT out slots in its cargobay?   
Is the Pentagon going to slap advertising logos on its hull?
Let's get real, folks!


about

     

Key word is that much of the program is owned by "Boeing".   Keep in mind the X-37B is experimental.   

The X-37C was part of a research paper.

[Star One]

What happens to the X-37B vehicles when the USAF has finished with them?

Any chance they might get passed to NASA, be a shame if they were just scrapped if they were still viable to use?

[Rabidpanda]

What happens to the X-37B vehicles when the USAF has finished with them?

Any chance they might get passed to NASA, be a shame if they were just scrapped if they were still viable to use?

What would NASA use them for?

[Jim]

What happens to the X-37B vehicles when the USAF has finished with them?

Any chance they might get passed to NASA, be a shame if they were just scrapped if they were still viable to use?

Why?  And there might be a good reason for the USAF to be "finished" with them.

[Star One]

What happens to the X-37B vehicles when the USAF has finished with them?

Any chance they might get passed to NASA, be a shame if they were just scrapped if they were still viable to use?

What would NASA use them for?

Reusable multi-purpose science and engineering platform, surely something like that would be of use to NASA?

We hear about NASA's shortfall in areas such as Earth Sciences, couldn't it be configured for use in areas  such as this?

Or selling space on it to the commercial sector for payloads?

[Jim]

1.  Reusable multi-purpose science and engineering platform, surely something like that would be of use to NASA?

2.  We hear about NASA's shortfall in areas such as Earth Sciences, couldn't it be configured for use in areas  such as this?

3.  Or selling space on it to the commercial sector for payloads?

1.  not really, it is an expensive vehicle to fly and NASA has the ISS
2. smaller spacecraft buses are cheaper to launch and fly
3.  NASA can't do that, only Boeing.

[Prober]

1.  Reusable multi-purpose science and engineering platform, surely something like that would be of use to NASA?

2.  We hear about NASA's shortfall in areas such as Earth Sciences, couldn't it be configured for use in areas  such as this?

3.  Or selling space on it to the commercial sector for payloads?

1.  not really, it is an expensive vehicle to fly and NASA has the ISS

you saying from a launch cost expense?

[Star One]

1.  Reusable multi-purpose science and engineering platform, surely something like that would be of use to NASA?

2.  We hear about NASA's shortfall in areas such as Earth Sciences, couldn't it be configured for use in areas  such as this?

3.  Or selling space on it to the commercial sector for payloads?

1.  not really, it is an expensive vehicle to fly and NASA has the ISS
2. smaller spacecraft buses are cheaper to launch and fly
3.  NASA can't do that, only Boeing.

1.ISS is under utilised at the moment but that's not always going to be the case. Also isn't there some stuff it could do cheaper?

2.I would have thought it's the ULA launcher that makes it expensive rather than the craft itself and if that's the case that's going to be the same for any payload launched by them rather than exclusive to the X-37B.

3.What's to stop them selling services through Boeing, don't they use third party private contractors to sell space on the ISS?

[JohnFornaro]

Best of both worlds: Civilian, e.g. not protected (Why should NASA be something special, why the military?), and not risk averse. Is this too much to ask?

Huh?

I don't quite get what point you're making.

[Jim]

1.ISS is under utilised at the moment but that's not always going to be the case. Also isn't there some stuff it could do cheaper?

2.I would have thought it's the ULA launcher that makes it expensive rather than the craft itself and if that's the case that's going to be the same for any payload launched by them rather than exclusive to the X-37B.

3.What's to stop them selling services through Boeing, don't they use third party private contractors to sell space on the ISS?

1.  No, not really and it will be the case for the ISS
2.  No, an experiment could fly on a smaller launcher than what the X-37 uses.
3.  Then why does NASA have to be involved with Boeing there?  NASA "owns" the ISS, it doesn't own the X-37. Why should NASA deal with the X-37 just to resell the services?

[Star One]

1.ISS is under utilised at the moment but that's not always going to be the case. Also isn't there some stuff it could do cheaper?

2.I would have thought it's the ULA launcher that makes it expensive rather than the craft itself and if that's the case that's going to be the same for any payload launched by them rather than exclusive to the X-37B.

3.What's to stop them selling services through Boeing, don't they use third party private contractors to sell space on the ISS?

1.  No, not really and it will be the case for the ISS
2.  No, an experiment could fly on a smaller launcher than what the X-37 uses.
3.  Then why does NASA have to be involved with Boeing there?  NASA "owns" the ISS, it doesn't own the X-37. Why should NASA deal with the X-37 just to resell the services?

My original point was what was the USAF going to do with the vehicle once they had finished with and I suggested they could pass them to NASA, so I am not sure where Boeing come into this, I only suggested them as I thought you meant NASA needed a commercial company to sell space on it on their behalf.

Of course all of the above is predicated on my belief that the USAF owned it. So is it the case that it is not owed by the USAF?

[simonbp]

Boeing comes into it, as neither the USAF nor NASA would sell commercial flights, but Boeing could in theory. What you are suggesting is basically what SpaceX is selling as DragonLab. If DragonLab were to really take off, there might be some incentive for Boeing to make a commercial X-37, but that's really stretching it.

More likely (but still not very probable) would be Boeing developing a "CST-200" that was runway-recoverable with X-37 heritage. But that would only come after a commercial crew operator (themselves or SpaceX) starts to become really profitable.

[Jim]

My original point was what was the USAF going to do with the vehicle once they had finished with and I suggested they could pass them to NASA, so I am not sure where Boeing come into this, I only suggested them as I thought you meant NASA needed a commercial company to sell space on it on their behalf.

Of course all of the above is predicated on my belief that the USAF owned it. So is it the case that it is not owed by the USAF?

Boeing operates the vehicle

[Star One]

Boeing comes into it, as neither the USAF nor NASA would sell commercial flights, but Boeing could in theory. What you are suggesting is basically what SpaceX is selling as DragonLab. If DragonLab were to really take off, there might be some incentive for Boeing to make a commercial X-37, but that's really stretching it.

More likely (but still not very probable) would be Boeing developing a "CST-200" that was runway-recoverable with X-37 heritage. But that would only come after a commercial crew operator (themselves or SpaceX) starts to become really profitable.

That's somewhat along the lines of what I was thinking.

Surely if DragonLab was a success it would give Boeing pause for thought?