-
X37B to ISS: Why not?
by
PeterAlt
on 04 Dec, 2010 06:19
-
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
-
#1
by
PeterAlt
on 04 Dec, 2010 06:21
-
(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?
-
#2
by
pathfinder_01
on 04 Dec, 2010 06:38
-
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.
-
#3
by
butters
on 04 Dec, 2010 07:31
-
The payload is only 1mT, and that mass would include a berthing mechanism, which it currently lacks.
-
#4
by
Jim
on 04 Dec, 2010 12:40
-
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.
-
#5
by
pathfinder_01
on 04 Dec, 2010 12:42
-
NASA doesn't own one.
Sad but true
-
#6
by
brihath
on 04 Dec, 2010 12:46
-
(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.
-
#7
by
Prober
on 28 Sep, 2011 20:19
-
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?
-
#8
by
Prober
on 28 Sep, 2011 20:28
-
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?
-
#9
by
Norm Hartnett
on 28 Sep, 2011 20:41
-
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.
-
#10
by
Prober
on 28 Sep, 2011 20:48
-
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.
How about a pressurized tank inside the payload bay with a grapple built on the outside?
A fuel or water tanker?
-
#11
by
Lars_J
on 28 Sep, 2011 21:08
-
While we are at it, why not fly MSL to the ISS and use it to return stuff from the ISS.
I love it!
-
#12
by
Jim
on 28 Sep, 2011 21:20
-
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.
-
#13
by
Jim
on 28 Sep, 2011 21:22
-
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.
-
#14
by
Jim
on 28 Sep, 2011 21:23
-
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.
-
#15
by
Nathan
on 28 Sep, 2011 21:40
-
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
-
#16
by
Jim
on 28 Sep, 2011 21:56
-
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.
-
#17
by
Nathan
on 28 Sep, 2011 22:01
-
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
-
#18
by
Jim
on 28 Sep, 2011 22:04
-
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
-
#19
by
Nathan
on 28 Sep, 2011 22:13
-
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
