Author Topic: X-37C: plans for a crewed version of the X-37 (Read 108371 times)

Jim · « **Reply #40 on:** 10/08/2011 11:18 pm »

If it works, it needs no further testing.

As far as a US "Progress", it is no better suited than Dragon or Cygnus.

As for lifeboat, CST-100 or Dragon make a better one.

As for your other ideas, there is nothing new under the sun. They have already been thought of years ago and there is nothing special about the X-37 WRT space station operations

Jim · « **Reply #41 on:** 10/08/2011 11:22 pm »

X-37 is not "new" technology. As for the embedded ones, they are like new valves, or TPS. The vehicle as a whole is nothing new, just different

Prober · « **Reply #42 on:** 10/08/2011 11:31 pm »

Quote from: Jim on 10/08/2011 09:40 pm

Quote from: Prober on 10/08/2011 09:14 pm
[

This could the backup plan many are looking for?

As a general rule testing the automation of the Vehicle would be good for all interested parties.

Say enough fuel for 30 days operation.
Run the standard Cots 3 programs of Orbital or SpaceX.

IMHO, if those tests provide "Valuable data" for those two companies, than a test of this vehicle is also valid.

No, no and noquote

No, there is no backup plan it can be used for nor is there one needed for cargo.

No,

No, it does not privide useful data because there is no ISS role fir it

your messages are not logical.....Darpa, NASA, and USAF, Boeing would not have all invested funds if some good use could come out of the investment.

your talking in the wrong place about "backup" talk that up to Congress etc.

Prober · « **Reply #43 on:** 10/08/2011 11:36 pm »

Quote from: Jim on 10/08/2011 11:18 pm

If it works, it needs no further testing.

As far as a US "Progress", it is no better suited than Dragon or Cygnus.

As for lifeboat, CST-100 or Dragon make a better one.

As for your other ideas, there is nothing new under the sun. They have already been thought of years ago and there is nothing special about the X-37 WRT space station operations

1) your playing games now, bad Jim you know this would be a different mission profile.
2) reusable, runway landings
3) IYHO
4) You don't have enough proper data for such a statement.

btw Jim if you would like to meet and show me the error of my ways.....I'm trying to pencil in a VAFB launch & also http://www.nellis.af.mil/aviationnation/

yg1968 · « **Reply #44 on:** 10/08/2011 11:52 pm »

Quote from: Jorge on 10/08/2011 08:30 pm

Quote from: Rocket Science on 10/08/2011 08:27 pm
This could be Boeing playing mind games with SNC…

Or it could be the Boeing X-37 team playing mind games with the Boeing CST-100 team.

NASA could put a stop to this really quick by telling Boeing Corporate that NASA will only fund one or the other.

The CCDev-2 rules were clear on that point. You are only allowed to have one proposal where you are the main participant. Boeing needs to make a choice. However, you are also allowed to participate in other proposals as long as you remain a minority participant.

clongton · « **Reply #45 on:** 10/09/2011 11:36 am »

Quote from: yg1968 on 10/08/2011 11:52 pm

The CCDev-2 rules were clear on that point. You are only allowed to have one proposal where you are the main participant. Boeing needs to make a choice.

Boeing doesn't need to make a choice. X-37 is not a CCDev contestant. It is a USAF project only. Boeing has many other projects it is also working on and none of them are CCDev contestants either. Boeing has only one CCDev project underway: CST-100.

Jim · « **Reply #46 on:** 10/09/2011 12:54 pm »

Quote from: Prober on 10/08/2011 11:36 pm

2) reusable, runway landings
3) IYHO
4) You don't have enough proper data for such a statement.

5 btw Jim if you would like to meet and show me the error of my ways.....I'm trying to pencil in a VAFB launch & also http://www.nellis.af.mil/aviationnation/

2. That doesn't provide any advantages.
a. Dragon is reusable
b. US has cargo vehicles in development
c. Progress only docks to the Russians segment
D. The US does not need a Progress vehicle since the US segment has no propellant needs
3. No, Dragon and CST-100 do make better lifeboats because they are more robust and don't need runways. (the earth is 70% water, wings and landing gear are useless )
4. Yes, I do have enough data. A winged logstics has been flying for 30 years and others have been planned for longer. There is nothing new under the sun.

CitabriaFlyer · « **Reply #47 on:** 10/09/2011 04:29 pm »

There seem to be several interesting points of debate.

1) Is a winged vehicle desirable?

2) Which is the better winged vehicle?

3) Can Boeing build two spaceships?

To the first point:
A winged vehicle has advantages in terms of 1) return of delicate equipment 2) aerovac 3) appeal to aesthetics. Don't underestimate the importance of 3. Going back to the 50s, maybe earlier people like von Braun and Clarke wrote about spaceplanes. They look beautiful and intuitive and this is going to appeal to the congressmen and taxpayers who pay for these things and the astronauts who will fly them. I concede that there are very valid criticisms to these points, especially in 2011. The market may not be ready for spaceplanes for another 30 years. Fifty years separate the X-15 and SS2.

To the second point:
This is the question I am most interested in. If there is a desire for a winged vehicle this decade which is the superior product X-37 or DreamChaser?

To the third point:
I think Boeing could build two spacecraft if the market demanded it. The commercial contracts can always be modified to allow that. Certainly there is a role for both the 747 and 737.

Ben the Space Brit · « **Reply #48 on:** 10/09/2011 05:28 pm »

A heretical suggestion:

The X-37 is just a technology research program and USAF have no firm or funded plans to develop it into any kind of operational vehicle. Recognising that their jobs will soon be over, the X-37 team at Boeing are throwing ideas out in a hope that it will attract some NASA CCDev or general R&D cash to keep them in employment.

edkyle99 · « **Reply #49 on:** 10/09/2011 05:32 pm »

Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 10/09/2011 05:28 pm

A heretical suggestion:

The X-37 is just a technology research program and USAF have no firm or funded plans to develop it into any kind of operational vehicle. Recognising that their jobs will soon be over, the X-37 team at Boeing are throwing ideas out in a hope that it will attract some NASA CCDev or general R&D cash to keep them in employment.

That suggestion seems likely, rather than heretical, to me. Unless this thing has a hidden, Howard Hughes Glomar Explorer-like mission, I can't figure out what it's for.

- Ed Kyle

beb · « **Reply #50 on:** 10/09/2011 06:01 pm »

This X-37C proposal is best seen in light of the many Apollo Application proposals that came out in the late 60s/ early 70s. They were efforts by the contractors to come up with new uses for their product (Apollo) that would allow continued consumption of the product. Some of these were god ideas, some were kind of crazy. But mostly they were out there to get more work for the company.

The X-37b folk can see the brick wall at the end of the gravy train. So they're floating ideas to keep moving forward. X-37C has good ideas but it's also pretty comparable to Dream Chaser, too. We don't need two glider spacecraft.

Rocket Science · « **Reply #51 on:** 10/09/2011 06:12 pm »

The “C” has been specified to service the ISS, “I” as in international… It could be made available to other space agencies… We should not be so nationalistic in our thinking on a international project.

Regards
Robert

Prober · « **Reply #52 on:** 10/09/2011 06:25 pm »

Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 10/09/2011 05:28 pm

A heretical suggestion:

The X-37 is just a technology research program and USAF have no firm or funded plans to develop it into any kind of operational vehicle. Recognising that their jobs will soon be over, the X-37 team at Boeing are throwing ideas out in a hope that it will attract some NASA CCDev or general R&D cash to keep them in employment.

thats possible, yet the Boeing team was allowed to make the presentation. So Boeing could be blessing this, or thowing it out to see if it will stick?

Prober · « **Reply #53 on:** 10/09/2011 06:36 pm »

Quote from: Patchouli on 10/08/2011 10:19 pm

Quote from: Jorge on 10/08/2011 08:30 pm

Or it could be the Boeing X-37 team playing mind games with the Boeing CST-100 team.

NASA could put a stop to this really quick by telling Boeing Corporate that NASA will only fund one or the other.

Crew would have to wait until the X-37C putting a crew member inside the X-37B is crazy talk it would be less insane to ride the cargo version of Dragon.

I wouldn't put crew in the X-37C or a cargo version of the Dragon. Both are not ready.

Having said that, the X-37B has more proven orbital space time. That also needs to be considered.

Jim · « **Reply #54 on:** 10/09/2011 06:41 pm »

X-37"C" as not been built, the B model is the one onorbit.

That aside, the amount of time the X-37B has been in space is meaningless engineeringwise. Mission duration is not hard to achieve.

CitabriaFlyer · « **Reply #55 on:** 10/09/2011 07:01 pm »

What are the feelings about X-37C vs DreamChaser?

Prober · « **Reply #56 on:** 10/09/2011 07:16 pm »

Quote from: CitabriaFlyer on 10/09/2011 07:01 pm

What are the feelings about X-37C vs DreamChaser?

Sounds like a new thread.

Namechange User · « **Reply #57 on:** 10/09/2011 07:55 pm »

Quote from: Prober on 10/09/2011 07:16 pm

Quote from: CitabriaFlyer on 10/09/2011 07:01 pm
What are the feelings about X-37C vs DreamChaser?

Sounds like a new thread.

Why? This is what confuses me so about "advocates" and/or the "space community". What do "feelings" have to do with any of it?

First "we" are told that there IS a market. That competition is good and the market will decide (implying we should WANT more possible vehicles). In the next breath, there is seemingly only room for so many and no "others" are welcome and "commercial" must be a choice essentially between Boeing, SpaceX, Sierra Nevada and Blue Origin and only the designs that are known thus far which culminate in "versus" threads.

It's odd to me personally but at the same time "I" am told by the "advocates" that "I" am supposed to take at face value that 10,000 jobs will be created, that SLS is a failure and pork, that SpaceX is the end-all and be-all (even though Falcon has launched only twice and it was not perfect), that more government money MUST be given to commercial, etc, etc, etc.

Just a little venting......

docmordrid · « **Reply #58 on:** 10/09/2011 08:05 pm »

Ever hear of an Air War College paper called Wild Ride?

Link....(PDF)

Patchouli · « **Reply #59 on:** 10/09/2011 08:06 pm »

Quote from: yg1968 on 10/08/2011 11:52 pm

Quote from: Jorge on 10/08/2011 08:30 pm
Quote from: Rocket Science on 10/08/2011 08:27 pm
This could be Boeing playing mind games with SNC…

Or it could be the Boeing X-37 team playing mind games with the Boeing CST-100 team.

NASA could put a stop to this really quick by telling Boeing Corporate that NASA will only fund one or the other.

The CCDev-2 rules were clear on that point. You are only allowed to have one proposal where you are the main participant. Boeing needs to make a choice. However, you are also allowed to participate in other proposals as long as you remain a minority participant.

If I was in their position I'd combine the two programs.

Since the X-37 has flight experience and aircraft work is not difficult for Boeing I'd go with the X-37C as the combined program.

A capsule is not necessarily safer then a space plane that is a complete fallacy in fact flight history of past vehicles shows the opposite.

Though ITAR is going to be a far better decider here then anything technical but I feel the X-37C would have both lower reoccurring costs and would be safer then the CST-100.