X-37C: plans for a crewed version of the X-37

[Patchouli]

Well there's another issue a spy sat with film return RVs becomes space junk once all the RVs are used up while a sat with digital com links only has to deal with running out of fuel and equipment break downs.

[BrightLight]

If we add the heavy lifting body landings (X-24, HL-10, M2F2, M2F3) and the shuttle landings - 135 minus two (some very sad days) and take into account that the shuttle LOC's were due to LV design not the RV, that is about 283 landings - not including ASSET, PRIME and BOR vehicles, that give us a reliability of about 0.9964. Not the 1 in 2000 some programs have attempted on paper but still respectable.

[Robotbeat]

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.
...

This. (And it applies to other ideas kicked around here, too.)

[GClark]

X-15s killed two pilots:  Mike Adams in the #3 crash (disorientation, but the computer going into a rate-limit cycle didn't help) and Jack McKay (not directly; the injuries he suffered in the #2 crash did lead to his untimely death).  They came pretty close to getting Scott Crossfield more than once.

Noone has ever died piloting a lifting body.  The M2-F1, HL-10, and M2-F2 all tried to kill Bruce Peterson.  The M2-F2 came closest - as bad as that crash looks, he only (!) lost an eye.

Note:  The M2-F2 is the only lifting body that ever actually crashed (so far).

[Sparky]

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

Link....(PDF)

Sure.  But here is the problem with that.

What possible need is so great that we must launch and send some Marines through space to get them to the other side of the planet that quickly and in that way?

What happens to extract the Team after their objective is complete?  What about the vehicle?  Do we leave it?  Do we blow it up?

Look at the Bin Laden experience and see what happens there.  Clearly we have a stealth helicopter that we had to destroy and look what happened with the Chinese, etc. 

Are we prepared to surrender space plane technology to foreign interests at every operational use?

I always wondered the same thing.

Landing probably would not be a big deal for a small space plane as it probably could land at almost any airport or even a highway but getting it back would be a pain.

You'd have to send a Chinook to get the landing vehicle and crew and it probably would be very close to the max payload.

Maybe if it also had air breathing engines and could be flown back like a normal jet at sub to low super sonic speeds but you'd still need a good spot to land and take off.

The range would probably would not be very good either as hyper sonic shapes generally do not make good sub sonic shapes.

Not to mention the issues regarding the launch vehicle. Would there be an Atlas V with a crew capable X37 derivative sitting on the pad at all times, with a rotating crew of marines stationed with it, just waiting to be launched into a combat zone at the notice of the president? Can an Atlas V even be maintained indefinitely? Are there any existing first-strike ICBMs in service that could carry an X37C? (I'm guessing not)

Also, given what we know about how long it takes to produce launch vehicles, what happens if you have a second crisis within 1 or 2 years of the mission? There would likely need to be a reserve of additional rockets on standby to avoid losing the capabilities of the vehicle for any length of time following a flight.

Launch issues aside, I wonder if the Marines could bail out over the target zone, and allow the vehicle to continue it's glide toward a friendly landing strip, or to crash into the surface if necessary. Extraction would need to occur by some other method, needless to say.

[happyflower]

To me the defining technology of the shuttle was its TPS. I remember the first time I saw that picture with the guy holding a glowing red cube in his bare hand. The TPS technology should be provided to the private sector as the inflatable habitat technology was.

The X37C can be anything still. It could easily be enlarged to fit on top of a Atlas V and launched to space stations. The wings will certainly give it one advantage to capsules and that is a very low G landing (probably close to 1). This would be on par in comfort with a SpaceShip2.

This maybe a stunt by Boeing, but the idea of a winged orbital plane with TPS that is launched "on top" of a rocket is solid engineering.

[Jim]

Aside from the Shuttle, lifting bodies made almost 150 landings from altitude with 1 fatality early in the lifting body program (M2F2 I believe)
One of the main reasons why intel systems stopped using film return was the issue of capsule RV reliability.

Wrong and unsubstantiated, it had nothing to do with SRV's or their reliability.  But anyways, they were very reliable and that is why the same systems were used for so long.

[Jim]

Well there's another issue a spy sat with film return RVs becomes space junk once all the RVs are used up while a sat with digital com links only has to deal with running out of fuel and equipment break downs.

Wrong again, it wasn't an issue, they were deorbited just like the digital ones are.

Why don't you stop making statements that are wrong.

[Jim]

It should be noted Liberty Bell 7,Soyuz 23, and ASTP were close LOC events partly related to the descent and landing mode.

Wrong again.

ASTP has nothing to do with the landing mode.  The Shuttle has the same hazard

[Jim]

If we add the heavy lifting body landings (X-24, HL-10, M2F2, M2F3)

No, they are not included, they did not reenter, leave the atmosphere or have significant heating.

[FinalFrontier]

On paper a capsule seems safer but in practice the Shuttle and X-15 programs have demonstrated that landing as a glider generally is much safer then then using parachutes and splashing down.

Wrong again. Shuttle and X-15 have demonstrated the opposite.  How many landing accidents were in the X-15?  How many pilots were lost in X-15? Columbia?  Soyuz 1 is the only strike against capsules.  All other issues with capsules show their robustness. 

Agreed. In addition we know from shuttle that a winged vehicle is likely to suffer 2 major design faults simply from having wings:

1. Far greater risk of damage to the heat shield during take off. This cannot be avoided because the heatshield is not protected underneath the vehicle and is far greater in size and complexity.
2. Far greater risk of damage during the missions from MMOD impacts, especially one with escape velocity involved. This again, is because of the far greater surface Area of the heat shield, as well as the fact that its not protected underneath the vehicle.



All in all, I doubt highly that any of these presentations on a crewed x37 will go anywhere beyond the realm of spin and pr, as Boeing already has plans for the crewed cst 100 vehicle,  and even if they did I think it would be a HIGHLY unsafe vehicle.

[yg1968]

I doubt the size of the TPS surface makes a huge difference. Both the X-37 and the Dream Chaser are fairly small. Plus, they have the advantage of landing on a runway. I would have thought that capsules were safer because of their LAS.

[Prober]

The X37C can be anything still. It could easily be enlarged to fit on top of a Atlas V and launched to space stations. The wings will certainly give it one advantage to capsules and that is a very low G landing (probably close to 1). This would be on par in comfort with a SpaceShip2.

This maybe a stunt by Boeing, but the idea of a winged orbital plane with TPS that is launched "on top" of a rocket is solid engineering.

you hit upon the major advantage of a wing landing.  For HSF the landings are better based on "comfort".

One thread here somewhere compared a shuttle landing to the Soyuz. 
more later.....

[BrightLight]

On paper a capsule seems safer but in practice the Shuttle and X-15 programs have demonstrated that landing as a glider generally is much safer then then using parachutes and splashing down.

Wrong again. Shuttle and X-15 have demonstrated the opposite.  How many landing accidents were in the X-15?  How many pilots were lost in X-15? Columbia?  Soyuz 1 is the only strike against capsules.  All other issues with capsules show their robustness. 

Agreed. In addition we know from shuttle that a winged vehicle is likely to suffer 2 major design faults simply from having wings:

1. Far greater risk of damage to the heat shield during take off. This cannot be avoided because the heatshield is not protected underneath the vehicle and is far greater in size and complexity.
2. Far greater risk of damage during the missions from MMOD impacts, especially one with escape velocity involved. This again, is because of the far greater surface Area of the heat shield, as well as the fact that its not protected underneath the vehicle.

All in all, I doubt highly that any of these presentations on a crewed x37 will go anywhere beyond the realm of spin and pr, as Boeing already has plans for the crewed cst 100 vehicle,  and even if they did I think it would be a HIGHLY unsafe vehicle.

The diameter of Orion's heat shield is probably larger than the x-37B and might not be much different than a 165% scaled C variant - the Dream Chaser heat shield (slipper - 9m by 7 m triangle) appears to be smaller than Orion (5 m diameter).
However, the TPS on a non shrouded lifting body is unprotected during launch and accent, exposing it to potential damage.
As I posted earlier, a reliability analysis of capsules versus space planes would be very useful.  Since Boeing is designing the CST-100 and has flown the X-37B and talking up X-37C someone thereought to have looked at this in depth?

[Ben the Space Brit]

Re.: LAS for X-37

The pictures of X-37B v1 being encapsulated made me think of possibly a pseudo-MLAS arrangement where the abort motors are on the exterior of the PLF.  They fire, pulling the spacecraft off the stack, still in the PLF; at the end of their burn, the PLF seperates leaving the S/C to glide back to land.

FWIW, a crew-sized X-37 would need an SLS-sized LV to use this arrangement.

[Jim]

FWIW, a crew-sized X-37 would need an SLS-sized LV to use this arrangement.

No, there is no fairing on a crew sized X-37

[Jim]

  Since Boeing is designing the CST-100 and has flown the X-37B and talking up X-37C someone there ought to have looked at this in depth?

No, there isn't a "one" Boeing wrt this, there are two different Boeing divisions involved.  X-37 is winding down and its Boeing group is looking for work, regardless what CST-100 is doing.

[Patchouli]

Well there's another issue a spy sat with film return RVs becomes space junk once all the RVs are used up while a sat with digital com links only has to deal with running out of fuel and equipment break downs.

Wrong again, it wasn't an issue, they were deorbited just like the digital ones are.

Why don't you stop making statements that are wrong.

deorbit = space junk being disposed of.
You take things too literally.

The X37C can be anything still. It could easily be enlarged to fit on top of a Atlas V and launched to space stations. The wings will certainly give it one advantage to capsules and that is a very low G landing (probably close to 1). This would be on par in comfort with a SpaceShip2.

This maybe a stunt by Boeing, but the idea of a winged orbital plane with TPS that is launched "on top" of a rocket is solid engineering.

you hit upon the major advantage of a wing landing.  For HSF the landings are better based on "comfort".

One thread here somewhere compared a shuttle landing to the Soyuz. 
more later.....

It doesn't make the main stream news but sometimes minor and not so minor injuries result from abnormally rough Soyuz landings.
This example was more due to an off nominal reentry vs the actual landing.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=space&id=news/Southkor050208.xml&headline=South%20Korean%20Astronaut%20Hospitalized

[Jim]

Well there's another issue a spy sat with film return RVs becomes space junk once all the RVs are used up while a sat with digital com links only has to deal with running out of fuel and equipment break downs.

Wrong again, it wasn't an issue, they were deorbited just like the digital ones are.

Why don't you stop making statements that are wrong.

deorbit = space junk coming down
You take things too literally.

You continually make incorrect statements.  There was no "issue".   Film return spacecraft were designed for a shorter orbital lifetime wrt propellant and equipment failure rates.  Also, the film return spacecraft had secondary missions that continued after the film was used up.  And in the end, both film and digital spacecraft were deorbited at the end of their lifetimes.

[Patchouli]

Well there's another issue a spy sat with film return RVs becomes space junk once all the RVs are used up while a sat with digital com links only has to deal with running out of fuel and equipment break downs.

Wrong again, it wasn't an issue, they were deorbited just like the digital ones are.

Why don't you stop making statements that are wrong.

deorbit = space junk coming down
You take things too literally.

You continually make incorrect statements.  There was no "issue".   Film return spacecraft were designed for a shorter orbital lifetime wrt propellant and equipment failure rates.  Also, the film return spacecraft had secondary missions that continued after the film was used up.  And in the end, both film and digital spacecraft were deorbited at the end of their lifetimes.

I didn't know they had a secondary missions I thought they were deorbited once the last reentry vehicle departed.