That scaled drawing is great FB.... I'm thinking it MAY need some slight fairing bulges added to clear the wingtips... which are off center-line a bit...
Nice to get the fairing comparison on one page... for future reference... SO... It will fit... it can lift it easily... Let SpaceX bid to launch it... On edit... This is an AF/DOD/NRO project after all and not just ULA/Boeing picking launchers...
The Atlas V 5-meter fairing is actually 5.4 meters in diameter, compared to Falcon 9's 5.2-meter fairing.This is why they chose Atlas V because of the roomier fairing.
It may need vertical integration. Yes it can land horizontally, but that's after mission completion.
Didn't they choose the wingspan so that it would fit inside the payload bay of the shuttle?
OR...It can do horizontal... either as is... or with mods (likely heavier) to the payload adapter and/or X-37B itself...
why does the X-37 launch in a fairing? Can it not mount without a fairing? What is the complicating factor? The Dyna-Soar was designed to work without one.
Really, the X-37B shouldn't need a payload fairing... Concept-wise something went wrong at an early stage if that is the launch method they ended up with.
What if any development and parts sourcing would be needed to put X-37B on Falcon 9 and launch it?How much of the stuff used on the Atlas 501 setup would transfer over... what requires redo??
I did a search... found no discussion with an answer... SO... my question isWhat if any development and parts sourcing would be needed to put X-37B on Falcon 9 and launch it?How much of the stuff used on the Atlas 501 setup would transfer over... what requires redo??
Re: vertical or horizontal processing and integration...NSF gurus, please correct if I'm wrong.The payload processing would be done at the Boeing facilities inside the former OPF-1 (or 2). That's what those facilities are purposed for.If not there, then at the Astrotech facility, as for the previous 4 launches.An August launch would mean it's going up via LC-39A. I don't know if there's a way to vertically integrate payload at the pad as it's currently configured.If not, then the X-37B + fairing will be horizontally integrated onto the Falcon 9 in the HIF, and the vehicle with payload takes the uphill ride horizontally to the launch pad.
Wouldn't an Air Force payload have to launch from an Air Force facility? SLC-40 or SLC-4E?
X-37B, Dream Chaser, and all other winged/lifting body RVs need to be launched inside fairings because if the lifting surface is exposed to the airflow it renders the stack aerodynamically unstable in pitch, like an arrow with the feathers in the front. The engines on a normal booster can't swivel far enough or fast enough to keep on course during the atmospheric part of the flight.
X-37B, Dream Chaser, and all other winged/lifting body RVs need to be launched inside fairings because if the lifting surface is exposed to the airflow it renders the stack aerodynamically unstable in pitch, like an arrow with the feathers in the front. The engines on a normal booster can't swivel far enough or fast enough to keep on course during the atmospheric part of the flight.A possible solution was tried on the X-20 where huge tail fins were added to the various proposed Titan boosters to counteract this effect. But wind-tunnel tests showed there might be dangerous interactions between the wing wakes and the fins which couldn't be modeled in those days. The same issue helped kill the winged flyback booster for Shuttle.The fairing makes designing an abort system for a manned winged RV very difficult (as does the lack of parachutes). That is why NASA accepted the cargo version of Dream Chaser, but rejected the manned version. The extra weight and danger of the wing folding mechanism was probably a factor too. Carrier aircraft wings don't have to endure reentry heating.Note that Sierra Nevada management claims they have a solution to the problem -- but they have never stated what that solution is.
Ok so SpaceX won a launch of the x37b todayishhttp://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/06/spacex-launches-us-air-force-x-37b-space-plane.htmlHas anyone read the contract?
Quote from: BobHk on 06/06/2017 11:30 pmOk so SpaceX won a launch of the x37b todayishhttp://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/06/spacex-launches-us-air-force-x-37b-space-plane.htmlHas anyone read the contract?Wrong takeaway. SpaceX is launching an X37B in August. This information came out recently.This doesn't imply SpaceX was just awarded this launch. This could have taken place 6-24 months ago, was kept a secret and just became public knowledge.As much as I would love if that's a reuse booster launch and that's how USAF cut the launch line, this doesn't seem likely given how recent the SES-10 launch was.Just saying.
X-37B, Dream Chaser, and all other winged/lifting body RVs need to be launched inside fairings because if the lifting surface is exposed to the airflow it renders the stack aerodynamically unstable in pitch, like an arrow with the feathers in the front. The engines on a normal booster can't swivel far enough or fast enough to keep on course during the atmospheric part of the flight.A possible solution was tried on the X-20 where huge tail fins were added to the various proposed Titan boosters to counteract this effect. But wind-tunnel tests showed there might be dangerous interactions between the wing wakes and the fins which couldn't be modeled in those days. The same issue helped kill the winged flyback booster for Shuttle.Note that Sierra Nevada management claims they have a solution to the problem -- but they have never stated what that solution is.
In theory, it should be possible to make the stack more stable with an exposed spaceplane.
Quote from: Arch Admiral on 06/06/2017 11:34 pmX-37B, Dream Chaser, and all other winged/lifting body RVs need to be launched inside fairings because if the lifting surface is exposed to the airflow it renders the stack aerodynamically unstable in pitch, like an arrow with the feathers in the front. The engines on a normal booster can't swivel far enough or fast enough to keep on course during the atmospheric part of the flight.The BORs were launched unshrouded.
And part of the reason the Saturn IB's first stage was tons lighter than the Saturn I's was that the former was never envisioned as a launch vehicle for the winged Dyna-Soar. I'll bet that whatever boosted BOR was built like a battleship.
Quote from: GClark on 06/07/2017 04:38 amQuote from: Arch Admiral on 06/06/2017 11:34 pmX-37B, Dream Chaser, and all other winged/lifting body RVs need to be launched inside fairings because if the lifting surface is exposed to the airflow it renders the stack aerodynamically unstable in pitch, like an arrow with the feathers in the front. The engines on a normal booster can't swivel far enough or fast enough to keep on course during the atmospheric part of the flight.The BORs were launched unshrouded.And part of the reason the Saturn IB's first stage was tons lighter than the Saturn I's was that the former was never envisioned as a launch vehicle for the winged Dyna-Soar. I'll bet that whatever boosted BOR was built like a battleship.
Wasn't X-37B initially supposed to launch unfaired on Delta II? How were the aerodynamics handled in that proposal?
Thinking about this development, a cheap reusable booster like F9 would allow the Air Force to have a wing of X-37Bs
Suborbital i guess, but you could maybe do a single pass over a country like SR-71.
Jeesh, just because the X-37 changed launchers doesn't mean it can do more than before.It can only carry 500lb of payload and that includes the attach hardware (remember the shuttle?)A Pegasus could launch a spacecraft with the same payload mass.
Quote from: Jim on 06/07/2017 05:52 pmJeesh, just because the X-37 changed launchers doesn't mean it can do more than before.It can only carry 500lb of payload and that includes the attach hardware (remember the shuttle?)A Pegasus could launch a spacecraft with the same payload mass.TWO or three for one pricing would allow shorter missions with more prop available to change orbit during any given mission. Correct?
I think it's pretty amazing that SX has landed a contract for an X37b launch after a single NROL launch. Given the efforts USAF procurement made to give ULA that 36 core bulk order I think it says a lot about how well SX have been able to establish a good working relationship with the USAF.TBH I never thought the USAF would switch launchers for the X37b after 4 successful missions on Atlas V. Whether this is a permanent switch, or will continue on a mission by mission basis, only time will tell.
As low risk as this is, SpaceX could throw in free drift cargo dragon if something was to happen and needed redunent capabilities
Again, people are testing too much into this. Actually, the X-37 award is no big deal. It still is not a front line DOD spacecraft. The project can take some risk. After all, a loss of an X-37 does not affect our reduce the DOD space force structure
In that regard, this contract award is a big deal.
I can't imagine a scenario where the Air Force wasn't watching the process a fellow national security agency went through - with both SpaceX and Air Force taking away lessons on how to work together.
Quote from: ChrisGebhardt on 06/07/2017 09:20 pmIn that regard, this contract award is a big deal.Not a big deal. Only because of that it is X-37 and its mystery and wings, people are blowing it out of proportion. This is on the same level of an STP spacecraft or DSCOVR. It is an experimental spacecraft. It isn't SBIRS, AEHF or an operational NROL spacecraft.Quote from: ChrisGebhardt on 06/07/2017 09:20 pmI can't imagine a scenario where the Air Force wasn't watching the process a fellow national security agency went through - with both SpaceX and Air Force taking away lessons on how to work together.NROL didn't buy the ride for NROL-76, it was Ball Aerospace. Not the same. Also, the USAF already had bought a ride from Spacex, DSCOVR.
... The launch campaign starts about 3 months prior to launch. ...
Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson acted like it was a big deal.
Quote from: DOCinCT on 06/07/2017 09:15 pm... The launch campaign starts about 3 months prior to launch. ...In other words, it's already underway, in essence. (and thanks for the timeline reminder, which I snipped)Quote from: llanitedave on 06/07/2017 10:12 pmAir Force Secretary Heather Wilson acted like it was a big deal.PR? "see how responsive we are? now give us more money"
Quote from: Lar on 06/07/2017 11:09 pmQuote from: DOCinCT on 06/07/2017 09:15 pm... The launch campaign starts about 3 months prior to launch. ...In other words, it's already underway, in essence. (and thanks for the timeline reminder, which I snipped)Quote from: llanitedave on 06/07/2017 10:12 pmAir Force Secretary Heather Wilson acted like it was a big deal.PR? "see how responsive we are? now give us more money" Perhaps the main point of the contract was to show that the X-37 could be launched on more than one vehicle. It is an experiment and the Air Force does want to try out as many variations as possible.JohnEdit/Lar: Fix quotes
Why nobody considers the fact that launching with SpaceX, X37b will not use russian engines anymore. Military vehicle is normal to launch with all US made launcher, at last. The situation till now was not normal.
Quote from: John-H on 06/08/2017 12:00 amPerhaps the main point of the contract was to show that the X-37 could be launched on more than one vehicle. It is an experiment and the Air Force does want to try out as many variations as possible. It doesn't need to actually fly to prove this. It was also was to fly on Delta IV
Perhaps the main point of the contract was to show that the X-37 could be launched on more than one vehicle. It is an experiment and the Air Force does want to try out as many variations as possible.
Quote from: VIY on 06/08/2017 12:08 amWhy nobody considers the fact that launching with SpaceX, X37b will not use russian engines anymore. Military vehicle is normal to launch with all US made launcher, at last. The situation till now was not normal.And why does that matter in this case?
Quote from: Jim on 06/08/2017 12:14 amQuote from: VIY on 06/08/2017 12:08 amWhy nobody considers the fact that launching with SpaceX, X37b will not use russian engines anymore. Military vehicle is normal to launch with all US made launcher, at last. The situation till now was not normal.And why does that matter in this case?May be because decreasing the dependence on foreign key parts is more important than business.
Quote from: llanitedave on 06/07/2017 10:12 pmAir Force Secretary Heather Wilson acted like it was a big deal.PR? "see how responsive we are? now give us more money"
Quote from: VIY on 06/08/2017 12:45 amQuote from: Jim on 06/08/2017 12:14 amQuote from: VIY on 06/08/2017 12:08 amWhy nobody considers the fact that launching with SpaceX, X37b will not use russian engines anymore. Military vehicle is normal to launch with all US made launcher, at last. The situation till now was not normal.And why does that matter in this case?May be because decreasing the dependence on foreign key parts is more important than business.It doesn't matter in this case because X-37 is not a front line DOD spacecraft.
Since we have no idea of the payloads, can this assertion be made with any confidence?
Quote from: JamesH65 on 06/08/2017 01:10 pmSince we have no idea of the payloads, can this assertion be made with any confidence? yes, the orbits define those
Is that really the case? The X-37 might provide a number of services to the payload that would take extra mass in a stand-alone vehicle. Orbit maneuvering, attitude control and pointing, power, cooling, communication, and so on.
Quote from: Jim on 06/08/2017 01:27 pmQuote from: JamesH65 on 06/08/2017 01:10 pmSince we have no idea of the payloads, can this assertion be made with any confidence? yes, the orbits define thoseTo clarify... is the assertion here that DOD payloads have never and will absolutely never go to LEO, even for testing?
Quote from: ChrisGebhardt on 06/08/2017 02:02 pmQuote from: Jim on 06/08/2017 01:27 pmQuote from: JamesH65 on 06/08/2017 01:10 pmSince we have no idea of the payloads, can this assertion be made with any confidence? yes, the orbits define thoseTo clarify... is the assertion here that DOD payloads have never and will absolutely never go to LEO, even for testing?No, the assertion that GSO, MEO, Molniya, SSO and some retrograde are the orbits that define front line DOD spacecraft.But on that point, GEO comsats and others high altitude spacecraft do not use LEO for testing.
So NROL-76 is not a front line spacecraft ?
(Response to assertion that DOD doesn't fly LEO.)
One of things needed to fly the X-37B on an F9 is a contract.An FFP contract that has unfunded options for flights but specifies and funds the work needed to validate the payload for flight on the F9. This contract could have been done years ago. Also it could have also included a study of what the minimum notice (on contract via contract mod [contract mods/options can be accomplished within a single day if need be]) time is between on contract and launch.If the call up (contract mod) was recent, that then looks like a ~2-3 month span.It is also possible that ULA has an exact duplicate of this kind of contract for X-37B as well. But their span that they identified is much longer (about 1 year).
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 06/10/2017 02:41 pmOne of things needed to fly the X-37B on an F9 is a contract.An FFP contract that has unfunded options for flights but specifies and funds the work needed to validate the payload for flight on the F9. This contract could have been done years ago. Also it could have also included a study of what the minimum notice (on contract via contract mod [contract mods/options can be accomplished within a single day if need be]) time is between on contract and launch.If the call up (contract mod) was recent, that then looks like a ~2-3 month span.It is also possible that ULA has an exact duplicate of this kind of contract for X-37B as well. But their span that they identified is much longer (about 1 year).There is absolutely nothing to indicate this contract was just signed or modified recently. Having a national security contract announced long after the signing is just not that unusual. When was the NROL-76 contract signed in relation to when it was announced? We have no idea.
Quote from: gongora on 06/10/2017 03:00 pmQuote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 06/10/2017 02:41 pmOne of things needed to fly the X-37B on an F9 is a contract.An FFP contract that has unfunded options for flights but specifies and funds the work needed to validate the payload for flight on the F9. This contract could have been done years ago. Also it could have also included a study of what the minimum notice (on contract via contract mod [contract mods/options can be accomplished within a single day if need be]) time is between on contract and launch.If the call up (contract mod) was recent, that then looks like a ~2-3 month span.It is also possible that ULA has an exact duplicate of this kind of contract for X-37B as well. But their span that they identified is much longer (about 1 year).There is absolutely nothing to indicate this contract was just signed or modified recently. Having a national security contract announced long after the signing is just not that unusual. When was the NROL-76 contract signed in relation to when it was announced? We have no idea.Yes, the contract mechanisms used in this case are speculation. But what I was showing from my experience in doing AF contracts on the AF side is that there are contracting methods that can be done to do many things almost instantly if set up beforehand.
Quote from: Proponent on 06/07/2017 03:33 pmAnd part of the reason the Saturn IB's first stage was tons lighter than the Saturn I's was that the former was never envisioned as a launch vehicle for the winged Dyna-Soar. I'll bet that whatever boosted BOR was built like a battleship.Dyne-Soar had no influence on the design of the Saturn I or IB.
With a time frame that short, the C-1 one must have already been known to be compatible with Dyna-Soar, which is unlikely to have happened by accident.
