What is needed to launch X-37B on Falcon 9?

[inventodoc]

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.

[Graham]

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.

And X-37 is not Dyna- Soar

[guckyfan]

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.

A winged vehicle will have very complicated aerodynamics during launch. It gets much easier with a fairing. See Dreamchaser. The cargo version goes under a fairing, too.

Dyna-Soar would have been mannd as the manned version of Dreamchaser because they can not use a fairing and have abort capability.

[Kaputnik]

Would it be correct to assume that once Delta II was slated for retirement, and X-37 moved to Atlas, they suddenly found they had plenty of performance to allow them to put a fairing on and thus no longer have to do lots of aerodynamics modelling?

[Oersted]

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.

[Ictogan]

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.

It saves the hassle of designing a custom adapter and having to account for the different aerodynamics that the LV would have with the X-37B on top without a payload fairing. While it would probably be possible to launch it outside of a payload fairing, that would be the more complicated way to do it.

[deruch]

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??

It might need something beyond (or different from) SpaceX's standard payload fairing doors to allow access during processing post encapsulation.  Especially for payload bay access.   I've no idea what the X-37B needs in this respect, but according to the F9 payload user's guide, SpaceX's fairing only offers limited options as a standard service.  But it doesn't outline what non-standard options are available.

[Flying Beaver]

Bumping as this is now real. Payload mass and fairing size discussed above.

Edit/Lar: Mission specific thread https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43088

[Lar]

Please keep mission specific (like press announcements) to the mission specific thread. Which is linked form the first post in this thread.... Thanks

[Kansan52]

The previous post covered the fairing.

Is the payload adapter that generic? It can handle any payload?

[BobHk]

Ok so SpaceX won a launch of the x37b  todayish

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/06/spacex-launches-us-air-force-x-37b-space-plane.html

Has anyone read the contract?

[Arch Admiral]

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.

[Jim]

I did a search... found no discussion with an answer... 

SO... my question is

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??

Must have miss this thread.   Basically nothing.  Boeing provides an adapter.  The only thing unique, the X-37b needs cooling air blown up its a$$

[zubenelgenubi]

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.

[Jim]

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.

If the payload in the X-37B can take a landing, it can do horizontal integration.

[spacenut]

I thought pad 39A was going to be closed in August to prepare for FH?

[GraniteHound92]

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?

[Thorny]

Wouldn't an Air Force payload have to launch from an Air Force facility? SLC-40 or SLC-4E?

No, several Air Force payloads launched on Shuttle from Complex 39.

[Jim]

Wouldn't an Air Force payload have to launch from an Air Force facility? SLC-40 or SLC-4E?

Those are no longer Air Force facilities.  They are commercial facilities on Air Force property.
Also, NROL-76 already launched from LC-39.

[GClark]

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.

The BORs were launched unshrouded.