X37B - reusable S2

[BretShooter]

Assuming Boeing overcomes it's current problems (not germaine), why couldn't they serial produce X37C?  The R&D and manufacturing was paid for with profit to spare. Any additional unit would just have the cost of manufacture to amortize vs an insane ammout of R&D costs. Although their space operations don't, they do have the capability to serialize or even mass produce within the company. It would just be a matter of juggling resources.  Without taking SpaceX's Starship into account, could this be a profitable endeavor for Boeing?  What are the actual per flight costs of just the X37, launcher not included given its high cost variability?

[DistantTemple]

Since its a "secret" military project, wouldn't it be quite likely that some of the intellectual property belongs to the Airforce/USGOV, who will not licence it to Boeing whilst they are still continuing the project.
Also it may well be written into the contracts that they specifically do not have permission do build X37's outside of the government's direct instruction. I assume it was traditional cost-plus, with the government owning all the IP, and the vehicles, and perhaps manufacturing and servicing equipment and custom tooling etc.
Some of the project is almost certainly covered by the "official secrets act" (or whatever it is called in the US).
If a non secret version was "at large" and launched and operated in a more open way, then detailed knowledge of its capabilities could more easily be learned by "non-allied states/actors".

However I agree with your sentiment. What a missed opportunity.  Maybe Boeing is just not used to coming up with space-faring ideas that it can progress to testing, without 110% direction and financing!

[brickmack]

Since its a "secret" military project, wouldn't it be quite likely that some of the intellectual property belongs to the Airforce/USGOV, who will not licence it to Boeing whilst they are still continuing the project.
Also it may well be written into the contracts that they specifically do not have permission do build X37's outside of the government's direct instruction. I assume it was traditional cost-plus, with the government owning all the IP, and the vehicles, and perhaps manufacturing and servicing equipment and custom tooling etc.
Some of the project is almost certainly covered by the "official secrets act" (or whatever it is called in the US).
If a non secret version was "at large" and launched and operated in a more open way, then detailed knowledge of its capabilities could more easily be learned by "non-allied states/actors".

Boeing owns at least most of the IP. There were prior concepts for commercial/civil applications and evolutions of the platform

The vehicle's capabilities are well documented, the only mystery is the payload it carries.

[kevinof]

Who would be their customers? Who else would want such a capability (and I exclude other governments as that would be prohibited).

Not sure there's a real market for such a vehicle except perhaps in earth imaging but then we have most of that covered already.

Assuming Boeing overcomes it's current problems (not germaine), why couldn't they serial produce X37C?  The R&D and manufacturing was paid for with profit to spare. Any additional unit would just have the cost of manufacture to amortize vs an insane ammout of R&D costs. Although their space operations don't, they do have the capability to serialize or even mass produce within the company. It would just be a matter of juggling resources.  Without taking SpaceX's Starship into account, could this be a profitable endeavor for Boeing?  What are the actual per flight costs of just the X37, launcher not included given its high cost variability?

[high road]

DragonLab never got anywhere either. Is there anything X37C can do that DragonLab couldn't (or can't)?

There's probably not that much demand for an unmanned orbital platform that they can compete with ISS, which spreads the mission costs over a lot of other things, has humans on hand in a pinch, and there's some extra government funding for individual projects. Even cubesats are still being released from the ISS, rather than straight from a launcher.

[Asteroza]

A bizarre thought is using it as a very low observation platform with a substantial amount of delta-v to allow moving to specific on-demand orbital positions for overhead imagery/SAR, preferably both. Being low means your lifetime is very limited ordinarily, but devoting excessive amounts of mass to propellant, and using a mixed propulsion setup of electric thrusters to counteract air drag and storable propellants for fast movement to new orbital positions, you can overcome some of the limitations. If you can recover the bus/sensors package for relaunch you can amortize some costs.

Though a non-stock configuration would be using some sort of air breathing electric thruster like the recent work by ESA. The catch is how to deploy the beehive air collector forward and keep clear of solar panels and  payload bay, and how to recover the air collector if you aren't ejecting it before reentry.

[ulm_atms]

I always had the idea in the back of my head of loading the biggest telescope possible in it in a different band each year.  Year 1, visible, land get retrofitted, Year 2 IR, land get retrofitted, Year 3, UV, etc...

Imaging sensors are constantly changing and evolving...a reusable Hubble if you will except instead of having to visit it for updates/repairs...it visits you.  Would be a great test bed for next gen space telescopes.  Think JW but you get to test all the pieces before you put it beyond reach...that kind of thing.  Or the GOES weather sensors...they might of uncovered the cooling problem on the test instead of the when the bird is out of serviceable range.

Question...does anyone know the max orbit height it can achieve/work it?  Or max Dv available?  Or how about if you can get it to L2 using the rocket's S2 to do experiments (JW testing again for example ) and then it should have enough Dv to get it back to Earth if it is still fully fueled at L2?

I do think it has a lot of uses for commercial testing or science applications if given the chance.

EDIT:  Actually...it's a reusable S3 

[Redclaws]

I (strongly) suspect it would lack the pointing accuracy required of a serious observatory, though that’s likely correctable with enough investment.

[brickmack]

Who would be their customers? Who else would want such a capability (and I exclude other governments as that would be prohibited).

NASA would be the obvious one (and X-37 started as a NASA program anyway). Variants were proposed for (in increasing order of deviation from the as-flown configuration) unpressurized cargo, pressurized cargo, crew rescue/lifeboat capability, and crew launch capability for ISS. It also could've done freeflight science/tech demo missions (which is what its doing now for USSF anyway)

All of the above could potentially apply commercially too, depending on the price. I don't see a reason to exclude other governments either, since most likely Boeing would retain ownership of the vehicle and just provide datasheets describing physical/data interfaces for requested payloads, same as any other launch vehicle or spacecraft bus.

DragonLab never got anywhere either. Is there anything X37C can do that DragonLab couldn't (or can't)?

There's probably not that much demand for an unmanned orbital platform that they can compete with ISS, which spreads the mission costs over a lot of other things, has humans on hand in a pinch, and there's some extra government funding for individual projects. Even cubesats are still being released from the ISS, rather than straight from a launcher.

DragonLab had very limited unpressurized payload *return* capability (and even its unpressurized upmass was kinda awkward for a science payload, optimized more for cargo delivery). X-37 is also a lot more maneuverable (both propulsively and with that aerodynamic plane change that was confirmed to be in use a few months back). Capsule reentry and splashdown is a lot harder on the experiments being carried than gliding reentry and runway landing, and a runway landing allows faster access to experiments. Being launcher-agnostic could be desirable to NASA for assured access reasons. And I'd expect, assuming the same launch vehicle for both, X-37 should be a lot cheaper to operate. No expendable trunk, no saltwater damage (propulsive landing could have closed this gap, but still)

Dream Chaser has at least one freeflight science mission booked already, and internationally theres a handful of comparable vehicles in development. And Cygnus is doing freeflight science as secondary missions away from ISS, but is limited by lacking return capability

Bigger question IMO is why this never actually happened, it really seems like an obvious development.

[ulm_atms]

I (strongly) suspect it would lack the pointing accuracy required of a serious observatory, though that’s likely correctable with enough investment.

It would only need a 3 axis reaction wheel system just like any space object that needs to point has.

[Jim]

Assuming Boeing overcomes it's current problems (not germaine), why couldn't they serial produce X37C? \

No ROI

[whitelancer64]

Assuming Boeing overcomes it's current problems (not germaine), why couldn't they serial produce X37C?  The R&D and manufacturing was paid for with profit to spare. Any additional unit would just have the cost of manufacture to amortize vs an insane ammout of R&D costs. Although their space operations don't, they do have the capability to serialize or even mass produce within the company. It would just be a matter of juggling resources.  Without taking SpaceX's Starship into account, could this be a profitable endeavor for Boeing?  What are the actual per flight costs of just the X37, launcher not included given its high cost variability?

Scaling things up is not as simple as it sounds. While it might use a lot of the materials, and perhaps some of the components, from the X-37B, an X-37C would be an entirely different structure. It would have to be designed to be human rated. In short, it would require a whole new round of funding for development and testing, and Boeing's not going to do that on its own without an interested customer paying for it.

[high road]

As another data point: Space Tango is not even bothering to look for funding for their planned free flying orbital platform for now. They're perfectly fine using ISS.

https://spacetango.com/st-42/

[Rondaz]

Roscosmos tracks US military orbital drone.

Roscosmos is tracking US military orbiting drone X-37 in space.

22:38 20.11.2021 (updated: 23:28 20.11.2021)

MOSCOW, November 20 - RIA Novosti. Roskosmos knows, sees and tracks the American military orbital drone X-37, Roskomos head Dmitry Rogozin said on Saturday .

"Well, first of all, I must say that we see it all, we know everything, we track everything. I can absolutely tell you that in terms of military space we are definitely not behind anyone," he said on the YouTube channel Soloviev Live ", commenting on the mission of the next US space drone X-37.

Earlier, the Russian side stated that the X-37 orbital drones are capable of carrying several nuclear warheads on board and are space-based strategic strike systems. At the same time, the United States officially claims that the X-37 is intended only for scientific and reconnaissance purposes. These vehicles can maneuver in space by changing their orbit.

According to RIA Novosti sources in the military-industrial complex, the S-550 mobile special missile defense system being developed in Russia will be able to shoot down US X-37 vehicles .

https://ria.ru/20211120/bespilotnik-1760005198.html

[TrevorMonty]

If X37 was carrying nuclear warheads, I very much doubt they'd return them to earth with X37. A reentry failure over USA could result nuclear mess.



Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

[John Santos]

I (strongly) suspect it would lack the pointing accuracy required of a serious observatory, though that’s likely correctable with enough investment.

It would only need a 3 axis reaction wheel system just like any space object that needs to point has.

No.  An observatory requires sub-arcsecond pointing accuracy and very long pointing stability.  This is way beyond the requirements of most space objects.