Boeing Suggests Possible Manned Version of the X-37B Space Plane 87
garymortimer writes with an article in sUAS News. From the article: "A Boeing chief has suggested that the company's mysterious unmanned space-plane, called X-37B, developed for the US Air Force, could be scaled up and modified to carry astronauts. The company's X-37B project chief Art Grantz revealed that at least two more versions of the 9-meter long space-plane are under investigation – one of which involves adding a crew to a much-enlarged version of the space drone, New Scientist reported. If built, the new version would give the US back its ability to shuttle people to the International Space Station."
Nice one (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:3)
There is no plans to de orbit the ISS yet there is an agreement to keep using it until 2020 but that can be extended.
Re: (Score:2)
However if the Russians don't get soyuz working again soon the ISS will be abandoned 6 weeks from now.
Re: (Score:1)
Considering how much of the cost of the ISS comes from putting the pieces in orbit to begin with, you can be pretty sure that they won't be de-orbiting it until they have to.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering how much of the cost of the ISS comes from putting the pieces in orbit to begin with, you can be pretty sure that they won't be de-orbiting it until they have to.
Or 2020, whichever comes first...
http://www.dailytech.com/International+Space+Station+to+Deorbit+After+2020/article22277.htm [dailytech.com]
-AI
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
They're Russians. If it hadn't been for us whining westerners the Russians would still be getting their money's worth out of the Mir station, simply patching it up as they go.
Re:Nice one (Score:4, Funny)
They're Russians. If it hadn't been for us whining westerners the Russians would still be getting their money's worth out of the Mir station, simply patching it up as they go.
No - because they had to go and use 10 cent pencils instead of 10 grand space pens the electronics were all filled up with graphite dust and sparking up fires every hour or so. Kind of like when the Jupiter 2 would plunge through an asteroid field. Sooner or later you run out of CO2 in the extinguishers.
Re: (Score:3)
NASA bought the pens for under $3 each starting in 1968. The Russians were using exactly the same ink pens in orbit a year later at the same price.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fact-or-fiction-nasa-spen [scientificamerican.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No need for co2. Put on suit, open door.
Re: (Score:2)
so there will be calls for a new space station to give this next generation "shuttle" a reason for existing.
Funny you should mention the OPSEK... built partially out of parts of the ISS. What happens if the russian repo man tries to remove "their" parts of the ISS to install them on the OPSEK and "we" aren't ready to deorbit the ISS? This will be interesting...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPSEK [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
From the link:
According to the Russian manned spaceflight contractor RKK Energia, the new station must be able to perform the following tasks:[3]
Large spacecraft assembly
Flight tests and launches
Creating, servicing and completing inter-orbital tugs
Providing medical and biological conditions required for the rehabilitation of inter-planetary expedition crews after their return to Earth orbit.
In
And they plan to launch it with which... (Score:1)
And they plan to launch it with which man-rated rocket?
Re: (Score:2)
SpaceX diversion (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole point of this ploy is to distract from the much more efficient and low cost SpaceX system.
The primary competency of the United Launch Alliance group is managing government procurement, secrecy regulations, and Congressional politics.
The primary competency of SpaceX is cost-efficient rocket engineering.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
SpaceX doesn't make reusable craft, they make rockets. Yeah, they're working on one but it hasn't been proven yet. They got a mocked up Dragon to fly but they didn't test it with humans yet and they're two years off from trying.
Whereas, Virgin Galactic is funding Burt Rutan and does. However, they have been having trouble replicating their earlier successes. And, in fact, one of the customers who ponied up money to Virgin for a space flight asked for a refund because they've failed to deliver on their promi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
A link to these tests and the results would be nice.
Re: (Score:2)
Soooo I thought what you said was interesting, and I took a look around. The MiG31 is a 1975 design. The 29 was first flown in 1977. The Su series is, near as I can tell, designs based on the Sukhoi Company a major arms (warplane) builder. So saying the "SU series" is kinda dumb, since that includes designs from the 30s.....
Since you didn't bother to qualify any of your statements with anything, short of you providing proof, I'm going to have to label you troll. Nice try tho.
Re: (Score:1)
There is a lot more to combat capability than is reported on "fly-offs", and dogfighting (which is the capability demonstrated in the videos you mention - the ones I saw, anyway) is not the preferred combat regime for any fighter pilot. I greatly prefer sticking a missile up his tailpipe from the longest range possible before he knows I'm even there. For instance, of around 40 confirmed kills by U.S. aircraft in Operation Desert Storm in 1991, 29 were with the obsolete Sparrow radar-guided missile, whose mi
Re: (Score:1)
Never hear of this thing called Google? Excuse the fuck me if I don't have time to show you how to work it. If you can't understand how though what you want is "Red Flag Russian VS F35" and you'll find it. It was done by the AU and UK who are looking into whether to continue support of the F35, and it ain't pretty.
And frankly I don't give a flying crap when their was built, all that means is we have been sucking hind tit for a hell of a lot longer. It was pointed out the latest Su fighter (I believe Su35, not sure of the Su numbering system) is less than 10 years old and has a flyaway of less than 40 million and stomps the living shit out of anything we have.
And I looove how you have the shriveled tiny balls to call someone troll without actually providing proof a single thing they said was wrong. And how about the most important point that space is NOTHING but a vanity project and has been since it was USSR VS USA? Manned space flight into LEO is nothing but a giant fucking money sink, and with THREE wars we simply don't have the money to waste, kay?
I just love how this place has become nothing but a space and FOSSie circlejerk while ignoring there is a good portion of the planet that would like it very much if we were wiped off the face of it. hell no wonder the numbers of this place is tanking and Taco left, the level of suck is getting unreal.
They said the EXACT same thing in Korea... MiG15s and 17s were faster, better climb rate blah blah blah... yet the F-86 won 10-1! We DOMINATED in every way in supposedly inferior craft. If there is on thing the US still gets right, it's projection of air power.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking as someone in the aviation industry...
You're wrong. Not 100%. You're correct that the F-35 is not the future air superiority solution (NOT that it was ever intended to be, that's the F-22). You're wrong that pushing out more older, cheaper aircraft is the solution.
We don't have to worry about our F-35s being outnumbered 50-to-1 by MiGs.
The MiGs have to worry about being outnumbered 100-to-1 by cheap throwaway drones armed with missiles.
That's the future of air combat. Of all combat, really, at this
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You're really thinking about this wrong. A drone doesn't have to go head-to-head with an F15. It just doesn't. It also doesn't matte
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The X-37B is 9 meters long and fits in/on a normal rocket. I'm sure SpaceX, Boeing or ArianeSpace can lift 5 metric tonnes into space on their rockets, to name just a few. Even if a human capable X-37 is larger and doubles in weight, there's no shortage of rockets capable of punting it up there.
It would be a few years in the future in any event and some or all of the above will be regarded as 'safe' for astronauts by then.
Re: (Score:1)
That's fine. A human-rated rocket has to be developed regardless of the approach. This is more about whether it's better to use a cone-shaped capsule with ocean splashdown and recovery (Orion), or a winged ship made for landing on an airstrip like the shuttle and X-37B.
Obligatory (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The first??? (Score:1)
Where have I seen this before? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
We should call it...the plus-wing fighter!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The Zoomy Zappy Space Flyer!
Let's try actually staying in space this time. (Score:1)
All of the time and energy and money spent on this spacecraft and the space station needs to be leveraged to keep man in space to stay. Instead of discarding current platforms before there are viable replacements, lets try to actually use what we have while we have it, instead of throwing it away so we can "afford" a better one.
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of discarding current platforms before there are viable replacements, lets try to actually use what we have while we have it, instead of throwing it away so we can "afford" a better one.
A spacecraft you can't afford to fly is useless. You might as well tow it straight to the museum.
According to an article I read yesterday, this may be more to do with attempting to find a justification for keeping the X-37 program going when no-one seems to know what it's meant to be for. Certainly using it to go to ISS doesn't seem to make sense when you can just fly a SpaceX Dragon there instead and the X-37 suffers from many of the same safety problems as the shuttle; it still has wings that have a marke
Re: (Score:2)
when no-one seems to know what it's meant to be for
Well, no one that doesn't need to know. ;-) From what I've gleaned, I suspect there is a deliverable here to someone.
Re: (Score:2)
The wings weren't a problem for the shuttle. Take a look at all the carbon scoring on the body to realize they only replaced sections that they had to.
No the two main problems with the shuttle was the main engines had to be pulled rebuilt and tested after every flight. The second was the location of the main fuel tank.
The X37B has none of those problems. it sits atop of the main fuel tank, and only has maneuvering thrusters, no main engines that need to be repaired.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The wings weren't a problem for the shuttle.
Both shuttle losses were fundamentally caused by the wings falling off. A capsule could have handled the g-forces imposed on Columbia or Challenger without breaking up, whereas a relatlvely small force was enough to break the wings off of the fuselage (not to mention separate the crew compartment from the payload bay), at which point the crew were doomed. A significant portion of the shuttle ascent trajectory design was based around making sure the wings didn't fall off even in nominal flight.
The X37B has none of those problems. it sits atop of the main fuel tank, and only has maneuvering thrusters, no main engines that need to be repaired.
And the wings
Re: (Score:3)
Both shuttle losses were fundamentally caused by the wings falling off.
Funny thing to say given that neither failed for that reason. The first failed because there was burn through on a solid rocket motor. The second failed because of ice or foam strikes on the leading edge of a wing with no effort made to ascertain whether damage to the wing had occurred. Sure a wing fell off in the second case (but not in the first case!), but it's not the cause of failure.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if I have my rocketry basics right, that's almost inevitable. Getting a reasonable amount of thrust from a rocket engine invariably means subjecting it to strong thermal and mechanical stresses. There aren't currently any materials that can take that much abuse without wearing out fast.
The wings and the fuse and all the rest were indeed a problem with the shuttle, because they amounted
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The wings and the fuse and all the rest were indeed a problem with the shuttle, because they amounted to dead weight and reduced the lifting capacity by quite a bit.
Wrong the body of the shuttle generates lift so it needs less fuel to reach orbit. After the shuttle launches it performs a roll maneuver. More of the engine power is used to achieve orbital velocity and not elevation. The body of the craft creates lift. This increases the amount of mass that the shuttle can send into orbit.
http://stason.org/TULARC/science-engineering/space/53-Why-does-the-shuttle-roll-just-after-liftoff.html
Second on reentry, the wings produce a hole in plasma that can be used to communica
The wings were a problem. (Score:2)
The wings, as designed, were a poor choice.
The shuttle was designed to land at the Van, which is further north then Florida. In order to reach that far north they had to go with a delta wing. This meant that the wings were heaver, the flight path was steeper, and the reentry was faster.
And the shuttle never took off / landed there anyways. Sigh.
Out from behind the curtains? (Score:2)
How likely is it that the Air Force already has this developed and is just bringing this out of the closet?
Re: (Score:2)
How likely is it that the Air Force already has this developed and is just bringing this out of the closet?
Define 'develop'. If you mean "here's the spacecraft, can we launch it" - not very likely.
If you mean "have some people play around with the blueprints and put some acceleration couches in it and type up a bunch of documentation" then, well, you have TFA. What the Air Force would really need is a justification for astronauts. Other than launching a few big Keyhole satellites and some Star Wars type laser tests, there isn't much for a pure AIr Force astronaut to do.
Pure AirForce? Just add hard-points :) (Score:1)
Ok, maybe they have to be internal bays, but surely there's a way we can mount guns/etc. on it!
THEN it's pure AirForce! :)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they could mount weapons in the internal bays, the question is what kind of weapons, I doubt conventional.
One of the big benefits of this platform is that they can launch the twinkie, have the twinkie let loose a short term satellite, and then recover the satellite to bring back home. Excellent for short term surveillance that cannot be predicted.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the military use case for a manned orbiter? Not trying to be snarky, I just really can't think of one.
Re: (Score:2)
Physical access to satellites.
Re: (Score:2)
Physical access to satellites.
Physical access to satellites in low orbit which don't have any kind of defence system and can't be moved out of the way when the other guy sees you heading toward them.
A couple of claymores on the outside of the satellite would probably be enough to kill any approaching astronaut and do enough damage that the spacecraft could no longer re-enter.
Re: (Score:2)
A couple of claymores on the outside of the satellite would probably be enough
I rather doubt claymores are being attached to satellites. Now it is possible they have added some electronics to detect tampering, but even that is doubtful.
Re: (Score:3)
I rather doubt claymores are being attached to satellites.
They will be if the USAF is sending astronauts up to grab them. Almaz had a 23mm cannon and I believe the USSR at least looked at arming their spy satellites when the USAF was talking about using the shuttle to capture them.
Re: (Score:2)
And what would the claymore do to the satellite it's mounted on when it is set off? Hmm...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Physical access to our satellites is a capability we don't have now that would be very nice to have, especially for the pricier models. Tampering with other peoples' satellites isn't a very useful mission - it's an act of war and something you wouldn't be able to hide very easily.
Re: (Score:3)
Tampering with other peoples' satellites isn't a very useful mission - it's an act of war and something you wouldn't be able to hide very easily.
And so it would be a nice capability during a war that's already underway.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
A couple of claymores on the outside of the satellite would probably be enough to kill any approaching astronaut and do enough damage that the spacecraft could no longer re-enter.
Really. [wikipedia.org]
Shinier toy to play with than other mil branches (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
>How likely is it that the Air Force already has this developed and is just bringing this out of the closet?
It is a common plot beginning with the 1969 movie "Marooned" and on through the Bruce Willis movie where him and his guys saved earth from a renegade asteroid. Both (and other movies) used same plot where NASA is in a pickle but the moment was saved because the USAF had a secret spaceship.
In some ways this is not new, Air Force been working on manned space planes before most of you /. were bor
It is possible to man-rate a new vehicle (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I know SpaceX is on the path, but they're a long way from completion.
Is the shuttle man-rated? Because I don't see why SpaceX would have a hard time making the Dragon/Falcon 9 kill the crew less than one time in sixty.
Re: (Score:1)
Is the shuttle man-rated?
Not by the standards given to SpaceX. It doesn't have an excape system.
Not the same as the shuttle. (Score:3)
Good (Score:2)
One of the problems with the Shuttle was that it was conceived of as a "truck", with drivers shuttling cargo. The problem is that you really don't need drivers for cargo; astronauts really ARE just spam-in-a-can, as far as the carrier is concerned.
Trying to carry both humans AND cargo made the design harder (and heavier) than it needed to be. A ship that carries one or the other makes both safer. This works very well for the Russians, who can just park whatever they want on top of a disposable rocket.
Re: (Score:2)
EXACTLY. This is why Falcon/Falcon Heavy/Dragon is an amazing efficient model. Fully reusable, and can be for cargo or humans, you just swap the top out with the rest down being the same (for the most part) lifter.
Re: (Score:2)
This works very well for the Russians, who can just park whatever they want on top of a disposable rocket.
Not necessarily. [pbs.org]
I tend to agree, though. Part of the issue with the Shuttle was that NASA was doing an accounting trick. The idea was that lots of companies want to put up satellites, so NASA would take them up for cheap and drop them off while we're up there. Since the Shuttle is going up anyway, if they can charge some money to defer the cost, that makes manned spaceflight cheaper.
SUSTAIN and commercial? (Score:2)
This could become the SUSTAIN platform the USMC has asked for. Spacedrop a squad of Marines anywhere in the world within 40 minutes. The main question though is whether the crewed X37 will include commercial access or is this military only?
Re: (Score:2)
This could become the SUSTAIN platform the USMC has asked for. Spacedrop a squad of Marines anywhere in the world within 40 minutes. The main question though is whether the crewed X37 will include commercial access or is this military only?
Sure. As long as your missions are limited to places with a 12000 foot runway that happens to be located right next to whatever the squad of Marines was supposed to invade / explode / save.
Re: (Score:2)
I love living in the future.
In Soviet Russia (Score:1)
Space plane go... never come back!
Re: (Score:1)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_(spacecraft) [wikipedia.org]
Is this real or just a FUD announcement? (Score:1)
In Capitalist USA - Soviet Russia launches you! (Score:3)
Would be good to have the USA back in the list of countries capable of launching its own astronauts for sure, the more countries the merrier. Also would be great to see some of the private concerns in the USA successfully launching man-capable spacecraft.
Why scale it up? (Score:1)
Why not just build more of them. If all you want to do is get people into space, you only need pilot plus one. Smaller rockets are easier, though more wasteful. However, a fleet is far more inspiring and will have far greater economies of scale than a handfull of expensive shuttles.
Aim for a launch schedule of one per month. Get to it!