More wood butchery ' X-37

madcow rocketry
SilicdyneTRF
rocket sok
The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
The X-37 is probably way too small for manned flight. The wing span is only 15 feet. In practice the Air Force would probably want to keep a shroud on the X-37, so that the bad guys would not know that a spy satellite is being launched to immediately spy on their country on the very first pass.

Bob
 
aerostadt said:
The X-37 is probably way too small for manned flight. The wing span is only 15 feet. In practice the Air Force would probably want to keep a shroud on the X-37, so that the bad guys would not know that a spy satellite is being launched to immediately spy on their country on the very first pass.

Bob
Click to expand...

Really?
Space Ship One has a wingspan of only 16 feet yet it carried the weight of three guys into suborbital space at Mach 3....higher than the X-15.

So...is the wingspan necessarily the limiting factor...?

My conjecture was merely wishful thinking, given we are about to end the Space Shuttle program and have few prospects for manned space flight in the near term, except as fare paying passengers in Russian spacecraft.

There was an article about this thing carrying spec ops troops ...I found it funny but then began to think about it...and as you mentioned - this thing is small, true.

Powderburner made several points...there appears to be no obvious man rated provision in this design....and the UAV mission precludes the need for pilots or passengers anyway....they would be merely redundant...

(reminds me of the argument between the German NASA guy and the seven Mercury astronauts in The Right Stuff: ..."Window? ...you don't understand, THIS IS the final version!")
"And we want a hatch ..with explosive bolts...!"

Ahhh we've come a long way.
 
Last edited:
Ok...I found one of the references to possible manned flight using this thing..all merely conjecture of various readers about how this thing could be used...(not that it makes any sense but it was amusing)....

"I saw an article with associated diagrams for a low altitude space vehicle capable of rapidly deploying troops anywhere in the world. Instead of the 18-20 hours it takes to typically fly troops somewhere, load a team of 10-12 into this vehicle and fire them off."


"May be more to the image then you might think as Pentagon plans ‘spaceplane’ to reach hotspots fast as a troop carrier
The American military is planning a "spaceplane" designed to fly a crack squad of heavily armed marines to trouble spots anywhere in the world within four hours.

"At a recent secret meeting at the Pentagon, engineers working on the craft, codenamed Hot Eagle, were told to draw up blueprints for a prototype which generals want to have in the air within 11 years.

Pentagon planners have been encouraged by technical breakthroughs from Burt Rutan, chief designer on Sir Richard Branson’s White Knight spaceship, which is due to begin test flights next year and to carry tourists on suborbital journeys from 2010.

The two-stage Hot Eagle would be launched from an aircraft carrier. A large booster rocket would carry a smaller spacecraft containing 13 "space troopers" 50 miles into space, far above hostile radar, before landing in enemy territory."


My immediate reaction:
aliens-hudson.jpg



Oh yeah.......Sandman:
I'm Sorry.
 
Last edited:
ONAWHIM said:
Sandman,

I assume the X-37 prototype is shaped to create lift on glide path, how does the lift factor on initial boost flight?

It would seem to me that the X plane would pull the forward end over to one side and screw up trajectory.

Would this happen on a model as well?



Wm.
Click to expand...


That's a big part of the reason it's being launched inside a payload shroud...

From what I've read on nasaspaceflight.com/forums the same thing applies to ANY winged vehicle mounted on top of the launching rocket. The lift from the wings/body creates bad bending loads on the structure and really screws up the guidance system of the rocket, since the rocket has to essentially "fly sideways" to counteract the lift forces of the wings. Sort of like an unstable model rocket with fins on the nosecone. Put the wings inside a payload fairing so they're out of the slipstream, and those effects go away.

Shuttle is mounted on the side, and "down low" so the effects are manageable. Shuttle also "flies sideways" anyway due to the SSME's being "off to the side" on the back of the orbiter instead of underneath the tank so it's not as much of a problem anyway...

Later! OL JR :)
 
powderburner said:
Probably not into the X-37, maybe into the X-40 but it would be more work than it is worth.

I don't think the Atlas V is man-rated, I don't think the Centaur is man-rated, I don't think the X-37, the X-40, the payload fairing, or any other part of the launch vehicle has provisions for ejecting a crew; no escape hatch, no structural provisions, no pad-abort systems designed or planned, or much sign of anything else you would need for crew support. You might could put a capsule of some sort into the payload bay on the X-40 but I doubt you could find any volunteers to ride in such a cramped little space for any amount of time, whether or not there were suitable emergency provisions for the crew. And there don't appear to be any windows, so it would be a boring ride.

You have to understand that the whole point of designing these vehicles to operate remotely is to NOT have a crew, or the operating limitations that a crew would add.
Click to expand...


All true... also no provisions for crew-- no cabin, pressure vessel, controls, environmental control life support systems (ECLSS), no escape provisions, no launch pad capable of allowing manned entry, etc. etc. etc.

OF course if all those things WERE provided for, then it would CERTAINLY be possible. BUT such an involved process would essentially mean that it's an all-new vehicle (with appropriate ground support infrastructure like the tower, etc) and not the vehicle being discussed here... Of course you'd also have to address all the problems that Powderburner brought up as well...

By that time you'd have duplicated a Dreamchaser... :)

Later! OL JR :)
 
MaxQ said:
Really?
Space Ship One has a wingspan of only 16 feet yet it carried the weight of three guys into suborbital space at Mach 3....higher than the X-15.

So...is the wingspan necessarily the limiting factor...?

My conjecture was merely wishful thinking, given we are about to end the Space Shuttle program and have few prospects for manned space flight in the near term, except as fare paying passengers in Russian spacecraft.

There was an article about this thing carrying spec ops troops ...I found it funny but then began to think about it...and as you mentioned - this thing is small, true, but so was SS 1.

Powderburner made several points...there appears to be no obvious man rated provision in this design....and the UAV mission precludes the need for pilots or passengers anyway....they would be merely redundant...

(reminds me of the argument between the German NASA guy and the seven Mercury astronauts in The Right Stuff: ..."Window? ...you don't understand, THIS IS the final version!")
"And we want a hatch ..with explosive bolts...!"

Ahhh we've come a long way.
Click to expand...

No but the interior volume along with the things Powderburner and I mentioned before ARE. The stuff about "flying special-ops troops" sounds more like wishful thinking type stuff than any REAL possible capability, for all the reasons previously mentioned... plus, WHY would you use such a craft for such a purpose-- you wouldn't be able to recover it from hostile territory, or provide a means of escape for your troops inside it-- it can't lift off again after it touches down without being recovered by "support forces" and refurbished for rocket launch again. If you have those support forces standing by, why not simply use their conventional aircraft capabilities to insert your special ops troops instead... and landing this thing in hostile territory would be delivering some of our top technological capabilities right into the hands of an obvious enemy (or else we wouldn't be landing special ops troops there would we??) Some these types of ideas are SO asinine...

The comparisons with SSI are completely apples/oranges. SSI was STRICTLY a ballistic manned vehicle designed to carry three people to the 69 mile "edge of space" limit and repeat the feat using the same vehicle within a certain period of time. The designers chose to use a glide recovery vehicle to do that, and came up with the novel idea of "feathering" the wings for "shuttlecock recovery" to minimize reentry heating and negate the need for a heatshield. The X-37B on the other hand is an unmanned orbital vehicle designed to be launched INTO ORBIT by rocket (Mach 25 instead of Mach 3-- BIG difference!) and is equipped with a heat shield to reenter the atmosphere and glide to a landing on a runway like a space shuttle, but under remote control/computer control. The missions are COMPLETELY different and the VEHICLES are completely different.

Now, there ARE plans for such vehicles as shuttle successors... but they're all on the back burner or were cancelled. See the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_Space_Plane

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_Chaser_(spacecraft)

https://www.space.com/missionlaunches/051123_spacedev_dreamchaser.html

https://www.spacedev.com/spacedev_advanced_systems.php

If Obama's new "plan" works as advertised, then MAYBE some of these proposals will "see the light of day" at some point in the not-too distant future...

Later! OL JR :)
 
luke strawwalker said:
The comparisons with SSI are completely apples/oranges. SSI was STRICTLY a ballistic manned vehicle designed to carry three people to the 69 mile "edge of space" limit and repeat the feat using the same vehicle within a certain period of time. The designers chose to use a glide recovery vehicle to do that, and came up with the novel idea of "feathering" the wings for "shuttlecock recovery" to minimize reentry heating and negate the need for a heatshield. The X-37B on the other hand is an unmanned orbital vehicle designed to be launched INTO ORBIT by rocket (Mach 25 instead of Mach 3-- BIG difference!) and is equipped with a heat shield to reenter the atmosphere and glide to a landing on a runway like a space shuttle, but under remote control/computer control. The missions are COMPLETELY different and the VEHICLES are completely different.

:)
Click to expand...
I didn't intend to compare the two vehicles as "apples to apples"....
I only mentioned SS-1 for this reason alone: just to illustrate the point that I didn't think the 15 foot wingspan of the X-37 - in and of itself - precluded carrying men into space....as was implied in the other post by the person earlier in the conversation, we were talking about wing span as the determinant of the vehicle caring men into space (not how the SS-1 was like the X-37) - clearly they (Scaled Composites - the SS-1) got there (space), albeit "technically".
I know Rutan is quite a ways from going "tier two" into orbital space, but he intends on trying to get to orbit. And he won't be doing it with the same vehicle, that's for sure. Why?...because they ARE different missions as you said. BTW: The X-15 didn't go into orbit either, but men did go into "space" on the X-15's short stubby wings, so the wingspan argument is not really the defining issue for getting men into space, I think you'd have to agree. Clearly, and solely for the sake of discussion...wings themselves aren't even a prerequisite for manned space flight let alone "wingspan" ........wouldn't you agree?


Yep, I saw "Black Sky"...several times.
Watched it again last night.
(I liked the part where Burt Rutan sends his people out to get some of those nice door handles from junked vans to use on the hatch. That itself indicates how far from a NASA project SS-1 is by comparison.
I also enjoyed seeing some of our high power rocketry community, Derek Deville and Kory Kline, in the show, in the part where the two companies (EAC and Space Dev) vied to get the contract for the SS-1 rocket motor contract....I didn't realize Jim Benson of Space Dev - "Dreamchaser" had died since then...very sad). Anyway....

Thanks for the dissertation...I don't disagree at all with what you said.
And thanks for posting a reply, the more the merrier....


PS. Point of information here...the "edge of space limit" is generally accepted as 60 miles not 69 miles (the Kármán line lies at an altitude of 100 km - 60 miles). The Ansari X prize used this as the reference altitude for the award. The second flight by B. Binnie did hit 69 miles to break the X-15 record
 
Last edited:
MaxQ said:
I didn't intend to compare the two vehicles as "apples to apples"....
I only mentioned SS-1 for this reason alone: just to illustrate the point that I didn't think the 15 foot wingspan of the X-37 - in and of itself - precluded carrying men into space....as was implied in the other post by the person earlier in the conversation, we were talking about wing span as the determinant of the vehicle caring men into space (not how the SS-1 was like the X-37) - clearly they (Scaled Composites - the SS-1) got there (space), albeit "technically".
I know Rutan is quite a ways from going "tier two" into orbital space, but he intends on trying to get to orbit. And he won't be doing it with the same vehicle, that's for sure. Why?...because they ARE different missions as you said. BTW: The X-15 didn't go into orbit either, but men did go into "space" on the X-15's short stubby wings, so the wingspan argument is not really the defining issue for getting men into space, I think you'd have to agree. Clearly, and solely for the sake of discussion...wings themselves aren't even a prerequisite for manned space flight let alone "wingspan" ........wouldn't you agree?


Yep, I saw "Black Sky"...several times.
Watched it again last night.
(I liked the part where Burt Rutan sends his people out to get some of those nice door handles from junked vans to use on the hatch. That itself indicates how far from a NASA project SS-1 is by comparison.
I also enjoyed seeing some of our high power rocketry community, Derek Deville and Kory Kline, in the show, in the part where the two companies (EAC and Space Dev) vied to get the contract for the SS-1 rocket motor contract....I didn't realize Jim Benson of Space Dev - "Dreamchaser" had died since then...very sad). Anyway....

Thanks for the dissertation...I don't disagree at all with what you said.
And thanks for posting a reply, the more the merrier....
Click to expand...

Sorry, didn't mean to imply something you didn't mean... just seemed you were equating the two in the post I responded to, and lots of folks don't realize there are such vast differences in the mission profiles and requirements.

It'll be interesting to see how Rutan deals with the TPS issues, that's for sure! I'll bet it'll be highly innovative and very interesting at the very least!

No, wingspan alone is no true determinant of the crew carrying capability of a vehicle, aside from the overall size of said vehicle and how much equipment you can cram in there and still have enough physical room for a crewman (or number thereof). True lifting bodies prove the point there... (NO wingspan LOL:)

Anyway, it's an interesting discussion. If we had built something like the X-37B to be a manned vehicle from the start (OSP anyone?) we'd be in the final testing phases right now... Sad how many opportunities have been missed...

Later! OL JR :)
 
luke strawwalker said:
Sorry, didn't mean to imply something you didn't mean... just seemed you were equating the two in the post I responded to, and lots of folks don't realize there are such vast differences in the mission profiles and requirements.

It'll be interesting to see how Rutan deals with the TPS issues, that's for sure! I'll bet it'll be highly innovative and very interesting at the very least!

No, wingspan alone is no true determinant of the crew carrying capability of a vehicle, aside from the overall size of said vehicle and how much equipment you can cram in there and still have enough physical room for a crewman (or number thereof). True lifting bodies prove the point there... (NO wingspan LOL:)

Anyway, it's an interesting discussion. If we had built something like the X-37B to be a manned vehicle from the start (OSP anyone?) we'd be in the final testing phases right now... Sad how many opportunities have been missed...

Later! OL JR :)
Click to expand...

Don't go anywhere OL JR...this is the only stimulating conversation I've had today. LOL : )
 
Nice launch,

We followed it on ULA webcast until
about T+30sec, then moseyed out to
front yard to watch it live...

Not as fancy as the shuttle launches and the
trajectory seemed to be towards east giving
us only a short glimpse of it...

Not bad from across state...
 
I'm sure that the Shuttle orbiter is mounted to the ET at or close to it's zero lift angle. (nose down attitude) I'm sure the engineers take into account the fuel that would be wasted using thrust to counteract those moments.
 

Similar threads

BigMacDaddy
Fireball XL5 [Inspired] BT-80 Scale (3D Printed Parts, Plywood Fins, Cardboard Body Tubes)
Replies
16
Views
2K
techrat
techrat
BigMacDaddy
F-18 Super Hornet (3D Printed Parts + Plywood Wings/Fins + BT-60/BT-55 tubes)
Replies
11
Views
383
cwbullet
cwbullet
SavageBezerker
X-Ray 4X Upscale Project
Replies
0
Views
255
SavageBezerker
SavageBezerker
c0c0m0ke
3D Printing Exploring 3D printing, questions
Replies
8
Views
259
Azimath
A
cbrarick
Help me bring back the American Elm!
Replies
10
Views
502
cbrarick
cbrarick

Latest posts

Back
Top