Military Space Plane vs. Ares 1...which could be operational first?

[Jonathan]

With the cancellation of Ares1-Y, it looks to be at least
six or eight years before Ares could see a manned flight.
Does it make sense to pursue two different paths to replacing
the shuttle?

I believe that the lack of support for another moon-shot, combined
with the glaring need for lower cost to orbit means this
program is the one that now makes sense.


U.S. Air Force Aims to Launch Space Plane Next Year

"As a reusable space plane, the intent of the craft is to
serve as a testbed for dozens of technologies in airframe,
propulsion and operation, and other items in the hopes
of making space transportation and operations significantly
more affordable. "
http://www.space.com/news/090602-x-37b-space-plane.html


s


Executive Summary
NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY RESEARCH
AND TECHNOLOGY (SERT) PROGRAM
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1

[Brian Gaff]

Well, is this plane capable of sustained orbit? How long is its duration?
Does it enable docking with other vehicles?
I find it hard to believe that , presumably the previous administration did
not at the very least use the resources of Nasa to speed this development if
indeed, it has any relavence to the currunt problem. the obvious way out of
the current situation is to start buying in the Russian technology and
launching Soyuz derived hardware from America.

Other than that, a short extension to Shuttle would cover this and then
maybe some kind of new direction might be needed.

An interesting item in New Scientist last week showed how your previous
President had a high IQ but this was only half the story. it takes some
different abilities to actually be able to overcome predujices we all have
and simply decide on what to do from the merits of the schemes presented.
This is why so many inventors etc, are lousy businessmen!

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Jonathan" > wrote in message
...
> With the cancellation of Ares1-Y, it looks to be at least
> six or eight years before Ares could see a manned flight.
> Does it make sense to pursue two different paths to replacing
> the shuttle?
>
> I believe that the lack of support for another moon-shot, combined
> with the glaring need for lower cost to orbit means this
> program is the one that now makes sense.
>
>
> U.S. Air Force Aims to Launch Space Plane Next Year
>
> "As a reusable space plane, the intent of the craft is to
> serve as a testbed for dozens of technologies in airframe,
> propulsion and operation, and other items in the hopes
> of making space transportation and operations significantly
> more affordable. "
> http://www.space.com/news/090602-x-37b-space-plane.html
>
>
> s
>
>
> Executive Summary
> NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY RESEARCH
> AND TECHNOLOGY (SERT) PROGRAM
> http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1
>
>
>

[Me]

On Nov 11, 9:50*am, (Joseph Nebus) wrote:
means this

>* * * * As, clearly, building a human-carrying spaceplane based on the
> work of a robot spacecraft whose first flight might be sometime next year
> if all goes well that launches on an expendable rocket will be faster and
> cheaper than building a human-carrying capsule spacecraft that launches
> on an expendable rocket. *
>

No, it doesn't.
A. It would have to be a lot larger to carry crew, so no hardware can
be shared
B. This will have a big impact on the launcher, The X-37 in within
the fairing. A larger craft would be in the airstream causing
integration problems
c. The X-37 is missing a lot of crew required systems.

Orion is being delayed by Ares I.

[Me]

On Nov 11, 9:50*am, (Joseph Nebus) wrote:

> >with the glaring need for lower cost to orbit means this
> >program is the one that now makes sense.
>

The X-37 has nothing to do with low cost. It is a spacecraft and not
a launcher

[Pat Flannery]

Me wrote:
> On Nov 11, 9:50 am, (Joseph Nebus) wrote:
> means this
>
>> As, clearly, building a human-carrying spaceplane based on the
>> work of a robot spacecraft whose first flight might be sometime next year
>> if all goes well that launches on an expendable rocket will be faster and
>> cheaper than building a human-carrying capsule spacecraft that launches
>> on an expendable rocket.
>>
>
> No, it doesn't.


I think Mr. Nebus was being satirical.

Pat

[hallerb@aol.com]

On Nov 11, 1:17�pm, Pat Flannery > wrote:
> Me wrote:
> > On Nov 11, 9:50 am, (Joseph Nebus) wrote:
> > means this
>
> >> � � � � As, clearly, building a human-carrying spaceplane based on the
> >> work of a robot spacecraft whose first flight might be sometime next year
> >> if all goes well that launches on an expendable rocket will be faster and
> >> cheaper than building a human-carrying capsule spacecraft that launches
> >> on an expendable rocket. �
>
> > No, it doesn't.
>
> I think Mr. Nebus was being satirical.
>
> Pat

there have been rumors of a earlier air launched space plane.......
vaguely recall it might have been helpful for columbia crew

[Me]

On Nov 11, 9:46*pm, "Jonathan" > wrote:

> I'm talking to a bunch of rubes. (the well-meaning kind)
>
> Post 9/11 does anyone here really believe Bush/Cheney gave a
> crap about NASA except for what it could do for the military
> and national security?
>
> The Pentagon stripped NASA of all the cutting edge launch
> technology, leaving NASA's manned program with nothing more
> than the 'dead-on-arrival' Vision for Space Exploration.
> Which is certain to inspire no funding at all from this administration.
>
> Y'all were screwed, and most of you don't even realize it!
>
> Meanwhile, the Pentagon roles out a shiny new prototype
> no doubt chock full of all the projects that mysteriously were
> 'canceled' after Bush took office. They were all duds
> everyone insists, yet fail to comprehend the military would
> get to cherry pick the best under Bush/Cheney, not settle
> for the crap that won't fly.
>
> Canceled? No, you rubes, it was all transferred to the military
> black budget.


Not true fool. What cutting edge technology? NASA wasn't working
anything that was transferred.

[Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)[_523_]]

"Jonathan" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Post 9/11 does anyone here really believe Bush/Cheney gave a
> crap about NASA except for what it could do for the military
> and national security?

I think Bush gave as much crap about NASA as almost any president. In other
words, very little thought.

>
> The Pentagon stripped NASA of all the cutting edge launch
> technology, leaving NASA's manned program with nothing more
> than the 'dead-on-arrival' Vision for Space Exploration.
> Which is certain to inspire no funding at all from this administration.
>

What technology? Evidence?

[bob haller safety advocate]

On Nov 11, 11:41�pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
> wrote:
> "Jonathan" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > Post 9/11 does anyone here really believe Bush/Cheney gave a
> > crap about NASA except for what it could do for the military
> > and national security?
>
> I think Bush gave as much crap about NASA as almost any president. �In other
> words, very little thought.
>
>
>
> > The Pentagon stripped NASA of all the cutting edge launch
> > technology, leaving NASA's manned program with nothing more
> > than the 'dead-on-arrival' Vision for Space Exploration.
> > Which is certain to inspire no funding at all from this administration.
>
> What technology? �Evidence?

bush was the worst president in a 100 years. he mucked up anything he
touched.

hey just think what the 2 wars costs could of done in space??? sad
isnt it.

[John[_3_]]

Snipped text:

" you (sic) ability to build rockets isn't much better."

As contrasted to whom?

Have we made mistakes? Oh Yeah!
Have we made misjudgements? Oh Yeah!

But who has accomplished more? Russia and the U.S. have both had many
things go wrong with their respective space programs. But whom else
would you cite as better in terms of proven performance over a broad
scope of spaceflight related activities? Yes, there are other centers
of excellence throughout the world, especially in Europe, China,
Japan, and India. But in a broad long term view, history does not
support the contention that there is a lack of ability to build viable
spacecraft.

As to a lack of political wisdom or business acumen, that is another
discussion.

[Jonathan]

"John" > wrote in message
...
> Snipped text:
>
> " you (sic) ability to build rockets isn't much better."
>
> As contrasted to whom?


The Pentagon.

At least, we'll find that out once the X-37b is launched.
The Stick was a result of a head long rush to spend an unpopular
program into existence. The idea was to get as far along as possible
so the new Congress will have to continue the program due to
the amount of money already spent. The problems of the
Ares launch scream 'rush-job'.

The Pentagon black budget doesn't have those kind of
political pressures.

>
> As to a lack of political wisdom or business acumen, that is another
> discussion.
>


But politics are crucial for a long term program that has to survive
succeeding administrations. The goal has to be worthy enough to be
supported by both sides of the aisle, and the American people.

Going back to the Moon never had that kind of support from day one.
With the inevitable results being a half-assed program at best, to a
complete waste of time and money in the worst. We are very
close to the worst case, months away in my opinion.

But in the same time NASA has built Ares1-X, it appears the
Pentagon has built a far more advanced mini-shuttle.
Much larger, more expensive, single use, single purpose launchers
like the Saturn V-like Ares heavy and Apollo-like Orion capsules
are not the future.

Spaceports and small reusable single stage to orbit space-planes
are the future in my opinion. And it's the Pentagon, not NASA, that's
forging ahead with that better path, from all appearances.

I'm starting to believe transferring the entire manned space program
to the military is the best way to go.

s






>

[BradGuth]

On Nov 10, 4:41*pm, "Jonathan" > wrote:
> With the cancellation of Ares1-Y, it looks to be at least
> six or eight years before Ares could see a manned flight.
> Does it make sense to pursue two different paths to replacing
> the shuttle?
>
> I believe that the lack of support for another moon-shot, combined
> with the glaring need for lower cost to orbit means this
> program is the one that now makes sense.
>
> U.S. Air Force Aims to Launch Space Plane Next Year
>
> "As a reusable space plane, the intent of the craft is to
> serve as a testbed for dozens of technologies in airframe,
> propulsion and operation, and other items in the hopes
> of making space transportation and operations significantly
> more affordable. "http://www.space.com/news/090602-x-37b-space-plane.html
>
> s
>
> Executive Summary
> NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY RESEARCH
> AND TECHNOLOGY (SERT) PROGRAMhttp://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1

A 10x larger "Space Plane" seems like a good idea.

~ BG

[Jonathan]

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" > wrote in message
m...
> "Jonathan" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> Post 9/11 does anyone here really believe Bush/Cheney gave a
>> crap about NASA except for what it could do for the military
>> and national security?
>
> I think Bush gave as much crap about NASA as almost any president. In other
> words, very little thought.
>
>>
>> The Pentagon stripped NASA of all the cutting edge launch
>> technology, leaving NASA's manned program with nothing more
>> than the 'dead-on-arrival' Vision for Space Exploration.
>> Which is certain to inspire no funding at all from this administration.
>>
>
> What technology? Evidence?
>
>


Mum's the Word for NASA's Secret
Space Plane X-37B
Thursday, October 22, 2009

"But in a brief burst of light eking from the new era of government
transparency, I did score this comment from NASA.While the program
is now under the U.S. Air Force, NASA is looking forward to receiving
data from the advanced technology work."

"NASA has a long history of involvement with the X-37 program. We continue
to monitor and share information on technology developments," said Gary Wentz,
chief engineer Science and Missions Systems Office at the NASA Marshall
Space Flight Center. "We are looking forward to a successful first flight and
to receiving data from some advanced technologies of interest to us, such as
thermal protection systems, guidance, navigation and control, and materials
for autonomous re-entry and landing."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,569143,00.html

X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
January 4th, 2006 by Chris Bergin

"Then the hammer blow, as despite the project now appearing to be back
on track, with the move towards testing of the new LH2 tank, the much-
respected former NASA director Ivan Bekey appeared in front of the
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science, at
the US House of Representatives. His testimony on April 11, 2001, on
NASA's FY2001 budget request 'Aero-Space Technology Enterprise,'
proved to be the final blow for the X-33 VentureStar.

His address to US lawmakers stressed that the X-33 had to continue
with composite tanks, thus making the project doomed to failure.
X-33 workers were said to be stunned by the comments of Bekey -
No part of the X-33 technology will play a role in NASA's architecture
being developed for the return to the Moon, Each time the Air Force made
requests to take the X-33 project as their own, they found the opportunity
denied at the highest level of US government.

Even when armed with Lacefield's final comments on the X-33, comments
which gave full support to the Al-Li, added to by support from NASA
Stennis on the engines, the Air Force - now trying to have their own
VentureStar flying by 2012 - found the door of the White House firmly
closed shut on any possibility of resurrecting the project.

........X-33 canceled April 2001
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2006/01/x-33venturestar-what-really-happened/


Whatever Happened to NASA's X-34?

"The X-34 was built as a flying testbed to demonstrate technology for future
low-cost reusable launch vehicles. Orbital got as far as captive-carry tests
on the L-1011 before the

..........X-34 was cancelled in ...2001"
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/graham-warwick/2008/02/whatever-happened-tonasas-x34-1.html


NASA Postpones Next Phase of Space Launch Initiative
By Brian Berger
Space News Staff Writer
posted: 10:40 am ET
22 October 2002

"NASA is rethinking whether it wants to continue with the $4.8 billion SLI
program as currently planned. A comprehensive review of NASA's space
transportation needs is underway. At the same time, the space agency is still
pursuing close cooperation with the U.S. Defense Department on reusable
launcher technologies. How that relationship unfolds -- assuming that it does
-- could have a further impact on NASA's plans to develop a new launcher."
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/sli_postpone_021022.html


What happened to the X-43?

And how does the X-43 figure in NASA's plan for the future???
Or is the military making use of that research in the X-37b?
http://search.nasa.gov/search/search.jsp?nasaInclude=x-43&x=39&y=12


"A Failure of National Leadership": Why No Replacement for the Space Shuttle?

John M. Logsdon


"...the NASA FY 2001budget also contained a new Space Launch Initiative.
This effort was to provide some $4.8 billion over five years to conduct studies
and technology development to identify the most promising path to replacing
the Space Shuttle and meeting other launch requirements. The hope was that
this effort could provide the basis for a 2006 decision on what type of Shuttle
replacement to develop, with a target date of 2012 for its initial launch.

The Space Launch Initiative was also short-lived. By the end of 2002, White
House and top-level NASA optimism that it would provide the hoped-for
basis for deciding to develop a second-generation, advanced-technology
replacement for the Space Shuttle had evaporated. In November 2002, NASA
announced that it was terminating the Space Launch Initiative and reallocating
its funding to a new Integrated Space Transportation Plan. According to this
plan, the Shuttle's life would be extended so that it could fly until 2020, and
potentially to 2030.

The Root Causes of the Failure to Develop a Shuttle Replacement

There can be no one explanation for why this complex chain of developments has
taken place. But certainly it is possible to suggest some of the fundamental
reasons forthe lack of a Shuttle replacement more than 30 years after the
original commitment to the Space Shuttle program.

W. D. Kay, in his book Can Democracies Fly in Space, suggests that the "space
program's failures, like its earlier successes, have multiple causes, all of
them ultimately traceable to the way the American political process operates."
Space policy is "a political outcome, a product of the discussion, debates,
competition, and compromises that attend all public issues."

The people of the United States and their government have been willing, over
the past 35 years, to continue a human spaceflight program, but only at a
level of funding that has forced it to constantly operate on the edge of
viability. The lack of a replacement for the Space Shuttle is a symptom
of this larger reality. In this context, the assertion that the lack of a
Shuttle replacement is a "failure of national leadership" is the logical result
of the halfhearted U.S. commitment to human spaceflight. If there is a
"failure," then, it is the failure to reconcile the reality of limited support
with this country's continuing commitment to sending people into space.

Kay ends his book with the question, "Can democracies fly in space?"
His answer to this question is another question: "How badly do they want to?"
What will be argued below is that the answer to this second question is
"not very badly."
http://www.gwu.edu/~spi/assets/docs/Critical_Issues_Paper.pdf


Like I've said a hundred times, unless we find a reason for dramatically
increased public support, nothing is going to change. Space Solar Power
ties NASA to perhaps two of the globes greatest future anxieties.
Climate change and fossil fuels. It provides a goal which can transcend
politics, can generate wide public support and give NASA a new reason
for being. Without that, nothing is going to change.

We must STOP letting the budgets determine our space future.

We must START imagining the future we want, and find a way
for NASA to give us that future. Then, the money will flow
like water. As it did for Apollo.

The Goal is the Thing! It must be as perfect, as tested and well
designed as any of the hardware. Else, garbage in, garbage out.
There is no one on this planet that would not benefit from a new
clean and abundant energy source. There is no one on this planet
that wouldn't benefit from a solution to climate change.
Whether the perspective is from environmental concerns, economic
or military reasons.

From patriotism to idealism, it's all there.

Space Solar Power Program
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1


Hearing on the FY2001 NASA Budget Request: Aerospace
Technology Enterprise
Tuesday, April 11, 2:00pm

Testimony of Mr. Ivan Bekey
President, Bekey Designs, Inc.

"I am quite familiar with advanced space transportation, having spent 19 years
at NASA Headquarters from 1978 to 1997, including 6 years as Director of
Advanced Programs in the Office of Space Flight."

"The X-33 program is absolutely critical to development of a 2nd generation RLV,
and reducing launch costs to about 1,000 $/lb. It was the direct result of the
"Access to Space" program's recommendations, which included a ground technology
program and an experimental flight demonstration vehicle whose purpose would be
to test all the new technologies working together in a flight environment."
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=1421

[Derek Lyons]

"Jonathan" > wrote:

>But politics are crucial for a long term program that has to survive
>succeeding administrations. The goal has to be worthy enough to be
>supported by both sides of the aisle, and the American people.
>
>Going back to the Moon never had that kind of support from day one.

No, it didn't.

>But in the same time NASA has built Ares1-X, it appears the
>Pentagon has built a far more advanced mini-shuttle.

It only appears so to those who do not hobble themselves with
troublesome things like facts, or reality.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

[Pat Flannery]

Derek Lyons wrote:
>
>> But in the same time NASA has built Ares1-X, it appears the
>> Pentagon has built a far more advanced mini-shuttle.
>
> It only appears so to those who do not hobble themselves with
> troublesome things like facts, or reality.

Is this supposed to refer to the hypothetical "Black Star" TSTO vehicle,
or the seemingly pointless X-37B vehicle, which will be launched on a
Atlas V in January?
I never have been able to figure out what exact benefits the X-37B is
supposed to give the Air Force; One of the few missions it could perform
where it needs return a payload to Earth at the end of the mission is
rapid sortie photo-reconnaissance over a area of interest, and it's
fairly small to carry a really high-resolution camera aboard it.
Unless, God help us, they really are going to try and do the "Hot Eagle"
concept and send in the Space Marines aboard it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SUSTAIN_(military)
A concept that has "Operation Market Garden II" written all over it, as
the surrounded squad of Space Marines wait for the V-22 Osprey to arrive
to haul their ass out of the hot zone, not realizing that it is once
again grounded with mechanical problems.

Pat

[Me]

On Nov 12, 10:01*pm, "Jonathan" > wrote:

>
> But in the same time NASA has built Ares1-X, it appears the
> Pentagon has built a far more advanced mini-shuttle.

> Spaceports and small reusable single stage to orbit space-planes
> are the future in my opinion. And it's the Pentagon, not NASA, that's
> forging ahead with that better path, from all appearances.

No, it is not more advanced and yes it is only appearances. Also it
is not a manned spacecraft

[Jonathan]

"Pat Flannery" > wrote in message
...
> Derek Lyons wrote:
>>
>>> But in the same time NASA has built Ares1-X, it appears the
>>> Pentagon has built a far more advanced mini-shuttle.
>>
>> It only appears so to those who do not hobble themselves with
>> troublesome things like facts, or reality.
>
> Is this supposed to refer to the hypothetical "Black Star" TSTO vehicle, or
> the seemingly pointless X-37B vehicle, which will be launched on a Atlas V in
> January?
> I never have been able to figure out what exact benefits the X-37B is supposed
> to give the Air Force; One of the few missions it could perform where it needs
> return a payload to Earth at the end of the mission is rapid sortie
> photo-reconnaissance over a area of interest, and it's fairly small to carry a
> really high-resolution camera aboard it.
> Unless, God help us, they really are going to try and do the "Hot Eagle"
> concept and send in the Space Marines aboard it:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SUSTAIN_(military)
> A concept that has "Operation Market Garden II" written all over it, as the
> surrounded squad of Space Marines wait for the V-22 Osprey to arrive to haul
> their ass out of the hot zone, not realizing that it is once again grounded
> with mechanical problems.


Maybe it's me, but it seems rather straight forward that the idea
is to lower cost to orbit with a reusable spacecraft. Which would
enable the military, and civilian sector, to do whatever they
pleased in the future due to the lower costs.

Why would anyone think the X-37B is in it's final form, or scale?
All of the others X planes were scale versions. From what I can gather
it seems pretty clear the military has cherry-picked the successful
technologies from the various other 'canceled' projects, the X-33,
X-34 and X-43, and have run with them with the X-37B.

The next space war will be won by the side that can replace
their space assets, taken out on 'day one', the fastest.

And the space planes won't be carrying laser-clad starship troopers
off to do battle in some distant tenth-century village.
But to help repopulate low earth orbit with all the clever little
military inventions needed to regain the high ground after
a first strike.

There are now obviously two different tracks being pursued
to replace the shuttle. The Stick/Ares Heavy vs X-37b.

Does anyone really think the Saturn V approach will become
the ultimate long term shuttle replacement? The approach
which best suits the military will win this race, and it's obviously
something like the X-37B.


>
> Pat

[Me]

On Nov 14, 4:13*pm, "Jonathan" > wrote:

> Does anyone really think the Saturn V approach will become
> the ultimate long term shuttle replacement? The approach
> which best suits the military will win this race, and it's obviously
> something like the X-37B.
>

X-37B is not a launch vehicle. Anyways, the Saturn V approach was not
a shuttle replacement.

[Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)[_529_]]

"Jonathan" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
> Maybe it's me, but it seems rather straight forward that the idea
> is to lower cost to orbit with a reusable spacecraft. Which would
> enable the military, and civilian sector, to do whatever they
> pleased in the future due to the lower costs.
>
> Why would anyone think the X-37B is in it's final form, or scale?
> All of the others X planes were scale versions.

Umm, no they weren't. Most where in fact the only version.

> From what I can gather
> it seems pretty clear the military has cherry-picked the successful
> technologies from the various other 'canceled' projects, the X-33,
> X-34 and X-43, and have run with them with the X-37B.
>
> The next space war will be won by the side that can replace
> their space assets, taken out on 'day one', the fastest.

There's nothing new there. We've known that for a few decades.

--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

[Jochem Huhmann]

Pat Flannery > writes:

> I never have been able to figure out what exact benefits the X-37B is
> supposed to give the Air Force; One of the few missions it could perform
> where it needs return a payload to Earth at the end of the mission is
> rapid sortie photo-reconnaissance over a area of interest, and it's
> fairly small to carry a really high-resolution camera aboard it.

I have been looking for that mission when the X37-B launch were
announced back then (it has been delayed more than once yet) and ended
up with two options: One, they have a clear idea for that and I was
totally unable to even guess at it. Two, they have no idea either.

The only even remotely possible reason would be to return things found
in orbit. Is there something up there they want to grab and return? It
would've to be something fairly small or a small part of something
larger, mind you.

"Rapid sortie photo-reconnaissance" launched on an Atlas V sounds a bit
crazy, if you ask me. There *must* be simpler and cheaper and more rapid
ways to do that.

Or they have some reusable black launcher in the works.


Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[Me]

On Nov 15, 4:33*pm, Jochem Huhmann > wrote:

1. > The only even remotely possible reason would be to return things
found
> in orbit. Is there something up there they want to grab and return? It
> would've to be something fairly small or a small part of something
> larger, mind you.
>

2. > Or they have some reusable black launcher in the works.

1. Nope. no rendezvous capability

2. nope

[Jochem Huhmann]

Me > writes:

> On Nov 15, 4:33Â*pm, Jochem Huhmann > wrote:
>
> 1. > The only even remotely possible reason would be to return things
> found
>> in orbit. Is there something up there they want to grab and return? It
>> would've to be something fairly small or a small part of something
>> larger, mind you.
>>
>
> 2. > Or they have some reusable black launcher in the works.
>
> 1. Nope. no rendezvous capability
>
> 2. nope

Well, then it looks they have no mission for that thing...

Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[Pat Flannery]

Jochem Huhmann wrote:
> I have been looking for that mission when the X37-B launch were
> announced back then (it has been delayed more than once yet) and ended
> up with two options: One, they have a clear idea for that and I was
> totally unable to even guess at it. Two, they have no idea either.
>
> The only even remotely possible reason would be to return things found
> in orbit. Is there something up there they want to grab and return? It
> would've to be something fairly small or a small part of something
> larger, mind you.

One option would be that it refuels and replenishes reconsats, as well
as possibly boosting their orbits.
This speculated it is a space bomber: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3077821/
And the Boeing artwork of one with a RV riding over either inner wing
would suggest that's the case also:
http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/1125000/1125932.standard.jpg
But you would need a large number of them in orbit to get one within
range of the intended target at the time you wanted to hit it due to
orbital mechanics.
Also, since the X-37 is intended for a 270 day mission, what exactly do
you do with the RVs when the vehicle heads home for refurbishment and
relaunch?
In this other piece of artwork, the X-37 is shown with a solar array
deployed and something cylindrical down in the cargo bay:
http://space.skyrocket.de/index_frame.htm?http://www.skyrocket.de/space/doc_sdat/x-37.htm
But it doesn't look like a camera...ASAT weapon?
You could carry a nuclear warhead inside the cargo bay and have the
vehicle land at the end of its mission with that aboard, but that would
be a direct violation of the Treaty Of Outer Space, and a pretty
treacherous step to take as it could then be used as a first strike weapon.
Still, this thing is a holdover from the second Bush administration, so
who knows? They tossed the ABM Treaty, so maybe the TOOS was on the
chopping block also?



>
> "Rapid sortie photo-reconnaissance" launched on an Atlas V sounds a bit
> crazy, if you ask me. There *must* be simpler and cheaper and more rapid
> ways to do that.
>
> Or they have some reusable black launcher in the works.


Since the X-37B doesn't seem to have much acceleration ability on its
own given its internal propellant tankage, such a launcher would have to
be able to get it up to around 80% orbital velocity to work.

Pat

[Pat Flannery]

Me wrote:

> 1. Nope. no rendezvous capability


We don't know that; the rendezvous antennas could deploy from inside the
cargo bay, and it does have RCS and maneuvering engines:
http://a52.g.akamaitech.net/f/52/827/1d/www.space.com/images/h_x37_schematic_02.jpg

Pat

[Me]

On Nov 12, 10:01*pm, "Jonathan" > wrote:

> I'm starting to believe transferring the entire manned space program
> to the military is the best way to go.
>


Whose says they can do better? Their management of space systems is
even worse

[Me]

On Nov 15, 7:47*pm, Pat Flannery > wrote:
> Me wrote:
> > 1. *Nope. *no rendezvous capability
>
> We don't know that; the rendezvous antennas could deploy from inside the
> cargo bay, and it does have RCS and maneuvering engines:http://a52.g.akamaitech.net/f/52/827/1d/www.space.com/images/h_x37_sc...
>
> Pat

Yes, I do. Also, doesn't have the proper placement of thrusters for
rendezvous/docking.

[Jochem Huhmann]

Me > writes:

> On Nov 15, 7:47Â*pm, Pat Flannery > wrote:
>> Me wrote:
>> > 1. Â*Nope. Â*no rendezvous capability
>>
>> We don't know that; the rendezvous antennas could deploy from inside the
>> cargo bay, and it does have RCS and maneuvering engines:http://a52.g.akamaitech.net/f/52/827/1d/www.space.com/images/h_x37_sc...
>>
>> Pat
>
> Yes, I do. Also, doesn't have the proper placement of thrusters for
> rendezvous/docking.

OK, what's the thing for then? The USAF has been talking about
space-testing (and returning) components, which sounds somewhat reasonable
in itself (especially when you've got components you can't just mount to
the outside of the ISS for obvious reasons). But even this sounds
somewhat like an excuse.


Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[Jorge R. Frank]

Jochem Huhmann wrote:
> Me > writes:
>
>> On Nov 15, 7:47 pm, Pat Flannery > wrote:
>>> Me wrote:
>>>> 1. Nope. no rendezvous capability
>>> We don't know that; the rendezvous antennas could deploy from inside the
>>> cargo bay, and it does have RCS and maneuvering engines:http://a52.g.akamaitech.net/f/52/827/1d/www.space.com/images/h_x37_sc...
>>>
>>> Pat
>> Yes, I do. Also, doesn't have the proper placement of thrusters for
>> rendezvous/docking.
>
> OK, what's the thing for then? The USAF has been talking about
> space-testing (and returning) components, which sounds somewhat reasonable
> in itself (especially when you've got components you can't just mount to
> the outside of the ISS for obvious reasons). But even this sounds
> somewhat like an excuse.

Consider the possibility that the "X" in the vehicle name really is
accurate: it's an experimental vehicle, not directly a prototype for a
particular operational vehicle (which would have a "Y" prefix).

[Pat Flannery]

Jorge R. Frank wrote:
> Consider the possibility that the "X" in the vehicle name really is
> accurate: it's an experimental vehicle, not directly a prototype for a
> particular operational vehicle (which would have a "Y" prefix).

A lot of the other military X-planes that have been recently made are
prototypes for operational weapons systems.
What makes X-37B interesting is that originally NASA was supposed to
have some use for this spacecraft also in the X-37A version.
Here's some more info on it:
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/x-37.html

Pat

[Jonathan]

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" > wrote in message
m...
> "Jonathan" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe it's me, but it seems rather straight forward that the idea
>> is to lower cost to orbit with a reusable spacecraft. Which would
>> enable the military, and civilian sector, to do whatever they
>> pleased in the future due to the lower costs.
>>
>> Why would anyone think the X-37B is in it's final form, or scale?
>> All of the others X planes were scale versions.
>
> Umm, no they weren't. Most where in fact the only version.

I've done my homework. They were all testbeds, not prototypes.
There's no reason to believe the X-37B is any different.We can't
assume the final form will be manned or unmanned,

The Lockheed Martin X-33 was an unmanned, sub-scale technology
demonstrator for the VentureStar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-33

The X-43 is an unmanned experimental hypersonic aircraft design
with multiple planned scale variations meant to test different aspects
of hypersonic flight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-43

The unpiloted X-40 was built to 85 percent scale to test aero
dynamics and navigation of the X-37
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-40

The Orbital Sciences X-34 was intended as a low-cost testbed to
demonstrate "key technologies" integratable to the Reusable Launch
Vehicle program.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_Sciences_X-34

The Boeing X-37 Advanced Technology Demonstrator is a demonstration
spaceplane that is intended to test future launch technologies while
in orbit and during atmospheric reentry. It is a reusable robotic
spacecraft that is a 120%-scaled derivative of the X-40A.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-37B


My point is that the assumption around here is that all these
attempts were failures, got canceled, and that's the end of
the low cost reusable story. I say, and it seems rather
obvious, that instead, the various technologies which /were/
successful are in the process of creating the latest attempt.
The X-37B. All these programs just didn't get ****-canned.
The best of it went to the Pentagon black budget and
low cost reusable technology is not just alive and well, but
quickly catching up...imho.


>> From what I can gather
>> it seems pretty clear the military has cherry-picked the successful
>> technologies from the various other 'canceled' projects, the X-33,
>> X-34 and X-43, and have run with them with the X-37B.
>>
>> The next space war will be won by the side that can replace
>> their space assets, taken out on 'day one', the fastest.
>
> There's nothing new there. We've known that for a few decades.


But my point is that our tactics are in the process of changing.
The Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) program started in
2003 or so, and marks the shift away from the large nuclear war
hardened satellites, to the small easily replaceable micro satellites
they wish to begin building. Not having large military assets in
space translates to ... not needing....men in space in the future.

My point....and I wish people here would actually try to discuss
the point, not just holler "you're full of ****". I mean once in a
while it would be nice to have an adult conversation around here.
My point, is that the X-37 B looks quite suitable for that kind
of military tactics. While The Stick and Heavy would be exactly
the opposite of what the military could use.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/076oeyqy.asp


All these things also point to a quick demise of the notion of returning to
the Moon.



>
> --
> Greg Moore
> Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.
>

[Rick Jones[_3_]]

In sci.space.history Jochem Huhmann > wrote:
> Well, then it looks they have no mission for that thing...

It is going to deliver the mumified corpse of Curtis LeMay into orbit
:)

rick jones
--
Process shall set you free from the need for rational thought.
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

[Jonathan]

"Pat Flannery" > wrote in message
dakotatelephone...
> Me wrote:
>
>> 1. Nope. no rendezvous capability
>
>
> We don't know that; the rendezvous antennas could deploy from inside the cargo
> bay, and it does have RCS and maneuvering engines:
> http://a52.g.akamaitech.net/f/52/827/1d/www.space.com/images/h_x37_schematic_02.jpg


A statement from the Secretary of the Air Force, states the OTV program
will focus on "risk reduction, experimentation, and operational concept
development for reusable space vehicle technologies, in support of long
term developmental space objectives. The X-37B effort will be led
by the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-37B


RAPID CAPABILITIES OFFICE


Mission

"The Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office expedites development and fielding
of select Department of Defense combat support and weapon systems by
leveraging defense-wide technology development efforts and existing
operational capabilities. The Board of Directors tasks the office directly
to address needs that involve mission applications and operational concepts
requiring specialized expertise, and involve sensitive activities managed
by other government agencies. The office also conducts projects on
accelerated timelines."
http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=3466


Notice the two important statements, that this office deals with
higly secret military systems which need to be ...QUICKLY....
developed.

Strongly reinforcing my conclusion the X-37B will win the
race to replace the shuttle.



s





>
> Pat

[Derek Lyons]

"Jonathan" > wrote:

>My point....and I wish people here would actually try to discuss
>the point, not just holler "you're full of ****".

We've tried to do so - but you insist on ignoring any discussions
which don't agree with your preconceived notions and routinely discard
facts inconvenient to your thesis. (That is, on the extraordinarily
rare occasions when you do confine yourself to the facts rather than
treating assumptions as facts.)

Which is why we keep hollering that you are "full of ****" - because
you have repeatedly demonstrated the truth of that proposition.

>I mean once in a while it would be nice to have an adult conversation
>around here.

You have no clue what constitutes an adult conversation. You wouldn't
recognize one if it smacked you in the face.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

[Derek Lyons]

"Jonathan" > wrote:

>RAPID CAPABILITIES OFFICE
>
>
>Mission
>
>"The Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office expedites development and fielding
>of select Department of Defense combat support and weapon systems by
>leveraging defense-wide technology development efforts and existing
>operational capabilities. The Board of Directors tasks the office directly
>to address needs that involve mission applications and operational concepts
>requiring specialized expertise, and involve sensitive activities managed
>by other government agencies. The office also conducts projects on
>accelerated timelines."
>http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=3466
>
>
>Notice the two important statements, that this office deals with
>higly secret military systems which need to be ...QUICKLY....
>developed.

Notice that the above says neither 'quickly' nor 'highly secret'.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

[Me]

On Nov 16, 8:21*pm, "Jonathan" > wrote:

> My point is that the assumption around here is that all these
> attempts were failures, got canceled, and that's the end of
> the low cost reusable story. *I say, and it seems rather
> obvious, that instead, the various technologies which /were/
> successful are in the process of creating the latest attempt.
> The X-37B. *All these programs just didn't get ****-canned.
> The best of it went to the Pentagon black budget and
> low cost reusable technology is not just alive and well, but
> quickly catching up...imho.

Wrong.


A. The projects were canceled They did not go in the black budget.

B. the X-37 is old. It is not consolidation of the best of the
canceled projects. It is just an existing test bed.

[Me]

On Nov 16, 8:21*pm, "Jonathan" > wrote:

> My point....and I wish people here would actually try to discuss
> the point, not just holler *"you're full of ****". I mean once in a
> while it would be nice to have an adult conversation around here.
> My point, is that the X-37 B looks quite suitable for that kind
> of military tactics.

Then listen. NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!m, you are wrong.

And the X-37 B is not suitable for the ORS.
A. It is not a launch vehicle, it is a spacecraft
B. It takes just as long as any other spacecraft to prepare
c. It flies on an EELV, this is not "Operationally Responsive"
D.

[Me]

On Nov 16, 8:36*pm, "Jonathan" > wrote:

>
> Notice the two important statements, that this office deals with
> higly secret military systems which need to be ...QUICKLY....
> developed.
>
> Strongly reinforcing my conclusion the X-37B will win the
> race to replace the shuttle.

No again.

A. The Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office is not highly secret
B. Again. The X-37B is not a launch vehicle, it is a spacecraft
B. This is not a shuttle replacement. The shuttle replacements were
the Titan IV, Delta II, Atlas II, Atlas V and Delta IV

[Jonathan]

"Derek Lyons" > wrote in message
...
> "Jonathan" > wrote:
>
>>My point....and I wish people here would actually try to discuss
>>the point, not just holler "you're full of ****".
>
> We've tried to do so - but you insist on ignoring any discussions
> which don't agree with your preconceived notions and routinely discard
> facts inconvenient to your thesis. (That is, on the extraordinarily
> rare occasions when you do confine yourself to the facts rather than
> treating assumptions as facts.)
>
> Which is why we keep hollering that you are "full of ****" - because
> you have repeatedly demonstrated the truth of that proposition.
>
>>I mean once in a while it would be nice to have an adult conversation
>>around here.
>
> You have no clue what constitutes an adult conversation. You wouldn't
> recognize one if it smacked you in the face.


You're so full of ****~


>
> D.
> --
> Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
>
> http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
>
> -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
> Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

[Jonathan]

"Me" > wrote in message
...
On Nov 12, 10:01 pm, "Jonathan" > wrote:

> I'm starting to believe transferring the entire manned space program
> to the military is the best way to go.
>


> Whose says they can do better? Their management of space systems is
> even worse


It just doesn't appear this administration is going to fund two tracks
for replacing the shuttle. Combine that with the rear-ward looking
"Vision" for space exploration returning to Apollo on steroids, and
I think the military has chosen the better long term path. Lower cost
reusable space planes. I wish NASA was running with it, but it appears
the last White House decided to take it out of the political process.
I'm starting to think that might be a good idea. In the black budget
there are few people looking over their shoulder.

NASA needs to stop trying to build the next generation of launchers, and
instead come up with a govt paid cargo that would jump start the commercial
launch industry. Considering how far robotic systems have come, it's becoming
harder to justify a civilian manned program anymore.

This could not only be the cargo that ushers in the commercial space age, but
also just might....Save the World. Unless NASA starts working to regain
public support with a worthy goal, a goal that widely inspires, nothing is
going to change. More half-assed programs from half-assed budgets.

Executive Summary
NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY RESEARCH
AND TECHNOLOGY (SERT) PROGRAM
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1

[Me]

On Nov 17, 8:24*pm, "Jonathan" > wrote:
> "Me" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Nov 12, 10:01 pm, "Jonathan" > wrote:
>
> > I'm starting to believe transferring the entire manned space program
> > to the military is the best way to go.
>
> > Whose says they can do better? *Their management of space systems is
> > even worse
>
> It just doesn't appear this administration is going to fund two tracks
> for replacing the shuttle. Combine that with the rear-ward looking
> "Vision" for space exploration returning to Apollo on steroids, and
> I think the military has chosen the better long term path. Lower cost
> reusable space planes. I wish NASA was running with it, but it appears
> the last White House decided to take it out of the political process.
> I'm starting to think that might be a good idea. In the black budget
> there are few people looking over their shoulder.

Can you read, fool?

There is no program to replace the shuttle with an RLV, the military
has the EELV's
Again. X-37 is not a launcher
Again, there is no black program and if the military were going to do
it, it would not be black,

[Jonathan]

"Derek Lyons" > wrote in message
...
> "Jonathan" > wrote:
>
>>RAPID CAPABILITIES OFFICE
>>
>>
>>Mission
>>
>>"The Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office expedites development and fielding
>>of select Department of Defense combat support and weapon systems by
>>leveraging defense-wide technology development efforts and existing
>>operational capabilities. The Board of Directors tasks the office directly
>>to address needs that involve mission applications and operational concepts
>>requiring specialized expertise, and involve sensitive activities managed
>>by other government agencies. The office also conducts projects on
>>accelerated timelines."
>>http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=3466
>>
>>
>>Notice the two important statements, that this office deals with
>>higly secret military systems which need to be ...QUICKLY....
>>developed.
>
> Notice that the above says neither 'quickly' nor 'highly secret'.


Now I know why you lose every single debate with me, you
can't read. The above statement explains what this office does.
I quote, it "expedites development and fielding...". Can you
comprehend that statement? And the other is and I quote
"sensitive activities". Is the meaning of that also outside
your comprehension?

Come back when you've learned to read at no less than
a jr high level. Responses like this make it hard to take
you seriously.





>
> D.
> --
> Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
>
> http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
>
> -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
> Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

[Jonathan]

"Me" > wrote in message
...


> This is not a shuttle replacement.


And one of those boosters below with a 'next-gen'
X-37 on top can't become the shuttle replacement?
And maybe that will be the better choice than
The Ares Stick and Heavy? I

> The shuttle replacements were
> the Titan IV, Delta II, Atlas II, Atlas V and Delta IV

[Rick Jones[_3_]]

In sci.space.history Jonathan > wrote:
> And one of those boosters below with a 'next-gen'
> X-37 on top can't become the shuttle replacement?
> And maybe that will be the better choice than
> The Ares Stick and Heavy? I

No worse (although I'm not certain) than saying one could convert a
V-1 to manned flight from the unmanned version. Sure, it was done, it
didn't necessarily work all that well as a manned craft as the
precursor wasn't designed with that in mind. Or perhaps Regulus (sp)
would be a better example? One *could* conceivably see the Tomahawk
as a prototype for a small manned jet. The world is full of
possibilities, the set of probabilities is far smaller.

rick jones
can != may != should
--
Process shall set you free from the need for rational thought.
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

[Me]

On Nov 18, 6:40*pm, "Jonathan" > wrote:
> "Me" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> *> This is not a shuttle replacement.
>
> And one of those boosters below with a 'next-gen'
> X-37 on top can't become the shuttle replacement?
> And maybe that will be the better choice than
> The Ares Stick and Heavy? I
>
> > *The shuttle replacements were
> > the Titan IV, Delta II, Atlas II, Atlas V and Delta IV

No, that defeats the purpose. the X-37 just gets in the way.
Payloads don't need the X-37.
As for Orion, which can fly without the Stick,it can fly on EELV's.
X-37 is not for lunar flights or beyond

[Derek Lyons]

"Jonathan" > wrote:
>
>"Me" > wrote in message
...
>
> > This is not a shuttle replacement.
>
>
>And one of those boosters below with a 'next-gen'
>X-37 on top can't become the shuttle replacement?

Nope. They can become the next crew transport, but none of those
boosters have sufficient payload capability to carry a reusable
spacecraft with significant cargo capacity.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

[Derek Lyons]

"Jonathan" > wrote:

>
>"Derek Lyons" > wrote in message
...
>> "Jonathan" > wrote:
>>
>>>RAPID CAPABILITIES OFFICE
>>>
>>>
>>>Mission
>>>
>>>"The Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office expedites development and fielding
>>>of select Department of Defense combat support and weapon systems by
>>>leveraging defense-wide technology development efforts and existing
>>>operational capabilities. The Board of Directors tasks the office directly
>>>to address needs that involve mission applications and operational concepts
>>>requiring specialized expertise, and involve sensitive activities managed
>>>by other government agencies. The office also conducts projects on
>>>accelerated timelines."
>>>http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=3466
>>>
>>>
>>>Notice the two important statements, that this office deals with
>>>higly secret military systems which need to be ...QUICKLY....
>>>developed.
>>
>> Notice that the above says neither 'quickly' nor 'highly secret'.
>
>
>Now I know why you lose every single debate with me,

Given that I haven't lost one yet, I fail to see how you can reach
that conclusion.

>you can't read.

On the contrary, I *can* read.

>The above statement explains what this office does. I quote, it
>"expedites development and fielding...". Can you comprehend that
>statement?

Yes I can. In military buzzword parlance, "expedite" means (among
other things) "without the normal burdens of paperwork, oversight, and
review that slow down projects in hopes of actually speeding up the
project". It does not have the civilian meaning of "quickly".

>And the other is and I quote "sensitive activities". Is the meaning
>of that also outside your comprehension?

Nope, that statement is trivially understood - once you grasp that
"sensitive" != "classified". "Sensitive" has a wide variety of
meanings, including "classified", but also "mission critical", "time
critical", etc... etc...

Only in Hollywood and bad technothrillers does "sensitive" invariable
mean "highly classified".

>Come back when you've learned to read at no less than
>a jr high level. Responses like this make it hard to take
>you seriously.

ROTFLMAO.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

[Pat Flannery]

Derek Lyons wrote:
> Nope. They can become the next crew transport, but none of those
> boosters have sufficient payload capability to carry a reusable
> spacecraft with significant cargo capacity.

Although I'm still at a loss about what exactly the USAF X-37B is
supposed to do, the NASA X-37A variant would have been very useful for
automated microgravity manufacture and return of the things manufactured
to Earth - vaccines, new alloys, microspheres, etc.
There could be a real opening for a profitable commercial venture based
on a vehicle like this, particularly if it could be launched by a
economical booster.

Pat

[Pat Flannery]

Rick Jones wrote:
> One *could* conceivably see the Tomahawk
> as a prototype for a small manned jet.

Gonna take a really tiny pilot... ;-)

Pat

[Rick Jones[_3_]]

In sci.space.history Pat Flannery > wrote:
> Rick Jones wrote:
> > One *could* conceivably see the Tomahawk as a prototype for a
> > small manned jet.

> Gonna take a really tiny pilot... ;-)

Instead of announcing the arrival, Tatoo could be flying zee plane :)

rick jones
--
The computing industry isn't as much a game of "Follow The Leader" as
it is one of "Ring Around the Rosy" or perhaps "Duck Duck Goose."
- Rick Jones
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

[Pat Flannery]

Rick Jones wrote:
>> Gonna take a really tiny pilot... ;-)
>
> Instead of announcing the arrival, Tatoo could be flying zee plane :)

The manned cruise missile that would have been really wild to fly was
the proposed manned version of the Soviet "Buran" Mach 3 rocket boosted
intercontinental ramjet.
Myasishchev intended to use that in somewhat the same manner that the US
did the X-15.
I don't know if this was a serious North American proposal or just
Strombecker models screwing around, but a manned interceptor based on
the Navaho missile is fairly nifty also:
http://fantastic-plastic.com/ITCF-108RAPIERPAGE.htm
The F-108 design they finally settled on didn't ride on the back of a
booster rocket, but they did propose launching a X-15 on a Navaho
booster: http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/g26x15.jpg

Pat

[BradGuth]

On Nov 10, 4:41*pm, "Jonathan" > wrote:
> With the cancellation of Ares1-Y, it looks to be at least
> six or eight years before Ares could see a manned flight.
> Does it make sense to pursue two different paths to replacing
> the shuttle?
>
> I believe that the lack of support for another moon-shot, combined
> with the glaring need for lower cost to orbit means this
> program is the one that now makes sense.
>
> U.S. Air Force Aims to Launch Space Plane Next Year
>
> "As a reusable space plane, the intent of the craft is to
> serve as a testbed for dozens of technologies in airframe,
> propulsion and operation, and other items in the hopes
> of making space transportation and operations significantly
> more affordable. "http://www.space.com/news/090602-x-37b-space-plane.html
>
> s
>
> Executive Summary
> NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY RESEARCH
> AND TECHNOLOGY (SERT) PROGRAMhttp://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1

S PS is terrific. However, what's a really good interplanetary
shuttle (half again or twice the volumetric size) with a nuclear
energy package and those multiple MW ion thrusters, going to cost us?

With a sufficient cache of onboard energy or solar derived energy,
most any fuel or substance can be utilized for ion thrusting,
especially nifty and extremely dense as well as already charged up and
ready to zip out the exhaust would be radon(Rn222) as obtained from a
few kg<tonne of radium that could otherwise utilized.

~ BG

[Jeff Findley]

"Pat Flannery" > wrote in message
dakotatelephone...
> I don't know if this was a serious North American proposal or just
> Strombecker models screwing around, but a manned interceptor based on the
> Navaho missile is fairly nifty also:
> http://fantastic-plastic.com/ITCF-108RAPIERPAGE.htm

Have you ever seen the Japanese Animated series Stratos 4? Reminds me of
the TSR-2MS aircraft in that show, but the F-108 Rapier looks much more
impressive with its much larger booster rocket.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratos_4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stratos4_ZELL_Pressure_Suits.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0e/Stratos4_TSR-2MS_flight_profile.png

For some strange reason, if you do a Google image search for Stratos 4, you
find a lot of pictures from the show, but very few that show the aircraft
used in the series. Strange, but true. :-)

> The F-108 design they finally settled on didn't ride on the back of a
> booster rocket, but they did propose launching a X-15 on a Navaho booster:
> http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/g26x15.jpg

That would have been one heck of a ride.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon

[Pat Flannery]

Jeff Findley wrote:
>
>> The F-108 design they finally settled on didn't ride on the back of a
>> booster rocket, but they did propose launching a X-15 on a Navaho booster:
>> http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/g26x15.jpg
>
> That would have been one heck of a ride.

We never got Stratos 4 here in N.D.
We discussed the Navaho/X-15 a few years back here on the newsgroup, and
some people thought the booster acceleration would overstress the X-15
and cause it to break up during ascent.
That wasn't the only Navaho/X-15 concept by a long shot:
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/x15b.htm
For off-the-wall crazy, how about giant Navy expendable nuclear armed
bombers with X-3 Stilettos riding atop them?:
http://xplanes.tumblr.com/post/192801526/the-douglas-1186-a-long-range-supersonic-nuclear
The thought of something that had as high of a landing speed as the X-3
(200 mph) trying to do a carrier landing is hilarious.


Pat

[BradGuth]

On Nov 10, 4:41*pm, "Jonathan" > wrote:
> With the cancellation of Ares1-Y, it looks to be at least
> six or eight years before Ares could see a manned flight.
> Does it make sense to pursue two different paths to replacing
> the shuttle?
>
> I believe that the lack of support for another moon-shot, combined
> with the glaring need for lower cost to orbit means this
> program is the one that now makes sense.
>
> U.S. Air Force Aims to Launch Space Plane Next Year
>
> "As a reusable space plane, the intent of the craft is to
> serve as a testbed for dozens of technologies in airframe,
> propulsion and operation, and other items in the hopes
> of making space transportation and operations significantly
> more affordable. "http://www.space.com/news/090602-x-37b-space-plane.html
>
> s
>
> Executive Summary
> NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY RESEARCH
> AND TECHNOLOGY (SERT) PROGRAMhttp://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1

What's a really good interplanetary shuttle (half again or twice the
volumetric size of the existing shuttle), and its 100 tonne payload
capacity that’s also packing a nuclear reactor (actually as being
pulled or pushed by as an external reactor/thruster module that would
otherwise remain in LEO) with those multiple MW ion thrusters, going
to cost us?

With a sufficient cache of onboard or external energy (reactor or
possibly solar derived), most any fuel or substance can be utilized
for ion thrusting, especially nifty and extremely dense as well as
already charged up and ready to zip out the exhaust would be radon
(Rn222), as obtained from a few kg<tonne of radium that could
otherwise be utilized as is within the reactor.

Btw; our moon should have loads of radium.

~ BG

[David E. Powell]

On Nov 22, 10:44*am, BradGuth > wrote:
> On Nov 10, 4:41*pm, "Jonathan" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > With the cancellation of Ares1-Y, it looks to be at least
> > six or eight years before Ares could see a manned flight.
> > Does it make sense to pursue two different paths to replacing
> > the shuttle?
>
> > I believe that the lack of support for another moon-shot, combined
> > with the glaring need for lower cost to orbit means this
> > program is the one that now makes sense.
>
> > U.S. Air Force Aims to Launch Space Plane Next Year
>
> > "As a reusable space plane, the intent of the craft is to
> > serve as a testbed for dozens of technologies in airframe,
> > propulsion and operation, and other items in the hopes
> > of making space transportation and operations significantly
> > more affordable. "http://www.space.com/news/090602-x-37b-space-plane.html
>
> > s
>
> > Executive Summary
> > NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY RESEARCH
> > AND TECHNOLOGY (SERT) PROGRAMhttp://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1
>
> What's a really good interplanetary shuttle (half again or twice the
> volumetric size of the existing shuttle), and its 100 tonne payload
> capacity that’s also packing a nuclear reactor (actually as being
> pulled or pushed by as an external reactor/thruster module that would
> otherwise remain in LEO) with those multiple MW ion thrusters, going
> to cost us?
>
> With a sufficient cache of onboard or external energy (reactor or
> possibly solar derived), most any fuel or substance can be utilized
> for ion thrusting, especially nifty and extremely dense as well as
> already charged up and ready to zip out the exhaust would be radon
> (Rn222), as obtained from a few kg<tonne of radium that could
> otherwise be utilized as is within the reactor.
>
> Btw; *our moon should have loads of radium.
>
> *~ BG

I would love to see that. Flash Gordon tech comes true!