|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Boeing proposes X-37B for ISS cargo/crew operations
Boeing proposes X-37B for ISS cargo/crew operations http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/...abilities-iss- missions/ The article isn't clear why NASA appears to have dismissed this Boeing proposal, which was made shortly after the first successful test flight of X-37B. Of course, you have to be a paying customer to see the original Boeing presentation on "L2". Jeff -- "the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Boeing proposes X-37B for ISS cargo/crew operations
On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 08:49:29 -0400, Jeff Findley
wrote: Boeing proposes X-37B for ISS cargo/crew operations http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/...abilities-iss- missions/ The article isn't clear why NASA appears to have dismissed this Boeing proposal, Because it isn't needed. NASA is already funding Dragon and Cygnus for cargo, and Boeing's official offer to NASA for commercial crew is the CST-100. If Boeing was serious about X-37B, why did it not go that route for Commercial Crew? Instead, it dusted off its old OSP proposal and used that. Brian |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Boeing proposes X-37B for ISS cargo/crew operations
In article , bthorn64
@suddenlink.net says... On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 08:49:29 -0400, Jeff Findley wrote: Boeing proposes X-37B for ISS cargo/crew operations http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/...abilities-iss- missions/ The article isn't clear why NASA appears to have dismissed this Boeing proposal, Because it isn't needed. NASA is already funding Dragon and Cygnus for cargo, and Boeing's official offer to NASA for commercial crew is the CST-100. If Boeing was serious about X-37B, why did it not go that route for Commercial Crew? Instead, it dusted off its old OSP proposal and used that. Sounds like a case of the corporate left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. Either that or they thought they'd appeal to the desire of some within NASA to have manned spacecraft which land on runways instead of under parachutes, because "everyone" knows that an "operational" spacecraft lands on runways instead of splashing down in the ocean. Thanks, Jeff -- "the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Boeing proposes X-37B for ISS cargo/crew operations
Jeff Findley writes:
Boeing proposes X-37B for ISS cargo/crew operations http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/...abilities-iss- missions/ The article isn't clear why NASA appears to have dismissed this Boeing proposal, which was made shortly after the first successful test flight of X-37B. Of course, you have to be a paying customer to see the original Boeing presentation on "L2". I think one major reason for writing this off would be that you need an Atlas V to launch it in the first place. This is not cheap. At all. The ability to get back the payload container (for a very small payload compared to what you have to launch) is rather meaningless then. 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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Boeing proposes X-37B for ISS cargo/crew operations
On Mar 15, 6:07*pm, Jochem Huhmann wrote:
Jeff Findley writes: Boeing proposes X-37B for ISS cargo/crew operations http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/...abilities-iss- missions/ The article isn't clear why NASA appears to have dismissed this Boeing proposal, which was made shortly after the first successful test flight of X-37B. *Of course, you have to be a paying customer to see the original Boeing presentation on "L2". I think one major reason for writing this off would be that you need an Atlas V to launch it in the first place. This is not cheap. At all. The ability to get back the payload container (for a very small payload compared to what you have to launch) is rather meaningless then. * * * * 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 theres a proposed larger version of the x- 37b |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Boeing proposes X-37B for ISS cargo/crew operations
On 3/23/2013 7:25 PM, Anonymous wrote:
Most importantly, I'm convinced that no winged space plane will ever be safe since an explosion of the booster rocket will almost certainly rip the wings and / or tails off the mini-shuttle, making a safe RTLS unlikely. Umm, the USAF wasn't as convinced as you seem to be. The X-20 DynaSoar program mounted a winged vehicle atop a Titan III. The risk of exploding booster is easier to manage when the vehicle is at the top of the stack instead of on the side. Don't draw too many conclusions from the old shuttle design... Dave |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Boeing proposes X-37B for ISS cargo/crew operations
In article , nospam@
127.0.0.1 says... On 3/23/2013 7:25 PM, Anonymous wrote: Most importantly, I'm convinced that no winged space plane will ever be safe since an explosion of the booster rocket will almost certainly rip the wings and / or tails off the mini-shuttle, making a safe RTLS unlikely. Umm, the USAF wasn't as convinced as you seem to be. The X-20 DynaSoar program mounted a winged vehicle atop a Titan III. The risk of exploding booster is easier to manage when the vehicle is at the top of the stack instead of on the side. Don't draw too many conclusions from the old shuttle design... But as NASA found out with Ares I, it's not as easy as they'd like it to be. Case rupture of a large solid, resulting in a debris cloud of relatively large, relatively dense, relatively hot pieces of solid propellant, is an issue to be dealt with most carefully. Jeff -- "the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Boeing proposes X-37B for ISS cargo/crew operations
On Mar 25, 3:33*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article , nospam@ 127.0.0.1 says... On 3/23/2013 7:25 PM, Anonymous wrote: Most importantly, I'm convinced that no winged space plane will ever be safe since an explosion of the booster rocket will almost certainly rip the wings and / or tails off the mini-shuttle, making a safe RTLS unlikely. Umm, the USAF wasn't as convinced as you seem to be. The X-20 DynaSoar program mounted a winged vehicle atop a Titan III. The risk of exploding booster is easier to manage when the vehicle is at the top of the stack instead of on the side. Don't draw too many conclusions from the old shuttle design... But as NASA found out with Ares I, it's not as easy as they'd like it to be. *Case rupture of a large solid, resulting in a debris cloud of relatively large, relatively dense, relatively hot pieces of solid propellant, is an issue to be dealt with most carefully. Jeff -- "the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer the ares problem was excess vibration which could of killed the crew by liquifying some of their body parts like their liver and spleen.... launching humans on solids is just plain dumb.. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Boeing proposes X-37B for ISS cargo/crew operations
Dave Spain wrote: Umm, the USAF wasn't as convinced as you seem to be. The X-20 DynaSoar program mounted a winged vehicle atop a Titan III On 3/25/2013 3:33 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:.. But as NASA found out with Ares I, it's not as easy as they'd like it to be. Case rupture of a large solid, resulting in a debris cloud of relatively large, relatively dense, relatively hot pieces of solid propellant, is an issue to be dealt with most carefully. Interestingly enough, it was again a USAF study that pointed out that risk. For Ares I this was a significant problem because it required that the Orion capsule return through that field with a recovery system that relies on nylon parachutes. Since Titan III also used strap-on solid boosters it would be interesting to see what the recovery flight profile of the X20 was to have been. Note one significant difference, the X-20 was a glider with a titanium skin. Even so, I think you and I agree that for manned spaceflight, solid rocket boosters are preferably an issue not to be dealt with at all. Dave |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Boeing pilots to crew capsule | Fevric J. Glandules | History | 7 | August 8th 11 05:46 PM |
Boeing Crew Capsule Concept | Damon Hill[_4_] | Space Shuttle | 5 | February 10th 10 03:40 PM |
Commercial launch of cargo but not crew | [email protected] | Space Station | 1 | August 15th 09 09:40 AM |
Station Crew Unloads Cargo, Moves Robot Arm | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | March 10th 05 09:07 AM |
Station Crew Unloads Cargo, Moves Robot Arm | Jacques van Oene | News | 0 | March 10th 05 09:07 AM |