X-37 as 3 person CRV?

[Blurrt]

Could the X-37 be converted for use as a near term CRV? (I'm asking
technically not finacially) I know it's small but it looks like it could fit
three people sitting down. It only needs to be a lifepod after all.

It's actually quite interesting to compare the cost of the OSP to the cost
of the X-37. Other than size I can't see the reason for the OSP to be 20
times more expensive.

Blurrt

[Jon G]

"Blurrt" > wrote in message
u...
> Could the X-37 be converted for use as a near term CRV? (I'm asking
> technically not finacially) I know it's small but it looks like it could
fit
> three people sitting down. It only needs to be a lifepod after all.
>
> It's actually quite interesting to compare the cost of the OSP to the cost
> of the X-37. Other than size I can't see the reason for the OSP to be 20
> times more expensive.
>
> Blurrt
>
>

The X37 experement bay (think crew compartment) is 7 feet long by 4 feet in
diameter. Maybe one extremely cramped astronaut in shirtsleeves, but still
no docking module or life support.

Despite this fact a certain Jenny Lyons at KSC actually did refer to the X37
as a crew return vehicle once (ref:
http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/space/chats/archive/03-15-00cc.html ), but I think
she must have been getting X38 and X37 confused. Either way you look at it,
if one has to finish a project that has already been started, X38 can hold
more crew members because that is what it was designed (ultimately) to
demonstrate a capacity to do.

[Blurrt]

"Rick C" > wrote in message
...
> "Blurrt" > wrote in message
> u...
>
> > Thanks for the bay-size. Is a bit small. But 7x4 feet is still 2x1
meters.
> > In a sitting position there is room for two at least - three in a
squeeze.
> > One would have difficulty incororating a docking mechanism however.
Maybe
> it
> > could simply be grabbed by the robot arm and attached to the station
that
> > way. You still need the basic connections but much hardware would be
> absent.
>
> Er, more than that. You'd need to graft a CBM onto the top of the bay, or
> else have people translate across open space. (Or stick 'em in those
> emergency airbags, if they exist).

S'pose. Maybe the front end could open Kistler K1 style and the equipment
installed there?

Blurrt

[Rick C]

"Blurrt" > wrote
> "Rick C" > wrote in message

> > Er, more than that. You'd need to graft a CBM onto the top of the bay,
or
> > else have people translate across open space. (Or stick 'em in those
> > emergency airbags, if they exist).

> S'pose. Maybe the front end could open Kistler K1 style and the equipment
> installed there?

Top, front, whichever. Point is it's something you'd need to do. Also,
we'd need to know the third dimension of the cargo area--a CBM is about a
3-4-foot square, I believe.

Probably doable, but not a trivial matter, most likely.

[Jon G]

"Blurrt" > wrote in message
u...
>
> "Rick C" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Blurrt" > wrote in message
> > u...
> >
> > > Thanks for the bay-size. Is a bit small. But 7x4 feet is still 2x1
> meters.
> > > In a sitting position there is room for two at least - three in a
> squeeze.

Well shut my mouth, that got me to thinking.

Take as your starting point the volume of a perfect cylinder (for argument's
sake):

I get somewhere in the ballpark of 88 cubic feet. (if my math is way off I
am going to be very embaressed). Subtract somewhat for life support,
communications gear, cushions, restraints.)

Ok. For comparison a 2002 Toyota Echo has 88 cubic feet of interior space
with an extra 14 for cargo.

By another comparison, the Gemini craft had 36 cubic feet of habitable
volume.



> > > One would have difficulty incororating a docking mechanism however.
> Maybe
> > it
> > > could simply be grabbed by the robot arm and attached to the station
> that
> > > way. You still need the basic connections but much hardware would be
> > absent.
> >
> > Er, more than that. You'd need to graft a CBM onto the top of the bay,
or
> > else have people translate across open space. (Or stick 'em in those
> > emergency airbags, if they exist).
>

CBM is too big. X37 was never designed with docking to ISS in mind, or
docking to anything, for that matter. I suppose though that some sort of
inflatable tunnel, ala Alexei Leonov, could be used, but I don't think
anything that potentially dangerous will ever be designed again.

> S'pose. Maybe the front end could open Kistler K1 style and the equipment
> installed there?
>
> Blurrt
>
>

But then you wouldn't have an X-37 airframe, you'd have something vastly
different but with an X-37 shape, and you would still have to have an EVA to
get to the CRV. Not handy in the event it actually needs to be used.

There is an old SF novel by Ben Bova called "Kinsman" which deals partially
with a theoretical USAF program to have a mini-shuttle ready to fly at a
moments notice atop a solid fuel booster out of Vandenburg. The thing was
called Manta and was designed to let an Air Force pilot on EVA inspect
enemby satellites head on. The dimensions for the Manta weren't too far off
from X-37 IIRC.

[Dale]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 23:07:31 -0700, I wrote:

>.... pressurized hanger....

Err, "hangar". Damned spellchecker :)

Dale

[Jon G]

"Dale" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 23:07:31 -0700, I wrote:
>
> >.... pressurized hanger....
>
> Err, "hangar". Damned spellchecker :)
>
> Dale

Would the evac alert get to have a voiceover of Lorne Green saying, "Launch
All Vipers"?