SpaceX's Dragon capsule captured by ISS

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sun Jul 29, 2012 9:56 pm

They're sexy.

Yeah, I know. That pointless romanticism is still prevalent at NASA too. Personally I prefer the rockets of the 50ies scifi novels. They were VTOLs

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sun Jul 29, 2012 10:00 pm

I can recall when Paul and I collaborated on the Warpstar, he wanted wings for safety reasons and chose an existing airframe to simplify calculations. I was recommending what I called a "flying brick" because I wanted it to illustrate that there are no significant aerodynamic issues when you can produce constant thrust sufficient to lift from the planet. I'd have been thrilled for Warpstar to look like the Millenium Falcon.

If I were to recommend a shape for a first M-E Craft today, it wouldn't be for an entire craft. It would be for only a saucer shaped modular addition to MPCV, Dragon, CST-100, etc. There's little point in reinventing the wheel for an entire spacecraft, when these capsules share enough in common it's likely a single saucer section to could be added and make them interplanetary explorers. With 1N/w you could fly all these capsules direct off the planet to anywhere in our planetary system. Save nicer ships with conveniences like air locks and toilets for the next generation of bigger, better craft intended to live in for months or years at a time.

All that makes sense. In my favorite scifi novel series, Perry Rhodan, the ships were actually giant spheres with a central ring of engines around it (going both forward/up and backward/down).
I have been following the whole ME research by Paul and Jim. I am slightly sceptical but the possibilities keep me intreagued enough to keep an eye on it.

AcesHigh · Post by **AcesHigh** » Sun Jul 29, 2012 10:43 pm

ha, Perry Rhodan. You are austrian right Skipjack? I guess then you read Perry Rhodan in deutsch, which is the original language.

Its faaaar from being my favorite sci fi series, specially because it falls too much on the side of space opera and considering the existance of so many other deeper more intelligent books, many awarded Hugos and Nebulas (Dune, Ringworld, Hyperion, Uplift books, etc, etc)

have you played the Perry Rhodan adventure game?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ta8Xz3XwpZA

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sun Jul 29, 2012 11:16 pm

ha, Perry Rhodan. You are austrian right Skipjack? I guess then you read Perry Rhodan in deutsch, which is the original language.

Yepp.
Perry Rhodan has been the longest running scifi novel series in the world. They release a new novel every week. It is certainly not always high quality literature, but the first few cycles were really good. One of the original authors was a physicist and that shows in the technology they are using (which is often described in great detail) as well as the whole concepts of space flight and space battles (with acceleration/deceleration etc).
Considering that the series started in the late 50ies, they got a lot of cool things in there that you later also saw in other scifi series.
They had impulse engines, they had transporters, they had a mutant (psi) corps. They had hyperspace jumps and even semi organic robots as well as quantum computers. I really loved that Perry Rhodans moon rocket was powered by NERVA type engines (at the end of the 50ies that was pretty forward thinking). The positive mood set at that point in the series with mankind setting out to "conquer space" (a very important phraze in the series) and the whole way of thinking that technology can solve all of mankinds problems is something that I love about it. I wished there was more scifi like that. A positive idea for the future.
If I have to see another dystopian future I have to puke. Unfortunately these are the ones that tend to get prizes for their "critical look" at some issue. I dont care about that. I have enough dystopia in real life. I read Perry Rhodan as a teenager because it was a welcome difference to the real world, where there is almost no progress in space travel and we are dont even have "antiquated nuclear engines" in our spaceplanes to bring another quote from the series...

Oh and as a fan of both adventure games and PR, I naturally played the game

It was alright, though I would have preferred a different point in the series (the PR authors of course rather want to promote the current stories and not the old ones).

I tried to read some of the translated PR books (in order to see whehter I could recommend them to my friends from the US) and the translation rally sucks. Sorry to say that. The style is absolutely horrible and they even changed some of the names of main characters for no reason at all.

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 4:16 am

ladajo wrote:
Joseph Chikva wrote:
ladajo wrote:Obviously you still don't get that what went up could come down. It is not a micro capsule parachuting in. It is a fully functional vehicle with massive payload bay that can take stuff up, and, BRING STUFF DOWN, in a controlled manner. Single use vehicles bring little things back, sometimes, and not always in a controlled manner.
You have not necessity to explain to me obvious things. Simply I say that if the program is stopped and USA still has demand to transport cargoes in space and back and also to do some manipulations there, Shuttle isn't so irreplaceable. And the preference is given to cheaper and safer solution.
Joseph, in case you haven't noticed, the Shuttle is being replaced by this:

http://www.boeing.com/Features/2012/06/ ... 19_12.html

And further mission sets will be picked up by follow on larger more capable versions that are coming very soon.

There are requirements for returnable flexible cargo capable vehicles. And this requirement continues to be met.

Thanks, I really haven't noticed. But I have a doubt about "very soon". As I remember when USA checked feasibility of various hypervelocity (M about 4-5 or higher) planes e.g. X-15 and then when first Shuttle began flying.

But your link is really interesting!
Thanks again.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 4:47 am

Joseph Chikva wrote:I have a doubt about "very soon". As I remember when USA checked feasibility of various hypervelocity (M about 4-5 or higher) planes e.g. X-15 and then when first Shuttle began flying.

You seem to misunderstand. X-37b has been flying for 8 years now. It made it's first orbital flight 2 years ago. Outside the military no one knows what it's various missions are, but most industry professionals believe it's a flying testbed for new technologies as they arise.

The only reason we know anything about it is when DOD launches an Atlas V, it's not as if they can hide the fact.

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 5:09 am

GIThruster wrote:You seem to misunderstand. X-37b has been flying for 8 years now. It made it's first orbital flight 2 years ago. Outside the military no one knows what it's various missions are, but most industry professionals believe it's a flying testbed for new technologies as they arise.

The only reason we know anything about it is when DOD launches an Atlas V, it's not as if they can hide the fact.

Here you seem to misunderstand. The time gap between flying prototype (X designation in US) and real working commercial-military-research machine can not be less than 20 years. Even in case of absence of lack of financing.

And can you say that this program is financed well? I doubt as in this case everyone interested would be aware on this program better.
So, I assume that Shuttle's descendant will appear in very long-term future.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 11:45 am

The time gap between flying prototype (X designation in US) and real working commercial-military-research machine can not be less than 20 years.

Well that is of course BS. Comparing the X15 and the Space Shuttle does not make sense either.

I doubt as in this case everyone interested would be aware on this program better

It is pretty well known actually. The military just does not make a big fuss about it. It is a very small vehicle and unmanned. So it is not really that spectacular. It has also only been to space twice. So that makes for only 4 press releases (for launch and then for the landing).
The bigger, manned version might be more interesting, but I am not sure it would be cost competitive with the other commercial spacecraft currently in development. That is something that Boeing has to decide for themselves and then decide to build it or not. The Dreamchaser would be a very simillar vehicle and that will already be flying 4 years from now (provided they get the next round of CCDev funding). Not sure that Boeing can make a scaled up version of the X37 in that time and if that would still make sense at that point unless they believe that they can undercut the price of the DreamChaser enough to have a market. The DOD seems happy enough with the small version.
If the DreamChaser was to be dropped from CCDev, then Boeing might have more of a case. But given the spaceplane romanticism still prevalent at NASA, I am quite sure that NASA will fund them and rather drop funding for one of the capsules.
They will have fuding for 2 and a half systems. To me that means 3 spacecraft and 2 launchers.
I would be suprised if Liberty and the BO reusable booster got funded, since they currently dont exist. Liberty would probably be the most expensive solution as well.
Atlas is being used by several of the spacecraft in the race, so funding that as a launcher makes sense. SpaceX should be a nobrainer. So their launcher and also the Dragon capsule will be funded.
That leaves funding for two more spacecraft. I think that it will be the CST-100 and the Dreamchaser. BO is just too far behind in their development and Liberty looks like it will be more expensive. If Liberty gets funding, it will be due to political pressure (which could happen and has happened before) and not for any logical reasons.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 11:59 am

On a related note, I just read that the 3rd mission of the X37B is planned for October.

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 3:42 pm

Skipjack wrote:
The time gap between flying prototype (X designation in US) and real working commercial-military-research machine can not be less than 20 years.
Well that is of course BS. Comparing the X15 and the Space Shuttle does not make sense either.

I doubt as in this case everyone interested would be aware on this program better
It is pretty well known actually. The military just does not make a big fuss about it. It is a very small vehicle and unmanned. So it is not really that spectacular. It has also only been to space twice. So that makes for only 4 press releases (for launch and then for the landing).
The bigger, manned version might be more interesting, but I am not sure it would be cost competitive with the other commercial spacecraft currently in development. That is something that Boeing has to decide for themselves and then decide to build it or not. The Dreamchaser would be a very simillar vehicle and that will already be flying 4 years from now (provided they get the next round of CCDev funding). Not sure that Boeing can make a scaled up version of the X37 in that time and if that would still make sense at that point unless they believe that they can undercut the price of the DreamChaser enough to have a market. The DOD seems happy enough with the small version.
If the DreamChaser was to be dropped from CCDev, then Boeing might have more of a case. But given the spaceplane romanticism still prevalent at NASA, I am quite sure that NASA will fund them and rather drop funding for one of the capsules.
They will have fuding for 2 and a half systems. To me that means 3 spacecraft and 2 launchers.
I would be suprised if Liberty and the BO reusable booster got funded, since they currently dont exist. Liberty would probably be the most expensive solution as well.
Atlas is being used by several of the spacecraft in the race, so funding that as a launcher makes sense. SpaceX should be a nobrainer. So their launcher and also the Dragon capsule will be funded.
That leaves funding for two more spacecraft. I think that it will be the CST-100 and the Dreamchaser. BO is just too far behind in their development and Liberty looks like it will be more expensive. If Liberty gets funding, it will be due to political pressure (which could happen and has happened before) and not for any logical reasons.

I am very happy that you were aware on X37. But it means nothing. For example, ladajo - the second interested man was not aware initially of this talk. So, X37 is not known so widely.
Take a look how widely X-15 was known if its flight manual was published in Russian in 1962: http://rutracker.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3434926
But I am not comparing X-15 with Shuttle but only stating that as I know "X" in USA designations means "experimental".
Simply X-15 allowed groing knowledge on hypervelocity flight and then after passing some years Space Shuttle was born on base of that knowledge and also some other technology capabilities: large solid proppelant rocket motors, large and lightweight tanks, thrmal insulation tiles, etc.
Boeing has many experimental programs, some of which then will canceled and some will find further development and commercialization.
For example I do not believe in their Airborne Laser http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1 as think that for effective engagement of missiles offense side (Russians, Chinese, whatever else) should paint those in black.

At least in Israel where also were performed experiment in air/missile defense lasers then refused this idea and now they use missile system Iron Dome.
But every even non-successful program grows our knowledge and technology capabilities.
Here people like betting. How much money would you bet on commercialization of X-37 in its today's form? What timeframe you think is real in case of enough financing?

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 6:18 pm

I haven't seen any thoughts of commercializing X-37b. That's not the intent. It was kicking around for years when DOD decided to save the program and put it to use for undisclosed reasons. As I said, most industry experts agree it is likely a technology test platform and the technology is certainly undisclosed. The idea that it's providing surveillance doesn't make sense because our keyhole sats are already all over and X-37b isn't large enough to compete with 3m mirrors. More likely is it's testing next generation materials for degradation.

So while it's fair to say X-37b is in service and functioning beyond the sort of test program usually ascribed to X planes, it is likely flying test programs. Whether they build a bigger one without a shroud depends on what they want to test.

CaptainBeowulf · Post by **CaptainBeowulf** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 8:26 pm

Testing new materials and gaining data about the airframe's flight characteristics is a very useful thing for X37 to be doing right now. Also, I think the Air Force is reasonably proud of it - it's not just that they can't hide Atlas launches - since they can't hide them, they go ahead and issue press releases, pictures of the X-37, etc. etc. They just make sure that their pictures don't reveal anything about the payload

Obviously a limiting factor on how far you scale up the X-37 is how much you're willing to spend on the LV. If bigger EELVs come on market at a decent price, you can do a lot more. If Space X's Falcon 9 and Falcon 9 Heavy really do meet their cost estimates and start to launch a lot of stuff, and can see Boeing and LockMart deciding to cooperate on a response through Orbital.

For instance, they could use Delta IV heavy tank designs, go Kerolox, add cross-feed, and use AJ-26 engines (once the redesign from the old Russian design is mature and can be manufactured in the U.S.), with a J-2 or J-2X upper stage. Possibly the J-2X and its fuel tanks could be built into the tail of a larger X-37, like the SSME is built into the shuttle - after all, the X-37 is designed to carry a reasonably sized single engine.

Estimates bandied about on NasaSpaceFlight for such a LV are about 75MT to LEO - so in the case of an X-37 based vehicle, you'd be talking about an orbiter+payload of 75MT. That would mean conceivably a 10 to 20MT payload in a 50 to 60MT orbiter... possibly 50+ percent of shuttle's performance, possibly at a significantly lower cost, and no tile damage from falling foam problems, because the plane would be on top of the rocket instead of to the side.

It's a potential pathway that could be followed depending on how other stuff works out.

D Tibbets · Post by **D Tibbets** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:57 pm

Joseph Chikva wrote:
GIThruster wrote:You seem to misunderstand. X-37b has been flying for 8 years now. It made it's first orbital flight 2 years ago. Outside the military no one knows what it's various missions are, but most industry professionals believe it's a flying testbed for new technologies as they arise.

The only reason we know anything about it is when DOD launches an Atlas V, it's not as if they can hide the fact.
Here you seem to misunderstand. The time gap between flying prototype (X designation in US) and real working commercial-military-research machine can not be less than 20 years. Even in case of absence of lack of financing.

And can you say that this program is financed well? I doubt as in this case everyone interested would be aware on this program better.
So, I assume that Shuttle's descendant will appear in very long-term future.

Recall that there were several X- lifting body designs after the X-15

Dan Tibbets

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 11:45 pm

I haven't seen any thoughts of commercializing X-37b.

I have seen it mentioned. There is the idea that the X37C (crewed subtype) could be used as a reusable replacement for the CST100 in the future that could also offer some other advantates over the capsule. Not sure how far this will go but it sure is interesting.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 11:48 pm

Obviously a limiting factor on how far you scale up the X-37 is how much you're willing to spend on the LV.

IIRC the X37C could still be launched on a AtlasV but without the shroud. Not sure now about what version of the AtlasV either, but I would guess it is a slightly heavier version.