Unmanned U.S. Air Force space plane lands after secret, two-year mission

Post by raverbashing » Mon, May 08, 2017, 2:25 AM UTC

colordrops wrote: post #13

Animats wrote: post #9

This is the X-37B. There's a contract for an X-37C, 1.8x as big and possibly capable of carrying humans.[1] That would be a nice little spacecraft. It's time to get past capsules, without building something as big and fragile as the Space Shuttle. The USAF and Boeing aren't saying much about it, though. [1] http://www.spacesafetymagazine.com/aerospace-engineering/spa...

Capsules aren't inferior. In fact they can land on planets and moons without atmospheres, unlike space planes. And once propulsive landing of capsules is implemented, they can land on Earth without a landing strip, and even on boats.

Post by [deleted] » Mon, May 08, 2017, 2:37 AM UTC

schiffern wrote: post #38

blackguardx wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically, the space shuttle and this space plane are lifting bodies, which I think is pretty cool and elegant.

Capsules are lifting bodies too. Apollo had a L/D of 0.368 and "steered" by rotating. Dragon uses the same technique (albeit with a slightly lower L/D), and Dragon 2 will have a tungsten ballast sled so it can change its angle of attack dynamically during re-entry. Even simple cylinders can be lifting bodies. Shuttle and Falcon 9 both have a L/D of 1.[1] On Falcon 9 the first stage acts as a lifting body, using the g…

Post by blackguardx » Mon, May 08, 2017, 2:56 AM UTC

jessriedel wrote: post #68

blackguardx wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically, the space shuttle and this space plane are lifting bodies, which I think is pretty cool and elegant.

There isn't really a sharp distinction, is there? The primary method of generating lift for both wings and lifting bodies is simply the fact that it's an inclined plane moving through a fluid with positive angle of attack.

Post by kobeya » Mon, May 08, 2017, 2:58 AM UTC

taneq wrote: post #63

ceejayoz wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.quora.com/Can-the-Dragon-V2-land-on-the-moon > The Dragon-2 has enough power and fuel to land and ascend back to lunar orbit. The Dragon's SuperDraco has higher performance than the Apollo Lunar Module. Apollo LM descent engines has 10,000 lbf thrust, and 3,500 lbf thrust for ascent (the lander part is left behind). The Dragon's SuperDraco has 16,000 lbf thrust. The Dragon also uses computers to control t…

I don't understand how they can conclude that "the Dragon-2 has enough power and fuel to land and ascend back to lunar orbit" based only on a comparison of maximum thrust and a statement that the Dragon has an automated landing system. At the very least, they'd need to consider the dry weight and fuel load to make a fair comparison - maybe they did so offscreen but it's not mentioned anywhere in the post.

Post by jfoutz » Mon, May 08, 2017, 3:09 AM UTC

nyolfen wrote: post #37

jfoutz wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My guess was to refuel spy satellites. I imagine those sats are tough and can survive a long time. But when they get low on gas they can only do station keeping. If you can count of fuel coming, there's a lot more freedom to shift the track a half a degree as needed. It may be all electronic surveillance. I guess, you can count on satellites not changing after they're launched, so the electronics package would be goo…

i don't think it's refueling anything. for one it has a pretty small payload, but more importantly it has a low orbit (~320km). there's some decent speculation here: http://www.airspacemag.com/space/spaceplane-x-37-180957777/ tldr possibly a test bed for new smaller electronics packages designed for new smaller satellites