Space Shuttle Jr.
After 2010, the only spaceplane in the U.S. inventory will be the Air Force's mysterious X-37.
- By Michael Klesius
- Air & Space magazine, January 2010
The Air Force hopes its unmanned X-37 (in taxi tests in 2007) will take on some of the functions of the shuttle
USAF
(Page 4 of 4)
Still, Lewis admires the X-20 from an engineering standpoint: "When we look at Dyna-Soar, we say: Gosh, that's the program we should have had. Imagine if we had a cheaper way to get to the International Space Station."
Unlike Dyna-Soar, the X-37 will always be unmanned. Without humans who would limit the amount of time it could orbit, the little spaceplane might be able to stay aloft for as long as nine months. Operationally, the X-37 could become a space version of a long-endurance unmanned aerial vehicle—the world's first space UAV.
Even with no astronauts, however, safety will be a big issue—in this case, for the payload. After the 2003 disintegration of the shuttle Columbia, mission planners developed concepts that would protect the X-37 from a similar fate: damage from insulation coming loose during launch. One idea had the spaceplane perched vertically atop a booster, an odd configuration that resembled an aerospace awards trophy. Still, the spaceplane would ride safely above any insulation that broke off.
But the aerodynamics posed a problem. "People learned thousands of years ago that you don't fly arrows with the feathers first," says John Muratore, NASA's former chief engineer for the canceled X-38, an emergency return vehicle for ISS crews. "Feathers in the tail are stabilizing and feathers in the front are destabilizing," he says, referring to the wings of an exposed spaceplane perched vertically atop a tall, cylindrical booster.
So the Air Force covered the new little spaceplane with a launch shroud. For now, two big problems have been solved: The rocket should fly right, and when they roll it out to the launch pad, no one will see that the X-37 is inside. Hidden. In plain view.
Michael Klesius is an Air & Space associate editor.
Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 4





Comments (17)
One possible role of the X-37, or whatever it eventually becomes, could be to rescue personnel from the ISS. It could carry a life-support capsule in its cargo bay and return under remote control or pre-programmed control to a suitable airfield. The cargo bay capacity sounds like it would be large enough to accommodate at least four astronauts in spacesuits.
If equipped with a remote manipulator such as the Space Shuttle's Canadarm, it could retrieve items from orbiting spy satellites, or play havoc with them.
Posted by J. A. Poth on November 18,2009 | 04:41 PM
The author considers the X-37 on top of its booster an odd configuration, but the X-20 Dyna-Soar was configured on top of the Titan III in *exactly* that configuration. Since the X-37 inherits from the X-20, that configuration should actually be *expected* (at least conceptually).
Posted by Luke Vaxhacker on November 18,2009 | 04:48 PM
At the speed its booster is accelerating, there wont by any air for the mini shuttles wings to grip after the first minute of flight. This is more about avoiding months of expensive aerodynamics testing to see if the concept itself is worth the trouble.
Personally, I think it is.
There are many rockets that put payloads in space, but only shuttles can bring them back. With this You get a ship that is better than the space shuttle in every way except payload and passengers.
If it works, I don't see why they shouldn't scale it up to carry 3 men and the mail to the ISS.
It would certainly be better than that dinky Orion capsule for the task. Better to save those for the moon shots.
Posted by Maxwell on November 24,2009 | 10:22 PM
The X-37 can properly be called the SPACE SHUTTLE, Jr. and it is certainly a rescue type vehicle which explains why the USAF has been so quiet about it. If you would like to see the SPACE SHUTTLE,Sr., you can view it at: http://www.cyrus-space-system.com or go to: www.NASA.gov > U.S. Spaceflight Review Committee (the Augustine)> Emails to the Committee > look for 6 entries by Daniel Sterling Sample. The SPACE SHUTTLE, Sr. will be capable of being launched from the ground at a velocity equal to one third the required velocity for low earth orbit (LEO) insertion.
Posted by Daniel Sterling Sample on November 25,2009 | 10:44 AM
Looks like an Orca.
Posted by nikolai on November 25,2009 | 04:30 PM
The heat generated during reentry isn't caused by friction but by compression. At those speeds (>Mach 25) air just does not go out of the shuttle's way, it will be compressed and hence heated.
Posted by J Willems on December 2,2009 | 06:13 AM
Speaking of feathered arrows, I have wondered why the Constellation concepts don't have "tail fins."
Posted by Freehawk on January 8,2010 | 01:24 PM
We (the U.S.) need this. If it's going to ride an Atlas V into orbit, then it's achieved a very special status--it looks like a concept about to join the realm of the real. I hope it isn't canceled like so many other X-whatevers.
Good luck to it, and congrats to those who designed and built it.
Posted by PX on January 25,2010 | 12:09 AM
There is a new simulator of the space shuttle available for the iphone!
Posted by Michael on February 4,2010 | 10:46 AM
USAF is putting an X-37 into orbit atop an Atlas rocket in March or April of 2010. This must be a prototype testing for a future "spaceplane". Meanwhile, NASA is floundering, directionless. To see THE SPACE SHUTTLE SENIOR (aka THE SUPER SHUTTLE), go to: http://www.cyrus-space-system.com GOOD RIDDANCE TO THE TROUBLED CONSTELLATION MOONDOGGLE!
Posted by Daniel Sterling Sample on February 4,2010 | 05:25 PM
The plot thickens! Now we learn that during the same week that X-37B is in orbit, the AF plans to launch an HTV-2 hypersonic vehicle from Vandenberg to Kwaj. I wonder if X-37B will happen to be overhead during the Mach-5 test vehicle's plunge back into the atmosphere?
Posted by Jim Oberg on February 23,2010 | 02:31 PM
The China's astronauts lunar landing could happen within 8 years and seen on standard and 3-D TV by over 6,000,000,000 people worldwide. However, the Constellation program is wrong, flawed and TOO expensive and the new "commercial space" is up to FIVE TIMES more expensive than the Space Shuttle. As a consequence, NASA and USA will face a deep DECLINE and, soon, will be no longer a space leader.
Posted by gaetano marano on February 23,2010 | 04:03 PM
The x-37 was designed to be launched in the Space Shuttle payload pay when it was a NASA project, so it was not tested for launch aerodynamics. The shroud also avoided weather and bird damage. The most important characteristic of the vehicle is the fact that it is reusable. It is intended to test technologies for a new generation of reusable spacecraft and launch vehicles intended to lower the cost of launching and retrieving satelites.
I can find little data on why it was abandoned by NASA and why it was picked up by DOD. One would think NASA would be interested in new technology for access to space.
Posted by Dan Woodard on May 16,2010 | 11:13 PM
This is not the Sixties. China is as capitalist as the US. China is an economic competitor, not an ideological adversary. China has no intention of engaging the US in a race to the moon, or anywhere else in space. If they lost, they would look incompetent. If they won, they would irritate their biggest customer.
China flies manned missions only about once a year, just a fraction of what would be needed for an aggressive "space race". The goals of their human spacefight program are 1) to market their civil aerospace technology, 2) to provide a source of national pride to overcome the still painful memories of two centuries of invasion. Their goal in space is not to race the US to the moon, it is to be invited to join the ISS program. They see the latter as a way of demonstrating that they are "in the club" of the world's industrial leaders, and at the same time to build trust and thus stability, which they see as the key to their own economic growth.
Posted by Dan Woodard on May 18,2010 | 11:55 PM
@Dan Woodard
I believe you are referring to the X-38 CRV (Crew Return Vehicle) that was designed to ride up in the Shuttle. That project was canceled back in '02/'03 due to budget shortfalls with the Space Station primarily. It was on-budget and on-time at the time they canceled the project. The main difference is that the X-38 was designed for 7 passengers, used a module for the descent burn (which then detached) and it used a parachute for the final descent phase.
Posted by Flame on October 20,2010 | 04:52 PM
I think this is one of the few times imo when privatization is a really good idea. Whether we think it’s necessary or not, we need to continue to develop new forms of space travel and technology to facilitate it. What the ppl whose only argument is “we have too many problems down here to be worrying about this,” they fail to understand the two most important implications of aeronautical research. The first is for national defense… it’s bad enough that nasa has to rely on Russia to ferry them to the ISS. If we keep going at this rate, our disadvantage will only grow as they continue to develop new technologies in their space program while we pump the brakes on ours. Is air and space superiority something you really want the Russians to have? It doesn’t seem like a good idea for any one country to have, let alone one whom we have a sketchy history with. The second is that with aeronautical research comes a flood of new technologies, most of which are very applicable to us down on earth. For example, if it wasn’t for nasa, we wouldn’t have the chips that we use for non-invasive biopsies, solar energy, and a whole litany of other things. And if you’re one of those ppl that are so skeptical (or cynical imo) that you still don’t think that any of the things on this list warrant a larger investment in a privatized space industry, just remember that while you sleep at night, you most likely have nasa to thank for that, too. If you use any type of home security system, chances are they use infrared and laser technology that came out of nasa’s research.
Posted by mason storm on November 29,2010 | 08:30 PM