XS-1 Phantom Express spaceplane

>>34062791
Did you just assume its gender, shitlord?

>>34062806

can we please have a nice thread without any /pol/ or SJW shit? Thanks

>>34062791
>So it's a big booster with wings.
>I've made quite a few of these in Kerbal Space Program :p

>>34062791
>This is the Air Force's newest spaceplane
No, it's not. It's a CG image of someone's wet dreams.

>The XS-1 will be capable of deploying a small expendable upper stage to launch a 3,000-pound spacecraft to earth orbit at a cost of $5M, ten times less than today’s launch systems
Wait wait wait, hold on, I think I have already heard something like this. Oh. Right.
>When all design and maintenance costs are taken into account, the final cost of the Space Shuttle program, averaged over all missions and adjusted for inflation, was estimated to come out to $1.5 billion per launch, or $60,000/kg (approximately $27,000 per pound) to LEO.[5] This should be contrasted with the originally envisioned costs of $118 per pound of payload in 1972 dollars (approximately $657 per pound adjusting for inflation to 2013).[6]
Have another sage.

File: 1477575981888.jpg (52KB, 511x509px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 511x509px

>>34062887
>Aerojet Rocketdyne, a subsidiary of Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:AJRD), was selected to provide the main propulsion for the Boeing and the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) reusable Experimental Spaceplane (XS-1).
> The main propulsion is based on the legacy space shuttle main engines (SSME).
>space shuttle main engines (SSME).

File: Boeing_X-37B_inside_payload_fairing_before_launch.jpg (3MB, 1824x2736px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1824x2736px

>>34062791

Seems neat I guess, for a niche role to LEO. The wings kinda limit it's launch profiles.

NRO launch platform? There's only so much you can do in LEO that's worthwhile for the military. I guess civilian payloads that operate in the same realm could use it too.

Air Force needs to stop wasting money and start launching things on top of Falcon 9 rockets.

>>34062791
>one American
>(3,000lbs payload)
You think we're that light.
Girls laughing.jpg

In all seriousness though, what's the estimated cost per payload?

>>34063358

F9 doesn't have a 24 hour turnaround time which is the whole point of the XS-1. Although, I'm extremely curious as to why the AF didn't just try to modify an existing aircraft (ie a B-1 or C-5) which could do air launches about as effectively (see Orbital ATK's Tristar) at 1/100th the cost.

>>34063358
the air force doesn't prioritize cost savings because it's not necessary for their mission (and one could argue nobody gives a fuck as it's not their money). if you use spacex as your main launch provider you open yourself up to a loss of launch capability if spacex has a failure. the air force will always pay multiple launch providers billions even for terrible service as that keeps them afloat and provides constant launch capability.

>>34063396
>24 hour turnaround time which is the whole point of the XS-1.
Well they are gonna use hydrogen and SSME engine so 24 hour turnaround time is not gonna happen.

>>34063371
>>34062887

>>34062936
>>34063345
It's not SSTO, the spaceplane is a reusable first stage that lands on a runway instead of on a barge like SpaceX. The baby booster on the spaceplane's back is the expendable second stage that can boost to polar orbit.

>>34063432
>the spaceplane is a reusable first stage that lands on a runway instead of on a barge like SpaceX.
>implying i don't know this

>>34063432

Ok? Yeah the second stage piggeybacks. It still has a limited launch profile, because of said wings. Wondering if it has fuel left for powered flight to expand the profiles, rather than purely gliding back to a specific runway with limits its options.

>>34062791
>This is the Air Force's newest CGI render.

File: gS1yERHuG-SJvdQydXP_mKc-ijuttZGA_JleLix_kpI.jpg (92KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 500x500px

>Air force sabotages space shuttle program by demanding it carry ludicrously large and heavy payloads, turning it from a relatively feasible craft for carting astronauts to orbit into a massive 1.5 Billion dollar a launch waste of everybody's time.

>decades later, request a small shuttle.

wew

>>34064720

In 1965 (when the shuttle began being concepted) UAV tech was totally unheard of (fly-by-wire avionics was a thing only the Apollo/Saturn V system had). The idea was that any sort of satellite maintence (more of an issue due to their much more complicated computers at the time) or film recovery (arpanet was still two years off from existing) would have to be done by a person. To that end, a fuckhuge payload bay made sense especially if they had to cart around tools or parts. Also people expected engine tech to evolve much faster, especially as nuclear propulsion came into play.

On that level, it made some sense. However, by 1980 the situation was totally different and NASA needed a new vehicle. By the time they got around to concepting it (the X-33), it was 1990 and the Cold War had ended resulting in spending cuts. If anything this goes to demonstrate how hard it is to build a vehicle, especially when it's something as huge and inflexible as the US government.

>>34062806
Ships are traditionally female, always. Spaceships, too.