wrong again, X-37 is just one of many payloads and not part of the launch vehicle. The fact that it flies back has no bearing on the launch vehicle or the other payloads. What is the reason for X-37 to "eat" Falcon? What would be the purpose and if any, advantages of such a vehicle?
yep
I don't think jets on winged rockets is going to work until we get to nuclear-thermal fusion rockets. Sadly.
The Rockwell Shuttle based demonstrator concept was the most straightforward and promising of the X-33 candidates, but NASA went for the shiny glitzy lifting body thingamajig because excitingly different - ooh, until it failed basic testing...Imagine if the orbiter ate its External Tank
That was the Rockwell X-33 path.
By keeping the rocketry part needed to achieve orbit outside the airframe--you don't have to fly just one kind of orbiter. One might be less or a brick, with a more streamlined crew compartment.
There is a wonderful quote on page 94 of Jenkins' book called LOCKHEED SECRET PROJECTS--INSIDE THE SKUNK WORKS, a quote about how the VentureStar design morphed from internal payload bays to a hump, and finally the payload:
"had been moved completely out of the vehicle and into a piggyback container. This may not be detrimental since it would allow the vehicle to carry payloads of almost any given size and shape, at least within some aerodynamic and thermal considerations."
--thus my advocacy of parallel staging and piggyback payload mount of the modular Buran approach.
As for the unmanned rocket core once shed...have that come back like Starship...use it as a wet workshop...expend it.. whatever. At least it's parasite mass doesn't interfere with the flight dynamics of the space-plane.
It makes self-ferry MUCH easier.
Fly it at air shows when not hooked to a booster.
It is of course subject to design tradeoffs and details, but I see no fundamental reason why jets on winged rockets for stage return/recovery would not work, see e.g. my FSSC-16 conceptual RLV design at https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/french-secret-projects-3.29611/page-3#post-534350.
It's mostly in terms of hauling 2.5tonnes per jet engine in dead weight, which cuts into your mass to orbit.
In engineering, everything's a tradeoff based on system requirements, so YMMV.
No, the SSME and tankage are coming back to be reused. The jet engines don't help with getting into orbit or coming back.
That would be wrong, they do take up space and mass
Just no. No Buran or Shuttle orbiter is needed. If crew is going fly, use a small crew spacecraft (capsule, lifting body or wings doesn't matter and jets are not needed). Just don't let it be part of the launch vehicle. If a payload is going to orbit, don't use a launch vehicle with a crew.
We hope.
