Quote from: Chris Bergin on 02/09/2017 11:52 amX-37B isn't where she's supposed to be:http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Feb-2017/0024.htmlCould it have sneakily landed or is that to far fetched?
X-37B isn't where she's supposed to be:http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Feb-2017/0024.html
I'd love the idea of that, but I assume they mean she's in a different orbit than expected (which could point to preps to return).
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 02/09/2017 05:03 pmI'd love the idea of that, but I assume they mean she's in a different orbit than expected (which could point to preps to return).Well I did suspect that's the real reason, but you never know!!!
I have doubts about X-37B landing on SLF. According to this article:http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/565424/aircraft-to-spacecraft-airfield-ops-lands-them-all.aspxQuotePrior to the second landing of the space plane, civil engineer Airmen and Boeing employees spent countless hours grinding down protrusions greater than one eighth of an inch and filling seemingly insignificant divots on the flightline.SLF is pretty rough. So unless Boeing improved tire technology, X-37B will only land on SLF after short missions.
Prior to the second landing of the space plane, civil engineer Airmen and Boeing employees spent countless hours grinding down protrusions greater than one eighth of an inch and filling seemingly insignificant divots on the flightline.
Has the surface of SLF degraded and not been restored since the return of STS-135? ISTR that the surface was improved substantially in the RTF after the loss of Challenger.
However, that date subsequently moved to a new official target date of 18 February due to a range conflict.The conflict, curiously, was not with the ability of the Falcon 9 to launch but rather with the ability of the first stage to return to Landing Zone 1 (LZ-1) back at the Cape.While the precise nature of the conflict is not known, it is understood that a portion of the range asset necessary for the Falcon 9 first stage’s return was already spoken for by another customer during the period of the 14-17 February.
From the article on CRS-10:QuoteHowever, that date subsequently moved to a new official target date of 18 February due to a range conflict.The conflict, curiously, was not with the ability of the Falcon 9 to launch but rather with the ability of the first stage to return to Landing Zone 1 (LZ-1) back at the Cape.While the precise nature of the conflict is not known, it is understood that a portion of the range asset necessary for the Falcon 9 first stage’s return was already spoken for by another customer during the period of the 14-17 February.Wonder if that asset is tasked to support a X-37B Landing.
It's been found again; http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Feb-2017/0032.htmlBest future near-term window for landing from the new orbit is apparently about 7:00 UTC on the 13th.
X-37B Space Plane maneuvers into Lower Orbit, likely Precursor to Landing February 11, 2017