Author Topic: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10  (Read 320119 times)

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
« Reply #500 on: 04/04/2010 12:20 am »
This is not a cheap flight, and the confusing thing about it is that there seem to be no good explanations that justify spending the money.  So is there another explanation that we don't know about?
Boondoggle ?

Quite possibly.  Just because it's secret does not mean that it's smart.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
« Reply #501 on: 04/04/2010 12:21 am »
Yet another article with a lengthy history of the program.  This one has a pretty good quote from John Pike.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/03/AR2010040301711.html

Air Force to launch robotic winged space plane

By JOHN ANTCZAK
The Associated Press
Saturday, April 3, 2010; 6:56 PM

LOS ANGELES -- After a decade of development, the Air Force this month plans to launch a robotic spacecraft resembling a small space shuttle to conduct technology tests in orbit and then glide home to a California runway.

The ultimate purpose of the X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle and details about the craft, which has been passed between several government agencies, however, remain a mystery as it is prepared for launch April 19 from Cape Canaveral, Fla.

"As long as you're confused you're in good shape," said defense analyst John Pike, director of Globalsecurity.org. "I looked into this a couple of years ago - the entire sort of hypersonic, suborbital, scramjet nest of programs - of which there are upwards of a dozen. The more I studied it the less I understood it."

The quietly scheduled launch culminates the project's long and expensive journey from NASA to the Pentagon's research and development arm and then to a secretive Air Force unit.

Offline nooneofconsequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1391
  • no one is playing fair ...
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
« Reply #502 on: 04/04/2010 06:27 pm »
This is not a cheap flight, and the confusing thing about it is that there seem to be no good explanations that justify spending the money.  So is there another explanation that we don't know about?
Boondoggle ?

Quite possibly.  Just because it's secret does not mean that it's smart.
Or that its stupid. It is exactly what they want and what they need.

After the fact when they get the results back, they'll find out if it was smart or stupid.

It is always that way. You can't predetermine.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
« Reply #503 on: 04/05/2010 01:44 am »
My wild guess about its payload: satellite refueling. From its own fuel tanks.
 Or perhaps reboosting, changing the orbit of other satellites without them using up their own fuel (okay, that one probably isn't it). Maybe on-orbit repair of satellites?

Makes no sense, you can do it cheaper /w more upmass on expendbles using a "smaller" launcher. Besides it can only reach assets in LEO...  I don't know, I really like the theory it is someone's pet project that ignores all "Logic" and common sense.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline kirghizstan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 671
  • Liked: 179
  • Likes Given: 86
Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
« Reply #504 on: 04/05/2010 01:47 am »
what about using the thing to go up close and personal to russian and chinese sats?

Offline hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3352
  • Liked: 553
  • Likes Given: 891
Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
« Reply #505 on: 04/05/2010 02:54 am »
what about using the thing to go up close and personal to russian and chinese sats?
Why ? What advantages does a re-usable vehicle bring to that mission ? Do they negate the disadvantages of being large, easy to track, and restricted to low orbits ?
I don't know, I really like the theory it is someone's pet project that ignores all "Logic" and common sense.
I would bet that it least has some marginally justifiable mission, but I wouldn't be surprised if "pet project" has been responsible for it's survival at some point. Everybody loves a space plane :)
« Last Edit: 04/05/2010 05:42 am by hop »

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
« Reply #506 on: 04/05/2010 03:59 am »
This is not a cheap flight, and the confusing thing about it is that there seem to be no good explanations that justify spending the money.  So is there another explanation that we don't know about?
Boondoggle ?

Quite possibly.  Just because it's secret does not mean that it's smart.

Not sure if I'd call it a boondoggle as a lot of useful information can be gained from the program.

Esp information on the handling characteristics for small space planes which would be of considerable benefit to human space flight.
Spaceflight for the masses is going to be with space planes vs capsules since they have lower g reentries and can land at an airport.

Looking at the rest of the specs it seems to be testing long term storage of alternative propellants.
As far as I know it's using hydrogen peroxide and JP8 far easier to handle stuff then the hypergolics in use today.
 

Offline Nascent Ascent

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 739
  • Liked: 124
  • Likes Given: 106
Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
« Reply #507 on: 04/05/2010 04:26 am »
Hey if it works and all is fine maybe they can scale it up for two astronauts and then the Air Force can finally have the space plane they always wanted.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
« Reply #508 on: 04/05/2010 05:37 am »

As far as I know it's using hydrogen peroxide and JP8 far easier to handle stuff then the hypergolics in use today.
 

no, it is using hypergols.

Offline tamarack

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 275
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
« Reply #509 on: 04/05/2010 06:38 am »
As far as I know it's using hydrogen peroxide and JP8 far easier to handle stuff then the hypergolics in use today.
no, it is using hypergols.

Hate to split hairs Jim, but some consider H2O2/Kerosene hypergolic (even though a catalyst is nessisary). If H2O2/JP-8 will not be used, as your post suggests (???), than should I assume H2O2 will not be the thruster's monopropellent as well?

Any clarification that you're allowed to provide would be appreciated.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
« Reply #510 on: 04/05/2010 10:53 am »
It was changed to N2O4 and MMH when it was a NASA program.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
« Reply #511 on: 04/05/2010 10:54 am »
@ tamarack,

I'm pretty sure that I saw a schematic from an aerospace magazine a while back that said that X-37 uses solely H202 monopropellent for both its RCS and MPS engines.  I think it might be up-thread somewhere.

I guess I understand Jim's point.  Hypergolics (as I understand them) are bipropellent engines that don't need anything other than the reaction between the propellents to achieve ignition.  IIRC, hydrogen peroxide monopropellent needs some catalysts and other reactions to work.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
« Reply #512 on: 04/05/2010 05:30 pm »
Think for a bit...

How large is a roll of 70mm film? 

How large is the payload bay?

Insert tab A into slot B.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
« Reply #513 on: 04/05/2010 05:48 pm »

How large is a roll of 70mm film? 

Too small for reconn.

Offline jimvela

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1662
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 71
Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
« Reply #514 on: 04/05/2010 06:04 pm »

How large is a roll of 70mm film? 

Too small for reconn.

There are far better detectors available- no one would be packaging film for any reason whatsoever. 

(save maybe IMAX filming, but then again that isn't happening here)


Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
« Reply #515 on: 04/05/2010 06:19 pm »

How large is a roll of 70mm film? 

Too small for reconn.

There are far better detectors available- no one would be packaging film for any reason whatsoever. 

(save maybe IMAX filming, but then again that isn't happening here)


Um, guy... 70mm *IS* IMAX.  And to date, there are no sensors yet able to match it for quality/speed.  (you can get higher quality, but it's too slow for a fast moving shot, and vice-versa)

You can, however, use even larger film, I shoot with film 8" wide for instance.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
« Reply #516 on: 04/05/2010 07:06 pm »
And to date, there are no sensors yet able to match it for quality/speed.  (you can get higher quality, but it's too slow for a fast moving shot, and vice-versa)


Not commercially. 

spacecraft use motion compensation

Offline Chris Bergin

ULA provide a mission booklet, so starting a specific launch thread (no idea how much "live" coverage per webcasts etc, we'll get, however).
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
« Reply #518 on: 04/06/2010 02:06 am »
Or that its stupid. It is exactly what they want and what they need.

After the fact when they get the results back, they'll find out if it was smart or stupid.

It is always that way. You can't predetermine.

Huh?  This makes no sense at all.

There are plenty of military space projects that were pretty damn stupid and still progressed rather far before they got killed.  (Example A.)  Many more that were incredibly stupid but still got talked about by generals and contractors willing to take their money before they got killed at a young age.  (Example B.)  And also some that were stupid and still got launched.  (Example C.)

It is not the case that you have to fly something in order to figure out if it is stupid or not.  Sometimes that's apparent just by talking to the right people who can do the math.

(I'm not putting a lot of thought into this, so there may be better examples.)


Example A--Something that was pretty damned stupid but progressed rather far before it got killed:  TSAT


Perhaps six years ago I talked to somebody who was pretty familiar with military space issues and also had the pretty heavy degree in aerospace engineering and he said that TSAT was going to get canceled and the only question was how many years and how many billions would be spent before that happened.  He said that USAF was simply trying to put together too many advanced technologies that were all very immature.  These included things like an internet router in space (now proven at a basic level), optical relay, optical-to-RF conversion, and probably a few others.  He noted that many of these technologies still had not been proven in ground systems, and combining them all into a single satellite was a prescription for delays, overruns, etc.  USAF spent over $2 billion in technology development and then the program got axed last year.

Example B--Something that was incredibly stupid but still got talked about by generals and contractors willing to take their money before they got killed at a young age: space radar (the air traffic control version).  Alternatively: space-based lasers for attacking ground targets.

Don't want to spend a lot of time on this, but both ideas floated through Air Force Space Command for awhile even though they didn't make much sense.  Actually, in the case of the lasers, they're physically impossible--you cannot deliver sufficient energy from that distance to do anything useful to a ground target.

Example C--something that was stupid and still got launched: STSS.

This is a tougher category, because the senior levels of the Pentagon have access to lots of smart people outside of the Pentagon that can review proposed spacecraft and weapons systems.  They can go hire some brainiacs at IDA or RAND or Aerospace Corp. or SAIC and ask them to crunch the numbers and then come back and say "this might work, but it will cost a huge amount more than predicted," or "this won't work at all," or "this is already obsolescent."  But sometimes really dumb things still get launched. 

STSS might be an example on this (I'm reaching here) because it appears as if it was launched into space without a very good plan for testing it.  And the hardware is apparently rather ancient, especially for a test program.  So it might be a case where the military spent a lot of money and is going to get almost nothing in return, and... (and this is the point that gets back to your comment) that may have been evident before the launch.  After all, the lack of a good testing program should have been apparent five days before launch if it was apparent five days after launch. 

So, going full-circle back to X-37B: it is entirely possible that this thing is dumb and is being launched only because it has not been subjected to sufficient scrutiny by the right people.

Or it could be brilliant.  I certainly hope so.  My tax dollars helped pay for it.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
« Reply #519 on: 04/06/2010 02:11 am »
And to date, there are no sensors yet able to match it for quality/speed.  (you can get higher quality, but it's too slow for a fast moving shot, and vice-versa)


Not commercially. 

spacecraft use motion compensation

Still you can still do things with film that you can't do with digital. I wonder, high resolution mapping over a large area. That is a hella lotta bandwidth...  Many of the early mapping spy sats could fit in the x-37's payload bay. How long did some of the last agena based vehicles stay in orbit at the end of the program?

We assume that job was taken over by more modern birds. If there was such a gap it would be one way to fill the void. Would it cost the same as bringing back agena then developing a cover for it? Does get away from snatching the capsule in midair.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0