Quote from: stealthyplains on 03/19/2010 03:42 amSorry if this has been covered before:Can the X-37B reach the ISS and return from it? Can the X-37B practically be made to dock with the ISS?Could a single astronaut with an ACES suit, sufficient air, and proper restraint survive launch and/or re-entry in the X-37B?1. Yes2. no3. no
Sorry if this has been covered before:Can the X-37B reach the ISS and return from it? Can the X-37B practically be made to dock with the ISS?Could a single astronaut with an ACES suit, sufficient air, and proper restraint survive launch and/or re-entry in the X-37B?
Quote from: Jim on 03/19/2010 11:45 amQuote from: stealthyplains on 03/19/2010 03:42 amSorry if this has been covered before:Can the X-37B reach the ISS and return from it? Can the X-37B practically be made to dock with the ISS?Could a single astronaut with an ACES suit, sufficient air, and proper restraint survive launch and/or re-entry in the X-37B?1. Yes2. no3. noSo assuming an astronaut from the ISS could spacewalk and put something in the X-37's payload bay then it would be possible for the X-37 to return scientific experiments to earth? I'm not saying it would be practical, just wondering if it's possible.
Day dreaming: 1. Could this vehicle carry experimental space weapons to test functionality in space, or perhaps constituent materials thereof?2. it seems that for a reusable craft of this size, deploying rather than retrieving payloads seem more likely. However, if it was only deploying things, I would have guessed that expendable would be cheaper.3. Was some hard-core shuttle enthusiast put in charge of USAF space research ... and then just wanted to make the best model rocket ever?
On the other hand, if someone wanted to return a classified something back to Earth, tucked away in a closed payload bay, wings and cross-range and a controlled landing on a runway located inside a secure area would seem desirable, if not essential. Of course the Corona/Keyhole program did something similar with capsules and parachutes, but the payloads (film return buckets) were pretty small and, it might be argued, not a catastrophic national security loss if recovered by the "bad guys" instead, since they were merely photos of the "bad guys" own territory. Makes you wonder if there hasn't been a wings versus capsule debate in the classified world in recent years. - Ed Kyle
Like Corona & Keyhole, you can take your photos, or LLTV or IR or whatever from very low altitudes with very high resolution and, with a 2+km/s dV you can do it for a while and then return to a secure site, but also you can relaunch the spacecraft after a quick refurbishment and do it on an operationally responsive basis.
Quote from: tankmodeler on 03/29/2010 12:45 pmLike Corona & Keyhole, you can take your photos, or LLTV or IR or whatever from very low altitudes with very high resolution and, with a 2+km/s dV you can do it for a while and then return to a secure site, but also you can relaunch the spacecraft after a quick refurbishment and do it on an operationally responsive basis. How is it operationally responsible if its launch vehicle needs something like 1.5 years from ATP and its launch manifest is booked?
Quote from: edkyle99 on 02/27/2010 07:38 pmOn the other hand, if someone wanted to return a classified something back to Earth, tucked away in a closed payload bay, wings and cross-range and a controlled landing on a runway located inside a secure area would seem desirable, if not essential. Of course the Corona/Keyhole program did something similar with capsules and parachutes, but the payloads (film return buckets) were pretty small and, it might be argued, not a catastrophic national security loss if recovered by the "bad guys" instead, since they were merely photos of the "bad guys" own territory. Makes you wonder if there hasn't been a wings versus capsule debate in the classified world in recent years. - Ed KyleTo bring back up a very interesting comment, the concept behind an X-37 does lend itself very well to a resurgence in low altitude intel gathering. Like Corona & Keyhole, you can take your photos, or LLTV or IR or whatever from very low altitudes with very high resolution and, with a 2+km/s dV you can do it for a while and then return to a secure site, but also you can relaunch the spacecraft after a quick refurbishment and do it on an operationally responsive basis. 270 days in orbit allows a lot of loiter before a period of intense ops flying and the large dV also allows a fair amount of orbital spoofing so that the "bad" guys can't plan as well for the satellite overflys.The question is, of course, is that capability something that becomes more cost efficient with reusability or would it still be cheaper all around to throw the spacecraft away? The secure landing is, I think, worth something and the ability to reuse the spacecraft after the precision landing might just be a bonus.Hmmm. Just spitballin', but I wonder what the operational trade offs would be. Where's Mr. Barton when you need him to develop a cool story from all this. Paul
Does anyone know if/when the 501 was delivered to the Cape? Seems like past flights have had the booster show up about 30-45 days out.
Update from today:http://www.spaceflightnow.com/atlas/av012/100402x37update/
Quote from: yg1968 on 04/03/2010 02:10 amUpdate from today:http://www.spaceflightnow.com/atlas/av012/100402x37update/Hmmmm....autonomous entry and landing. I wonder if it has to carry a range safety package.
As it is a military vehicle, it probably has a self-destruct system anyway to stop sensitive avionics, sensors and materials technology potentially falling into hostile hands.