Norm Hartnett - 19/11/2006 12:34 PM
Where is Vt_hokie?
Jim - 19/11/2006 7:01 PM
my post got deleted.
I overlooked the part about Atlas V in the article. NASA was going compete the launch service.
It will need a 5m fairing
Dante Wynter - 20/11/2006 4:13 AM
I take it this is not a manned craft?
kevin-rf - 18/11/2006 9:20 PM"The OTV would be the first vehicle developed since the space shuttle with the ability to return experiments to Earth for further inspection and analysis."
http://space.com/news/061117_x27b_otv.html
This is exciting, and I'm glad it's going to fly that soon.
Interesting that it will fly aboard an Atlas, but presumably the "flight" airframes will be built by Boeing (who built the drop-test craft).
Here's hoping for a great many interesting and educational flights.
meiza - 18/11/2006 4:43 PM
Satellite retrieval? Combined with XSS-11-heritage rendezvous operations...
Zond - 20/11/2006 4:49 PM
Does anybody know if they are still planning to use the peroxide/kerosene AR2-3 rocket engine on the X-37?
yinzer - 20/11/2006 7:21 PM
Delta II Heavy and 5-m fairing don't go together. Was it going to be out in the airstream?
mike robel - 20/11/2006 9:30 PM
Pity it is going to be inside the shroud. It would have made a neat model in 1/144 scale. :( Now, with the X-37 inside the shroud, I would reckon it looks like the New Horizons launch vehicle
kevin-rf - 18/11/2006 12:20 PM
Noticed these links on hobbyspace.com ( http://hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=2809 )
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123032192
http://space.com/news/061117_x27b_otv.html
Guess someone outside of the shuttle program has a need for down mass...
TitanFan - 20/11/2006 11:18 PM
I was reading the article on spaceflightnow.com and it said that this was either going to land at Edwards or Vandenberg. Chances are it will probably be Edwards, though, huh :(.
yinzer - 21/11/2006 12:56 PM
The X-37 does (or at least did) have solar panels. The thinking back in the day was to be able to return usually quite expensive payloads back to earth for refurbishing/reuse/reflight. Lots of intelligence payloads cost tons of money, and the nature of military remote sensing means that you'd frequently like to be able to make big changes to the parameters of your orbit to change overflight times. This takes a lot of propellant, which means you can only do it so many times, but also means that you can run out of propellant when your fancy sensing payload is still doing fine, so it'd be nice to bring it back and only have to refuel it and send it back up again.
kevin-rf - 21/11/2006 4:58 PM
"IF" the X-37b has a cargo bay with doors, might it be easier to expose what ever payload is to the space enviroment verses a capsul?
I wonder what goal of the X-37 really is?
A platform to test different items in the space enviroment without having to build a satelite each time? An Atlas V flight seems a really expensive way to do this. Unless you want your payload back for tweaking it makes no sense. In the digital age what can you sense in orbit that requires the data to be brought back to the ground?
Maybe have a flexible platform with which to test/verify hypersonic flight characteristics and TPS's (High speed tests you wouldn't dare do with a manned shuttle) ? There has been an airforce desire for a hypersonic bomber. Maybe this is a way to get the hard data they need on the flight enviroment without anyone being the wiser. Throw a couple of pretty science experiments and no eyebrows get raised. Will the X-37 have a solar panel?
It makes no sense to me...
Jim - 19/11/2006 5:11 PM
In one of my many tasks, I was working X-37 OTV-launch vehicle integration before it was cancelled.
Propforce - 21/11/2006 2:42 PMQuoteJim - 19/11/2006 5:11 PM
In one of my many tasks, I was working X-37 OTV-launch vehicle integration before it was cancelled.
You need a higher level clearance :)
Jim - 21/11/2006 10:19 AMQuoteyinzer - 21/11/2006 12:56 PM
The X-37 does (or at least did) have solar panels. The thinking back in the day was to be able to return usually quite expensive payloads back to earth for refurbishing/reuse/reflight. Lots of intelligence payloads cost tons of money, and the nature of military remote sensing means that you'd frequently like to be able to make big changes to the parameters of your orbit to change overflight times. This takes a lot of propellant, which means you can only do it so many times, but also means that you can run out of propellant when your fancy sensing payload is still doing fine, so it'd be nice to bring it back and only have to refuel it and send it back up again.
It wasn't designed for "returning" payloads. It can only carry 500 lbs. The vehicle itself is the payload.
yinzer - 21/11/2006 12:57 PMQuoteJim - 21/11/2006 10:19 AMQuoteyinzer - 21/11/2006 12:56 PM
The X-37 does (or at least did) have solar panels. The thinking back in the day was to be able to return usually quite expensive payloads back to earth for refurbishing/reuse/reflight. Lots of intelligence payloads cost tons of money, and the nature of military remote sensing means that you'd frequently like to be able to make big changes to the parameters of your orbit to change overflight times. This takes a lot of propellant, which means you can only do it so many times, but also means that you can run out of propellant when your fancy sensing payload is still doing fine, so it'd be nice to bring it back and only have to refuel it and send it back up again.
It wasn't designed for "returning" payloads. It can only carry 500 lbs. The vehicle itself is the payload.
Launch vehicle payload vs. satellite payload are two different things. Doesn't the X-37 provide power, pointing, communications, and maneuvering like a normal satellite bus?
yinzer - 21/11/2006 1:50 PM
... you can only sprinkle the words "aircraft-like operations" throughout your powerpoints for so long - at some point you have to actually try.
Jim - 23/11/2006 8:19 AM
X-37 only weighs 5000lbs or so and it can only carry 500lbs of payload itself.
More could be returned on a capsule. exact numbers are hard to determine. But it would have less system weight
mike robel - 23/11/2006 11:31 AM
So, does anyone have a three or five view drawing of an X-37? Dang if I can find one on the web.
edkyle99 - 23/11/2006 3:00 PMQuoteJim - 23/11/2006 8:19 AM
X-37 only weighs 5000lbs or so and it can only carry 500lbs of payload itself.
More could be returned on a capsule. exact numbers are hard to determine. But it would have less system weight
Are you talking about landing mass? I remember reading that X-37 weighed more like 5,000-plus kg (12,000-ish pounds) at launch, which is why NASA had to switch to an EELV launch from Delta II. Launch mass would, of course, include on-orbit and de-orbit propellant.
Which raises another question. What is the de-orbit propulsion system? Is it "built-in" or is a "retro" package used?
- Ed Kyle
Jim - 23/11/2006 2:33 PMIf it landed at 7500lbs, would it be able to return with any payload?Quoteedkyle99 - 23/11/2006 3:00 PMQuoteJim - 23/11/2006 8:19 AM
X-37 only weighs 5000lbs or so and it can only carry 500lbs of payload itself.
More could be returned on a capsule. exact numbers are hard to determine. But it would have less system weight
Are you talking about landing mass? I remember reading that X-37 weighed more like 5,000-plus kg (12,000-ish pounds) at launch, which is why NASA had to switch to an EELV launch from Delta II. Launch mass would, of course, include on-orbit and de-orbit propellant.
Which raises another question. What is the de-orbit propulsion system? Is it "built-in" or is a "retro" package used?
- Ed Kyle
I was a little low on mass. Max landed was 7500 lbs. 13500lbs launch. It wasn't mass, it was controllability that led to the switch. The Delta II launch would have no fairing on the X-37
Deorbit propulsion is built in.
publiusr - 30/3/2007 3:16 PM
Probably under wraps. I'm thinking you really don't need a higher security clearance for integration--just the actual design. Either this craft or similar types in the future will probably have cold gas thrusters...
--perhaps for satellite inspection
GW_Simulations - 30/8/2007 7:05 AM
2008 launch looks doubtful. The Atlas is pretty busy all year, and with the current valve problem, 2007 launches are being pushed back into 2008.
GW_Simulations - 31/8/2007 6:52 AM
Based on new information, I retract my eariler statement. On closer examination there is a gap in the Atlas launch manifest in late March/April. I missed this at first because I got confused and thought the DMSP launch was going from Canaveral. Seeing as this is actually from VAFB, and I am expecting SBIRS to be delayed, there is a possible gap.
tnphysics - 11/9/2007 10:14 PM
Where will the X-37 land? SLF at KSC? Dry lake bed @ Edwards?
How long a runway does the current X-37 really need? 2.5 miles?
NEWUSER - 18/3/2008 2:05 AM
So X-37 will be launched in 2008 ?
space_dreamer - 18/3/2008 6:28 AMwhy?
What about in 2009? Anyway won't they keep the launch secret?
space_dreamer - 18/3/2008 6:55 AM
As it's a USAF program, i thought they would keep the launch under raps until its flown.
They stealing launcher from LRO, that means, that LRO will miss this Winter Solstice to catch polar Permanent Light Areas! And nobody knows will LRO survive until the next such a late mission event.
They stealing launcher from LRO, that means, that LRO will miss this Winter Solstice to catch polar Permanent Light Areas! And nobody knows will LRO survive until the next such a late mission event.
They are not stealing their launcher.
1. LRO is a 401, X-37 uses a 501.
2. LRO couldn't meet its date and lost its place in the queue
They stealing launcher from LRO, that means, that LRO will miss this Winter Solstice to catch polar Permanent Light Areas! And nobody knows will LRO survive until the next such a late mission event.
They are not stealing their launcher.
1. LRO is a 401, X-37 uses a 501.
2. LRO couldn't meet its date and lost its place in the queue
Unlikely that X-37 will use the same launcher as LRO.
But in this case not completly impossible: The second Atlas V (AV-002) was for a time a 501 version for pad tests, but then reverted to 401 configuration for launch.
Did Jim say that the X-37 fits inside a normal Atlas V 5 meter fairing? I guess it just seems like it's bigger than that.
Are there any images of how that will fit? It's too bad that it doesn't fly naked on top of the rocket. That would be a launch to remember!
A naked launch would be interesting, indeed.
Wasn't X-37 once planned to be launched on a Shuttle? 15ft payload bay then, 15ft fairing now. Fit check passed.
Analyst
Did Jim say that the X-37 fits inside a normal Atlas V 5 meter fairing? I guess it just seems like it's bigger than that.
The Atlas V user's guide shows a payload envelope of 15 feet (includes required clearances). Not sure how accurate Wiki is, but it shows X-37 has a 15 foot wingspan (although someone could have just looked at the user's guide to determine the limit on wingspan).QuoteAre there any images of how that will fit? It's too bad that it doesn't fly naked on top of the rocket. That would be a launch to remember!
I'm sure there are pictures, but they're probably all proprietary at this point. The AF will likely release more information as launch approaches. A naked launch would be interesting, indeed.
Holy cow! I had no idea they were doing this till just now! So, a November Launch?
Okay after reading the spaceflightnow article about them moving up the launch, the conspiracy theorist in me is wondering if the DOD wanted to fly this before the next pres. is seated. This way they can do a "see we have an alternative for manned space flight and it won't require new a launch vehicle and is not going backwards with a capsule".
That or they have a real payload they want to fly on this bird and need to get the small detail of a test flight out of the way first.
Okay after reading the spaceflightnow article about them moving up the launch, the conspiracy theorist in me is wondering if the DOD wanted to fly this before the next pres. is seated. This way they can do a "see we have an alternative for manned space flight and it won't require new a launch vehicle and is not going backwards with a capsule".
That or they have a real payload they want to fly on this bird and need to get the small detail of a test flight out of the way first.
... Back to checking the fit of my tin foil hat ... DynaSoar forever!!!
Okay after reading the spaceflightnow article about them moving up the launch, the conspiracy theorist in me is wondering if the DOD wanted to fly this before the next pres. is seated. This way they can do a "see we have an alternative for manned space flight and it won't require new a launch vehicle and is not going backwards with a capsule".
That or they have a real payload they want to fly on this bird and need to get the small detail of a test flight out of the way first.
... Back to checking the fit of my tin foil hat ... DynaSoar forever!!!
That was what defined the original Ares-1X flight date 2 years ago as September 2008. NASA found if the “simple” Ares-1X couldn’t meet such a schedule and it has been delayed more than a year.
Good luck to the X37 team.
What is the TPS material on X-37?
"Advanced reusable TPS". No other details given.
Quoteyinzer - 20/11/2006 7:21 PM
Delta II Heavy and 5-m fairing don't go together. Was it going to be out in the airstream?
Yes and controllablity was an issue. It would have required the vectoring GEM-46. There were also 2nd stage interface issues
Alternative: Taurus-II (with 5m fairing)
yes, optional.
yes, optional.
Source?
5M would be useless with the lower Delta II class performance of the T-II
yes, optional.
Source?
5M would be useless with the lower Delta II class performance of the T-II
Not useless? 5m fairing has been an option since T-II was concieved. Source: Me!
yes, optional.
Source?
5M would be useless with the lower Delta II class performance of the T-II
Not useless? 5m fairing has been an option since T-II was concieved. Source: Me!
It was "option" and it was with the higher performing upperstages. It doesn't mean it will be developed. It was passed on at PDR
Don't misunderstand stand me, I am all for Taurus-II. I just have been disappointed with some of the decisions in the program. Some that will limit its utility.
Solid second stage
WFF launch site
on pad encapsulation (that is going to prevent a 5m fairing)
There isn't "time". "Upgrades" or changes to these decisions are too far in the future. Launch vehicles that are needed in the 2011-2012 time frame are being procured now.
and for much less $$ than an Altas-V.
and for much less $$ than an Altas-V.
You don't know enough to make that call. I know OSC and ULA prices. There are no deals from either.
Also, the x-37 is probably not qualified for the environments of the SRM 2nd stage.
Also T-II wouldn't have the performance
I'd assume the cylindrical object in the payload bay is a telescope, Schmidt-Cassegrain by the proportions; 0.75 m reflector looks like. Theoretically that'd be ~18 cm resolution at 300 km, but in reality would probably be closer to 25 cm...
Simon ;)
weapons delivery
How fast can ULA deliver an Atlas V?
If this morphed into a vehicle that sits on a solid somewhere in a desert preloaded waiting for call up, I may buy that. But if the solid could place this thing in orbit, it can send the payload to target without the expensive payload shroud.
...Yeah and with modern materials it will give you 5cm resolution ;)
Quick launch of a recoverable optical telesope does not make alot of sense... Unless you are trying to develop some special sensors to pick the tanks out of the trees in canada and want to keep reflying the optical test bed until you are sure you can see what you want to see and then invade canada. ;D
Seems it would make more sense from a quick reaction standpoint to use it to launch custom Elint packages that have been tailored for unique conditions on the ground.
But who knows, maybe it is how they plan to sneak beer into area 51.
The result would be more and better data than trying to retask spy sats already in polar orbits...
Simon ;)
Which is a dubious since after its first pass, the subsequence passes are subject to the same constraints as the other spacecraft onorbit.
Also ELINT is not really viable from LEO
Which is a dubious since after its first pass, the subsequence passes are subject to the same constraints as the other spacecraft onorbit.
Also ELINT is not really viable from LEO
ELINT is already done from orbit has been since the 60's.
Could it be used to put a laser in space for a test and then retrieve it and bring it back down? (The Air Force has an Airborne laser on a 747 that it has been testing for years, {? and is almost ready ? } Perhaps the X-37 could be used for multiple tests of a possible space-based ABM system?
Wow. This X-37 "mini-shuttle" program is very interesting. Good luck to the program, hope they fly it successfully!
Are there plans for follow-on vehicles? And are there any plans or discussions for a reusable jet or rocket powered winged first stage that would carry the X-37 up and then release it to fire it into orbit?
Wow. This X-37 "mini-shuttle" program is very interesting. Good luck to the program, hope they fly it successfully!
Are there plans for follow-on vehicles? And are there any plans or discussions for a reusable jet or rocket powered winged first stage that would carry the X-37 up and then release it to fire it into orbit?
X-37 is a spacecraft and not a launch vehicle. It needs more than a first stage to get it into orbit
Could it be used to put a laser in space for a test and then retrieve it and bring it back down? (The Air Force has an Airborne laser on a 747 that it has been testing for years, {? and is almost ready ? } Perhaps the X-37 could be used for multiple tests of a possible space-based ABM system?
The laser is too big. Even the aiming turret on the nose of the 747 is too big.
Which is a dubious since after its first pass, the subsequence passes are subject to the same constraints as the other spacecraft onorbit.
Also ELINT is not really viable from LEO
ELINT is already done from orbit has been since the 60's.
I was referring to LEO. Didn't say orbit
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj06/sum06/tomme.html
"The Myth of the Tactical Satellite"
I was referring to LEO (low earth orbit). Didn't say orbit
Can someone share why this mission has been pushed back to 2009?
I'm going to pull a Jim here:
Nope.
Can someone share why this mission has been pushed back to 2009?
I'm going to pull a Jim here:
Nope.
Can someone share why this mission has been pushed back to 2009?
The same reason as why DMSP has been delayed
Can someone share why this mission has been pushed back to 2009?
The same reason as why DMSP has been delayed
And why has DMSP been delayed?
Analyst
Can someone share why this mission has been pushed back to 2009?
The same reason as why DMSP has been delayed
And why has DMSP been delayed?
Analyst
Apparently it is some super secret reason possibly something to do with RD-180 issues. Some folks on this board may know, but must think that public knowledge of such issues would endanger national security or worse, undermine the credibility of the booster or something (pure ignorant speculation on my part). Or not. Time will tell. I think Atlas is the most interesting LV around and hope that this is nothing of long-term importance. I say, begin US production RD-180 ASAP. ;)
Can someone share why this mission has been pushed back to 2009?
The same reason as why DMSP has been delayed
And why has DMSP been delayed?
Analyst
Apparently it is some super secret reason possibly something to do with RD-180 issues. Some folks on this board may know, but must think that public knowledge of such issues would endanger national security or worse, undermine the credibility of the booster or something (pure ignorant speculation on my part). Or not. Time will tell. I think Atlas is the most interesting LV around and hope that this is nothing of long-term importance. I say, begin US production RD-180 ASAP. ;)
If reason about RD-180 , then why they don't change plan of WGS SV2 launch ?
Can someone share why this mission has been pushed back to 2009?
The same reason as why DMSP has been delayed
And why has DMSP been delayed?
Analyst
Apparently it is some super secret reason possibly something to do with RD-180 issues. Some folks on this board may know, but must think that public knowledge of such issues would endanger national security or worse, undermine the credibility of the booster or something (pure ignorant speculation on my part). Or not. Time will tell. I think Atlas is the most interesting LV around and hope that this is nothing of long-term importance. I say, begin US production RD-180 ASAP. ;)
If reason about RD-180 , then why they don't change plan of WGS SV2 launch ?
When is the WGS launch? ;)
If reason about RD-180 , then why they don't change plan of WGS SV2 launch ?
I'm going to pull a Jim here:
Nope.
Haha... too funny
I'd assume that was in response to EE Scott's postQuoteCan someone share why this mission has been pushed back to 2009?
Put it this way, the prime contractor on this program can not even admit officially the existence of this vehicle......
If I tell ya.....
That's funny because they admitted to it when it was a NASA program
Apparently it is some super secret reason possibly something to do with RD-180 issues. Some folks on this board may know, but must think that public knowledge of such issues would endanger national security or worse, undermine the credibility of the booster or something (pure ignorant speculation on my part). Or not.
For awhile there, I'm kind of like, hey, all those Atlas flights that were scheduled for second half of 2008 are slowly kind of fading away into 2009 somewhere - why is no one noticing but me? Oh well, here's to hoping that they get back on track sooner rather than later.
Apparently it is some super secret reason possibly something to do with RD-180 issues.
Apparently it is some super secret reason possibly something to do with RD-180 issues.
Some info at last on the RD-180 issue.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/Atlaswoes100708.xml&headline=Debris%20Tied%20To%20Atlas%20V%20Launch%20Woes&channel=space
- Ed Kyle
Thanks for sharing that. As long as the RD-180 is made outside the US perhaps there will always be questions about quality control in the manufacturing process. If I am not mistaken, debris within the engine caused Sea Launch's unscheduled disassembly of their RD-171. This issue is not new and unfortunately, it does not seem to be able to go away.
Thanks for sharing that. As long as the RD-180 is made outside the US perhaps there will always be questions about quality control in the manufacturing process. If I am not mistaken, debris within the engine caused Sea Launch's unscheduled disassembly of their RD-171.Note that this was (most likely) debris from the LOX tank not the engine.
Thanks for sharing that. As long as the RD-180 is made outside the US perhaps there will always be questions about quality control in the manufacturing process. If I am not mistaken, debris within the engine caused Sea Launch's unscheduled disassembly of their RD-171.Note that this was (most likely) debris from the LOX tank not the engine.
Also not that ULA currently deals with other, domestic quality control issues too.
Analyst
Thanks for sharing that. As long as the RD-180 is made outside the US perhaps there will always be questions about quality control in the manufacturing process. If I am not mistaken, debris within the engine caused Sea Launch's unscheduled disassembly of their RD-171.Note that this was (most likely) debris from the LOX tank not the engine.
That statement does not specifically impugn the engine or the feed system on the vehicle. It could have come from anywhere on either side.
...... it's excessively unlikely that the FOD originated in the engine; but we can never know definitively.
You can see from the footage on L2 that the vehicle achieved T/W >1, which means it was released, which means it passed any health monitoring during spin up. Ergo, it's excessively unlikely that the FOD originated in the engine; ...
Out of curiosity, is there a lower limit on the size of metallic debris (e.g. metal scrapings, etc.) that wouldn't destroy the turbopump or will pretty much anything wreak havoc, only maybe further down the line in the injector?
Launch planned for 26 February ( Spaceflight Now).
Different security classification now....
Different security classification now....
Why does all the good stuff have to be classified?! ;)
Launch planned for 26 February ( Spaceflight Now).
Remember the 1990ies with up to 11 Atlas 1/2/2A/2AS per year.
Would ULA ever consider building a second VIF?
Remember the 1990ies with up to 11 Atlas 1/2/2A/2AS per year.
Remember the 1990's with 2 launch pads at Complex 36?
Remember the 1990ies with up to 11 Atlas 1/2/2A/2AS per year.
Remember the 1990's with 2 launch pads at Complex 36?
I remember two operational pads at LC-36 1966 onward..............
Remember the 1990ies with up to 11 Atlas 1/2/2A/2AS per year.
Remember the 1990's with 2 launch pads at Complex 36?
I remember two operational pads at LC-36 1966 onward..............
One of them (36A) was out of launch service from 1983 to 1992. It was devoted to testing Shuttle Centaur for several years.
- Ed Kyle
"Atlas 95" was the year with 11 launches. 11 launches mean at least 11 tanking tests also. So at least 22 major ops in a year. OT....
Remember the 1990ies with up to 11 Atlas 1/2/2A/2AS per year.
Remember the 1990's with 2 launch pads at Complex 36?
Remember the 1990ies with up to 11 Atlas 1/2/2A/2AS per year.
Remember the 1990's with 2 launch pads at Complex 36?
And why exactly aren't we stacking at the pad anymore? Shouldn't there be an improvement with Atlas V (EELV) over old Atlas?
I know, no two VIFs and platforms. But without these, no schedule flexibility, only less than a handful commercial missions. And therefore no need for two VIFs and ... Ups, the old chicken and egg problem again. I wonder how Arianespace solved it.
And why exactly aren't we stacking at the pad anymore? Shouldn't there be an improvement with Atlas V (EELV) over old Atlas?
12 a year launch rate. production meet the flight rateDoes that include SLC-3 or not?
12 a year launch rate. production meet the flight rateDoes that include SLC-3 or not?
I could not find any recent thread about X37-program, please delete or move this post to relevant thread if necessary...
So, is there any news about the first orbital flight? Still happening in 2009?
"Potential new commercial and military reusable space vehicle market applications for these technologies range from on-orbit satellite repair to the next-generation of totally reusable launch vehicles," explained past Boeing-issued material.
[NASA's mission last month to service the Hubble Space Telescope marked the last satellite-servicing mission by the shuttle fleet.]
The intent of the X-37B mission is to try out a wide variety of experiments and technologies, including a highly durable, high-temperature thermal protection system; storable, non-toxic liquid propellants; and important new aerodynamic features - all of which are applicable to future reusable space vehicles.
Jim, do you know what flavour of Atlas-V is to be used for this project, or is that information classified as this is a USAF/DARPA flight?
According to Space.com, the X-37 launch has now slipped to January 2010 - http://www.space.com/news/090602-x-37b-space-plane.html
X-37B is now at VAFB, slowly inching toward launch.
X-37B is now at VAFB, slowly inching toward launch.
Flying from VAFB, not Cape Canaveral?
Dunno, but it's in a processing facility at VAFB.
X-37B is now at VAFB, slowly inching toward launch.
Flying from VAFB, not Cape Canaveral?
Dunno, but it's in a processing facility at VAFB.
Could it have something to do with Vandenberg being the prime landing site? Alternatively it could be part of ULA's plan to reduce the Atlas backlog, but I believe SLC-3E will be occupied by NRO L-29 when the X-37 is due to launch.
I know somebody who is working on an article that will supposedly have some new info. I don't know what that info is. The launch is supposed to happen in the next few months, I believe.
I know somebody who is working on an article that will supposedly have some new info. I don't know what that info is. The launch is supposed to happen in the next few months, I believe.
1. Again it seems a launch that is interesting on so many levels gets pushed back years for seemingly no good reason.
2. I admit to being somewhat confused. Sometimes it seems like the Atlas V manifest is at 100% of capacity because one or two changes with a payload shifts everybody around.
3. But if there is supposed to be so much more excess capacity to Atlas, why does it seem like they are maxed out with such limited launch opportunities?
4. If I had to guess I suppose they are running at full speed with X number of supporting personnel;
5. if they received a surge of additional business, say as if Atlas became a CLV, I suppose they would go ahead and hire additional personnel/add a shift, etc.? Does this makes sense?
6. Because if EELV ever did get some new big contract (e.g., crew or cargo launch), does the Cape and the Range have the capability to handle it?
7.Sometimes the awkward way schedule changes are made wrt various launches make me think that a higher launch rate would cause lots of headaches. Any enlightenment on this is appreciated.
MLS has an RTG and under the current pace, they cannot launch both payloads within their windows. USAF and NASA are seeking to pay ULA to increase their pace, which I think cuts 15 days off of each, reducing the time to 30 days for a standard Atlas and 75 days for an Atlas carrying an RTG.
I know somebody who is working on an article that will supposedly have some new info. I don't know what that info is. The launch is supposed to happen in the next few months, I believe.
Do you know where the article will be published?
MLS has an RTG and under the current pace, they cannot launch both payloads within their windows. USAF and NASA are seeking to pay ULA to increase their pace, which I think cuts 15 days off of each, reducing the time to 30 days for a standard Atlas and 75 days for an Atlas carrying an RTG.
MSL has a lot of GSE that needs to be installed in the VIF to support RTF installation
Right. I've got some slides somewhere that I'll try to find and post that show how the RTG (actually the MMRTG) will be mounted inside of the payload fairy on the MSL.
Right. I've got some slides somewhere that I'll try to find and post that show how the RTG (actually the MMRTG) will be mounted inside of the payload fairy on the MSL.
I have some but can't share them due to the markings on them
I know somebody who is working on an article that will supposedly have some new info. I don't know what that info is. The launch is supposed to happen in the next few months, I believe.
Do you know where the article will be published?
I don't know for sure, but I have not asked. I also don't know when it will be published, but also have not asked. When it is published, I'll post that here.
Great information, thanks, I am glad I asked about this. The Planetary Science folks sure have had to take a few lumps the past few years.
Thanks Blackstar!! Yeah, I think this is on the wrong thread...but whatever works :)
Please don't remove. It was related to the issue of Atlas V launch rates, which is directly related to when, if ever, the X-37 will launch. So it is relevant and also a great example of the kind of informational nuggets that this forum is so great for.
Second mission could occur in 2011.
Second mission could occur in 2011.
? ? ? ?
The article I mentioned is up:
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/091022-x37b-testlaunch.html
Not too much new.
One thought that comes to mind is if they are sensitive to it's offensive capability they would have kept it as a NASA program to put a happy civilian face on and every now & then throw in a DoD mission,
There is no overarching they.
One thought that comes to mind is if they are sensitive to it's offensive capability they would have kept it as a NASA program to put a happy civilian face on and every now & then throw in a DoD mission,
Who is they? NASA didn't want it and the USAF took it over. There is no overarching they.
Here is a complete shot-in-the-dark: It would make a spectacularly fast but amazingly over-expensive courier ship. You could get high-value personnel or (if the vehicle was large enough) even a SEAL or Ranger hostage extraction squad to a ToO within a few hours of the 'go'. This is especially the case if you launch it off of a multi-SRM core (a sort of hybrid between Taurus and Ares-I) rather than a conventional liquid rocket.
Here is a complete shot-in-the-dark: It would make a spectacularly fast but amazingly over-expensive courier ship. You could get high-value personnel or (if the vehicle was large enough) even a SEAL or Ranger hostage extraction squad to a ToO within a few hours of the 'go'.
Landing would be on a conventional airstrip.And of course, there is one next to every situation.
How would the intrepid SEALs be extracted?
@ Jim, I was not suggesting that it would deliver to the site, only to the ToO. Final transport will be by helo and then, depending on exact local conditions, either foot or civilian road vehicle.
Here is a complete shot-in-the-dark: It would make a spectacularly fast but amazingly over-expensive courier ship. You could get high-value personnel or (if the vehicle was large enough) even a SEAL or Ranger hostage extraction squad to a ToO within a few hours of the 'go'. This is especially the case if you launch it off of a multi-SRM core (a sort of hybrid between Taurus and Ares-I) rather than a conventional liquid rocket.
There is a DoD concept known as SUSTAIN for a suborbital, or partially orbital, spaceplane to land a squad of troops behind enemy lines. It is one of the most amazingly dumb ideas for milspace that anybody has come up with in awhile now. Technically, it's impossible. But militarily, it's just dumb.
Somewhere (in one of the Gatland/Bono books from the late 1960s, I think), I saw art of this thing launching off the deck of a modified aircraft carrier...
There is a DoD concept known as SUSTAIN for a suborbital, or partially orbital, spaceplane to land a squad of troops behind enemy lines. It is one of the most amazingly dumb ideas for milspace that anybody has come up with in awhile now. Technically, it's impossible. But militarily, it's just dumb.
From 1964:
Future GIs to ride rocket troopship (Jul, 1964) (http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2008/02/01/future-gis-to-ride-rocket-troopship/)
(check out that ramp!)
From 1964:
Future GIs to ride rocket troopship (Jul, 1964) (http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2008/02/01/future-gis-to-ride-rocket-troopship/)
(check out that ramp!)
Why is everyone asking me to defend an idea that, in my initial post, I made pretty clear that I didn't take seriously myself?
Why is everyone asking me to defend an idea that, in my initial post, I made pretty clear that I didn't take seriously myself?
TPS, shape, guidance, communications, ect. all get to be tested by the X-37. Hence its X-pane status as a technology demonstrator.
The reasons the Air Force wants this are pretty obvious but not all that ground breaking. They want aircraft like operations for launching things into space.
That will take a long time and lots of smaller projects along the way. With the X-37B you get to test most the major systems of an eventual TSTO RLV assuming you go with some variation of fly back boosters.
TPS, shape, guidance, communications, ect. all get to be tested by the X-37. Hence its X-pane status as a technology demonstrator.
The reasons the Air Force wants this are pretty obvious but not all that ground breaking. They want aircraft like operations for launching things into space.
The reasons the Air Force wants this are pretty obvious but not all that ground breaking. They want aircraft like operations for launching things into space.
That's not at all obvious. It does not explain the secrecy surrounding the mission. If it was obvious, the USAF would state that this was the goal. They haven't.
The reasons the Air Force wants this are pretty obvious but not all that ground breaking. They want aircraft like operations for launching things into space.
That will take a long time and lots of smaller projects along the way. With the X-37B you get to test most the major systems of an eventual TSTO RLV assuming you go with some variation of fly back boosters.
TPS, shape, guidance, communications, ect. all get to be tested by the X-37. Hence its X-pane status as a technology demonstrator.
...or how about some payload that is so black/new/nasty/intriguing/advanced/naughty that you MUST bring it back from orbit after testing/use?...
Inertia. The program, regardless of its goals, was conceived in secrecy.
Inertia. The program, regardless of its goals, was conceived in secrecy.
I worked on it as a NASA mission. Its payload would be the only reason for classification.
STSS Demo came in the same way. The pictures of it were benign.
Almost everything known about it comes from those days.
I think the more likely explanation is that this is in some way testing technology for Prompt Global Strike.
I think the more likely explanation is that this is in some way testing technology for Prompt Global Strike.
I have a dumb question. Does not Prompt Global Strike = ICBM and was therefore developed 50+ years ago? What's the difference?
What would be the advantage over cruise missiles? Faster and more difficult to shoot down?
What would be the advantage over cruise missiles? Faster and more difficult to shoot down?
Primarily faster.
Using an X-37-style vehicle for PGS is one of the silliest things I've heard recently. There are far more effective ways of doing such a mission.
I also think the secrecy claims are a bit overblown, too. People are reading too much into an apparent lack of detail. It's a DoD test flight. Why would you expect a rundown on what it's carrying?
I'd add what I think is another possible explanation: this is a test for a satellite inspection and negation vehicle. The problem with that interpretation is that there is no reason for it to be reusable. There's no reason to carry wings into orbit unless they are required for something.
You folks are conjuring up spectres and ghosts in the absence of facts.
I'd add what I think is another possible explanation: this is a test for a satellite inspection and negation vehicle. The problem with that interpretation is that there is no reason for it to be reusable. There's no reason to carry wings into orbit unless they are required for something.
I don't know that it has to make much more sense than that.
What train of thought led to thnking that PGS testing was a possibility? Again, there are far easier ways to test the technologies for PGS than putting them in an experimental spaceplane which requires a $100M+ booster.
In addition, I've seen nothing tieing PGS to orbital operations. In fact, putting the system in orbit complicates its mission drastically and inflates the cost, as well. Air-breathing hypersonics seems to be the technology of choice.
I think an across-the-board examination of DoD programs and their degrees of transparency will reveal a large amount of inconsistency. Witness PAN. Each program seems to decide what it wants to reveal.
Frankly, I see no reason to doubt that this test is something more than what's been claimed - demonstration of reusable systems. You folks are conjuring up spectres and ghosts in the absence of facts.
I don't know that it has to make much more sense than that.
The journalists who write about military space have noted that this mission has a greater amount of secrecy than is usual, or normally justified for a mere test vehicle. In addition, the cost is rather high for a vehicle that has no clear operational need. Those facts have not been explained. Maybe you're satisfied that there's nothing hiding behind the curtain, but others are not, which is why this is being discussed at all.
The PLB of the X-37 wouldn't be big enough to bring home a specific satellite (if there was one small enough already up there)?
The PLB of the X-37 wouldn't be big enough to bring home a specific satellite (if there was one small enough already up there)?
Would be interesting if they were looking to eventually 'capture' someone else's secret satellite, instead of doing something for one of our own.
It's not like another country could scream bloody murder about it because that'd announce to the whole world they had something up there nobody else knew about.
It's not like another country could scream bloody murder about it because that'd announce to the whole world they had something up there nobody else knew about.
They can have up there whatever they want, short of a weapon system.
You can't ban weapons from space.
I'm not sure about Hi Res but here's one for starters. I have more but have to find it first...
What's the Isp of the JP-8/H2O2 engine?
Here's another. Not as good as the last one.
... Just a case of everybody going batty for a moment?
Looking at those illustrations of X-37 in the shuttle bay reminds me that Aviation Week did a cover story about it.
What I still find amazing is that NASA even considered doing that by the late 1990s. By that time shuttle was not doing anything other than ISS construction flights. What made them think about dedicating a shuttle launch to carry a payload they were going to drop over the side? They were not using shuttle for anything else. Just a case of everybody going batty for a moment?
... Just a case of everybody going batty for a moment?
A very expensive test flight. (Wow, that seems really familiar to something else recently...)
What's being used now? And do you know what the Isp of the old engine was?
Fuel for the fire: http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/Space-Shuttle-Jr.html?c=y&page=1
. Given that short chain of command, it's not unreasonable to imagine that the X-37 could carry classified military payloads like those deployed in 11 shuttle flights made between 1982 and 1992."
It would be nice if NASA worked with the Air Force considering the economic climate.
This vehicle could be used to test navigation systems and TPS for other vehicles.
Heck scaled up they probably could get a very nice crew transport vehicle based off it.
In this era of tight budgets, it's a shame that NASA does not cooperate with the military on programs like this. (I remember when Boeing was pitching an X-37-shaped OSP.)
It would be nice if NASA worked with the Air Force considering the economic climate.
This vehicle could be used to test navigation systems and TPS for other vehicles.
Heck scaled up they probably could get a very nice crew transport vehicle based off it.In this era of tight budgets, it's a shame that NASA does not cooperate with the military on programs like this. (I remember when Boeing was pitching an X-37-shaped OSP.)
vt_hokie, you could have stopped after the word "military". The $400 million spend on Ares 1-X would have gone a long way towards man-rating an EELV, and would have had benefits to both agencies.
. Given that short chain of command, it's not unreasonable to imagine that the X-37 could carry classified military payloads like those deployed in 11 shuttle flights made between 1982 and 1992."
It is very unreasonable
A. since it only can carry 500 lb.
B.Short chain of command has nothing to with the previous classified shuttle payloads
C. The shuttle deployed operational spacecraft and not just a sensor or test spacecraft
Fuel for the fire: http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/Space-Shuttle-Jr.html?c=y&page=1
Fuel for the fire: http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/Space-Shuttle-Jr.html?c=y&page=1
There have long been efforts underway by the USAF to develop a space capability of their own. There was a Gemini-derevative (Orbital Space Lab?) and also a space-plane called the X-20 DynoSoar. In this context, X-37 can be seen as the latest in a conceptual lineage dating back to the late 1950s (even earlier if you consider X-20 to be the successor to the Peenemunde A-9 hypersonic suborbital aircraft).
What is significant is, of course that, unlike almost all its predecessors, X-37 is going to fly. Patchouli and robertross were both right to say that it is too small for any real operational use. It is a test-craft, no more. However, a larger, fully operational version could give USAF Space Command the exo-atmospheric capability they have wanted for decades. A larger X-37-derived vehicle could carry short life-span reconnaissance equipment over urgent locations before returning the sensors to Earth rather than just transmitting back data. It could also, theoretically at least, be fitted with a rack of kinetic impactors or a laser cannon for the ASAT mission. Given recent USAF moves towards UCAV technology reconnaisance, tactical and strategic attack, it is not too unthinkable that X-37 may be a technology demonstrator for a future UCSV.
The only issue for military use is launch readiness. Atlas and Delta both need weeks of preparation to launch. You would need something similar to an ICBM, a 24-hour standby quick-reaction launch vehicle, to make this viable.
The only issue for military use is launch readiness. Atlas and Delta both need weeks of preparation to launch. You would need something similar to an ICBM, a 24-hour standby quick-reaction launch vehicle, to make this viable.
The only issue for military use is launch readiness. Atlas and Delta both need weeks of preparation to launch. You would need something similar to an ICBM, a 24-hour standby quick-reaction launch vehicle, to make this viable.
Ares I with a solid upper stage?
Are they big enough? And do they still exist?
Minuteman = Minotaur I
MX = Minotaur IV
Obviously, neither is big enough for X-37B. But they are big enough for small ORS missions and - dare I say it - prompt global strike.
Remeber that you would need a lot of fuel onboard the spacecraft for orbital and terminal manoeuvring for ASAT missions.
The is massive gulf between the SM-3 shoot down of USA-193 and SM-3 being considered in any way a viable ASAT.Very true. Even the large-diameter SM-3s coming online in the upcoming decade would be a long way from real ASATs.
Yeh, we need ASATs. Because we have a surplus budget to spent, a need for much more debris in orbit, and a need to signal other countries ASATs are a good thing.
killing early warning satellite would be a terribly bad moveYeh, we need ASATs. Because we have a surplus budget to spent, a need for much more debris in orbit, and a need to signal other countries ASATs are a good thing.
Don't forget that China has already developed ASAT capability and doesn't seem to care about any of those issues. I also have a sneaking suspicion that the mini-sat that was flown off of a Shenzhou might have been a technology demonstrator for a space-based ASAT system (at least its targetting and guidence systems).
I'm pretty sure that the next world war will start with both sides trying to be the first to kill the other's orbital navigation (GPS), communications and reconnaisance capability. And yes, Analyst, they won't care about the resulting debris fields. At least not early enough to realise what a horrible mistake they are making.
Finally, and most decisively... Since when has the military of any country worried about budget deficits when it comes to shiny new toys?
Yeh, we need ASATs. Because we have a surplus budget to spent, a need for much more debris in orbit, and a need to signal other countries ASATs are a good thing.
Don't forget that China has already developed ASAT capability and doesn't seem to care about any of those issues.
FWIW, I don't think that a 2-stage solid would be sufficient. SRMs' burn duration is too short. You'd be looking at a three-stage vehicle to get our hypothetical UCSV to LEO. Remeber that you would need a lot of fuel onboard the spacecraft for orbital and terminal manoeuvring for ASAT missions. So, overall, we'd be looking at quite a heavyweight to get to the initial orbit.
And sometimes Titan II didn't like sitting in a silo, feeling alone, and escaped in an uncontrolled way.
Analyst
How many Titan IIs exploded in their silos, over how many years?
Bottom line is that hypergols are unpleasant and people don't like to use them for good reasons.
How many Titan IIs exploded in their silos, over how many years?
Off the top of my head, at least two. At least one of those was due to a simple accident (dropped tool) turning very dangerous. Solids are much more benign and less likely to go catastrophic.
But there were a lot of related issues besides the thing going kaboom. Operationally, the fuel was difficult to handle. Everybody had to get into hazard suits whenever they handled the fuel, and it could only be done in certain weather conditions.
I took an interesting tour of the Titan II Missile Silo Museum south of Tucson this past summer. One of the things they showed us was the tower for measuring the local weather conditions. If they had an inversion layer, that would trap fuel vapors near the ground and they could not do any refueling.
Bottom line is that hypergols are unpleasant and people don't like to use them for good reasons.
People still propose using high-test H202, for that matter, and I wouldn't want to handle that, either, if I could avoid it.
People still propose using high-test H202, for that matter, and I wouldn't want to handle that, either, if I could avoid it.
(not intending to be contrarian here)
There is an important difference between the Titan II fuels and Lox/Hydrogen. The latter leaves no residue. It is tricky to work with, but cleanup procedures are benign--get away from the spill and let the stuff evaporate. It won't poison the ground or endanger the water supply.
Was just reading a document from 1980 about using flourine on a reusable booster. Although they said that it had potential, the biggest problem with a reusable was dealing with any residual fuel. It was nasty stuff and not easy to clean up or to contain. They recommended Lox/H2 because it didn't have any of those problems. And of course 30 years later nobody uses flourine.
All things considered, Lox/H2 is only a temporary hazard/danger, not a long-term one.
People still propose using high-test H202, for that matter, and I wouldn't want to handle that, either, if I could avoid it.
(not intending to be contrarian here)
There is an important difference between the Titan II fuels and Lox/Hydrogen. The latter leaves no residue. It is tricky to work with, but cleanup procedures are benign--get away from the spill and let the stuff evaporate. It won't poison the ground or endanger the water supply.
Was just reading a document from 1980 about using flourine on a reusable booster. Although they said that it had potential, the biggest problem with a reusable was dealing with any residual fuel. It was nasty stuff and not easy to clean up or to contain. They recommended Lox/H2 because it didn't have any of those problems. And of course 30 years later nobody uses flourine.
All things considered, Lox/H2 is only a temporary hazard/danger, not a long-term one.
Do you mean LOX/H2 or H2O2? LOX/H2 is not the same as H2O2 (=peroxide).
People still propose using high-test H202, for that matter, and I wouldn't want to handle that, either, if I could avoid it.
(not intending to be contrarian here)
There is an important difference between the Titan II fuels and Lox/Hydrogen. The latter leaves no residue. It is tricky to work with, but cleanup procedures are benign--get away from the spill and let the stuff evaporate. It won't poison the ground or endanger the water supply.
Was just reading a document from 1980 about using flourine on a reusable booster. Although they said that it had potential, the biggest problem with a reusable was dealing with any residual fuel. It was nasty stuff and not easy to clean up or to contain. They recommended Lox/H2 because it didn't have any of those problems. And of course 30 years later nobody uses flourine.
All things considered, Lox/H2 is only a temporary hazard/danger, not a long-term one.
Anyway, the point with both the all-solid X-37 launcher and one with a hypergolic upper stage (assuming you needed the extra bit of Isp, for whatever reason) was just the idea you could put it in a protective launch stucture (even a silo) fully fuelled, and launch at need. You know, Orion is going to have hypergolics aboard, so is Dragon, and Shuttle OMS does too, so it's not unreasonable to suppose it can be handled safely.
http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/Space-Shuttle-Jr.html?utm_source=newsletter20091118&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ASMNovemberAt long last! Another good article on this one, especially on the TPS.
Space Shuttle Jr.
After 2010, the only spaceplane in the U.S. inventory will be the Air Force's mysterious X-37.
* By Michael Klesius
* Air & Space Magazine, January 01, 2010
It's been a long wait—in some ways, more than 50 years—but in April 2010, the U.S. Air Force is scheduled to launch an Atlas V booster from Cape Canaveral, Florida, carrying the newest U.S. spacecraft, the unmanned X-37, to orbit. The X-37 embodies the Air Force's desire for an operational spaceplane, a wish that dates to the 1950s, the era of the rocket-powered X-15 and X-20. In other ways, though, the X-37 will be picking up where another U.S. spaceplane, NASA's space shuttle, leaves off.
Beal chose peroxide as an oxidiser because it was easier to handle than liquid oxygen.
Gawd, I wish this thing were flying unshrouded. The other side of the Cape would be having conniptions.
That was sarcasm. I don't think Beal can be used as proof of anything. This is the guy who flamed out miserably and then blamed NASA for something that should have been obvious from the start. Just looked dumb.
Anyway, the point with both the all-solid X-37 launcher and one with a hypergolic upper stage (assuming you needed the extra bit of Isp, for whatever reason) was just the idea you could put it in a protective launch stucture (even a silo) fully fuelled, and launch at need. You know, Orion is going to have hypergolics aboard, so is Dragon, and Shuttle OMS does too, so it's not unreasonable to suppose it can be handled safely.
It can be handled safely, but it requires special handling, which means training, equipment, etc. I bet that everybody who uses it only does so reluctantly, because they could not come up with something nearly as good that didn't have similar problems. They'd probably be willing to sacrifice a fair amount of performance simply to get rid of the danger and the hassle.
Any date for this image?
Any date for this image?
1-But not for technical reasons, right? There just didn't appear to be a market for yet another launcher.
2-But do you disagree peroxide is easier to handle than liquid oxygen? Depending on the concentration of course...
2-I don't know. I'm not a rocket scientist. But it strikes me that a major difference is that peroxide spills are toxic and pose a danger to water supplies, local vegetation, etc. A liquid oxygen spill will evaporate. It won't give people cancer or destroy the food supply or anything like that.
Some people complain about the ELC, but it provides a real service. If the military needs a guaranteed capability, then selling that capability is perfectly legitimate. DoD isn't paying for infrastructure costs to keep cronies employed, it is paying for the capability because it needs it.
2-I don't know. I'm not a rocket scientist. But it strikes me that a major difference is that peroxide spills are toxic and pose a danger to water supplies, local vegetation, etc. A liquid oxygen spill will evaporate. It won't give people cancer or destroy the food supply or anything like that.
Are you confusing peroxide and perchlorate? I thought that pretty much anywhere you spill peroxide it'll decompose and/or oxidize whatever's around to be oxidized.
2-But do you disagree peroxide is easier to handle than liquid oxygen? Depending on the concentration of course...
2-I don't know. I'm not a rocket scientist. But it strikes me that a major difference is that peroxide spills are toxic and pose a danger to water supplies, local vegetation, etc. A liquid oxygen spill will evaporate. It won't give people cancer or destroy the food supply or anything like that.
How far off-topic are we, now that I've brought SpaceX into the discussion?
2-I don't know. I'm not a rocket scientist. But it strikes me that a major difference is that peroxide spills are toxic and pose a danger to water supplies, local vegetation, etc. A liquid oxygen spill will evaporate. It won't give people cancer or destroy the food supply or anything like that.
Are you confusing peroxide and perchlorate? I thought that pretty much anywhere you spill peroxide it'll decompose and/or oxidize whatever's around to be oxidized.
Sufficiently diluted with water, hydrogen peroxide is rated for use as a mouthwash. A highly concentrated spill might damage vegetation, but so too might a spill of (freezing cold) liquid oxygen. I also think the ease with which liquid oxygen evaporates makes it more dangerous, not safer. Still it would be much better to breathe a cloud of evaporated oxygen than a cloud of evaporated nitrogen tetroxide. If you see an X-37 come down hard, run away!
Gawd, I wish this thing were flying unshrouded. The other side of the Cape would be having conniptions.
Tell me about it! Could an upsized vehicle of this configuration be used a a crew vehicle? It strikes me that whoever built X-37 (Boeing?) have suddenly thrown a pretty substantive hat into the CCDev ring.
How far off-topic are we, now that I've brought SpaceX into the discussion?
As for the technical reasons, I vaguely remember reading that he wanted a very high concentration of peroxide, and that it was above the state of the art for manufacturing. Also, in high concentrations the stuff is very corrosive, so it eats away at its containers. So there could have been technical challenges as well.
2-I don't know. I'm not a rocket scientist. But it strikes me that a major difference is that peroxide spills are toxic and pose a danger to water supplies, local vegetation, etc. A liquid oxygen spill will evaporate. It won't give people cancer or destroy the food supply or anything like that.
Tell me about it! Could an upsized vehicle of this configuration be used a a crew vehicle? It strikes me that whoever built X-37 (Boeing?) have suddenly thrown a pretty substantive hat into the CCDev ring.
Boeing did development work on the design for the OSP program. There were concerns about dealing with the lift generated by the wings during ascent, but it was not considered a show-stopper.
Gawd, I wish this thing were flying unshrouded. The other side of the Cape would be having conniptions.
Tell me about it! Could an upsized vehicle of this configuration be used a a crew vehicle? It strikes me that whoever built X-37 (Boeing?) have suddenly thrown a pretty substantive hat into the CCDev ring.
It was proposed a while back...
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2003/q2/nr_030418s.html
A crew version of the x37b could launch a crew of two-three without much issue. Sitting down. no headroom. Cramped like the old days of mercury. Ditch the shroud and use the mass for an escape system.
Back part of cargo bay would be a docking ring/adapter.
Another article about the X-37. It doesn't say anything more than the A&S article:
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0911/24otv/
Isn't this "adapter" just an payload attach fitting? It looks like there is a red (deorbit?) engine bell from the spacecraft hanging into this adapter.
Analyst
What I find most interesting is the 'adapter' at the bottom of the photo.
I haven't had time to look up my old files, but I think this is actually the
deorbit engine section that Aerojet got contracted to do for an earlier version of the program. I haven't heard it discussed since the original orbital variant was canned.
A crew version of the x37b could launch a crew of two-three without much issue. Sitting down. no headroom. Cramped like the old days of mercury. Ditch the shroud and use the mass for an escape system.
Back part of cargo bay would be a docking ring/adapter.
No, it can't even launch one person. It is too small
500 lbs
payload attach fitting is a Delta term. Atlas calls them payload adapters. That is on the rocket side. On the payload side, they are called LVA's (launch vehicle adapters). It takes two of them to fly.
payload attach fitting is a Delta term. Atlas calls them payload adapters. That is on the rocket side. On the payload side, they are called LVA's (launch vehicle adapters). It takes two of them to fly.
Apropos of nothing...
Just saw a ULA briefing the other day where they were talking about using two of these things back-to-back to hold a satellite underneath the main satellite. It's like putting two cups on top of each other, with the mouths facing. Looked somewhat dicey to me, because the second satellite was _inside_ these two things. So you have to jettison the shroud, deploy the first satellite, then jettison the upper adapter, then deploy the second satellite. Maybe not that big a deal, but failure to jettison a shroud is still a common failure mode for rockets.
payload attach fitting is a Delta term. Atlas calls them payload adapters. That is on the rocket side. On the payload side, they are called LVA's (launch vehicle adapters). It takes two of them to fly.
Apropos of nothing...
Just saw a ULA briefing the other day where they were talking about using two of these things back-to-back to hold a satellite underneath the main satellite. It's like putting two cups on top of each other, with the mouths facing. Looked somewhat dicey to me, because the second satellite was _inside_ these two things. So you have to jettison the shroud, deploy the first satellite, then jettison the upper adapter, then deploy the second satellite. Maybe not that big a deal, but failure to jettison a shroud is still a common failure mode for rockets.
Not too dissimilar for what Arianespace have been doing for years with commercial Ariane-5 launches. The big issue, IMHO, is that they would have to build the lower satellite to take the launch loads and stresses of the upper satellite through its hull. That might make construction a bit more complex.
Just saw a ULA briefing the other day where they were talking about using two of these things back-to-back to hold a satellite underneath the main satellite. It's like putting two cups on top of each other, with the mouths facing. Looked somewhat dicey to me, because the second satellite was _inside_ these two things. So you have to jettison the shroud, deploy the first satellite, then jettison the upper adapter, then deploy the second satellite. Maybe not that big a deal, but failure to jettison a shroud is still a common failure mode for rockets.
500 lbs
500 lbs
Not too dissimilar for what Arianespace have been doing for years with commercial Ariane-5 launches. The big issue, IMHO, is that they would have to build the lower satellite to take the launch loads and stresses of the upper satellite through its hull. That might make construction a bit more complex.
The loads don't go into the lower spacecraft, they go into the cocoon around the spacecraft
Arianespace did the very same with Ariane 4, since the 1980ies.
Analyst
500 lbs
Just so that I could put that number in perspective, how much does the science instrumentation on say NOAA-N or MRO weigh. Just trying to get a estimate for different kinds of missions.
If I'm reading http://marsoweb.nas.nasa.gov/HiRISE/papers/other/IAF_2004_Bergstrom_revH.pdf correctly, HiRISE has a mass of about 65 kg. Power consumptions is given as an "orbital average" of 60 watts, but I'm not sure what duty cycle this represents, or what the peak is.500 lbs
Just so that I could put that number in perspective, how much does the science instrumentation on say NOAA-N or MRO weigh. Just trying to get a estimate for different kinds of missions.
I'm not sure that you could only count instrument payload mass. Can the X-37 provide enough power to something in the payload bay if the payload doesn't bring its own power supply?
If I'm reading http://marsoweb.nas.nasa.gov/HiRISE/papers/other/IAF_2004_Bergstrom_revH.pdf correctly, HiRISE has a mass of about 65 kg. Power consumptions is given as an "orbital average" of 60 watts, but I'm not sure what duty cycle this represents, or what the peak is.
Even if those numbers don't account for everything that would have to be provided, that would seem to put a HiRISE class payload within reach of X-37. I could even see a case for a "responsive launch" of a payload like this, but I'm sure why you'd want to bring it back...
If you are not bringing the payload back it kinds of defeats the purpose doesn't it. Maybe they pan to deploy, retract and return.
Well, if it was a payload bay mounted payload, then it would probably be pointing toward the Earth.It would have to be on some kind of deployable structure, like the illustration DarthVader linked. With the telescope only taking 60 kg out of ~200kg payload, putting 60 watts of solar panels on the end of a boom should be within reach.
Unmanned vehicle provides reusable test capabilities in space
by Staff Sgt. C. Todd Lopez
Air Force Print News
11/17/2006 - WASHINGTON (AFPN) -- The Air Force is working on a space vehicle that will allow government scientists to transport advanced technology into orbit, test its capability there, then bring it home to see how it fared in the harsh environment of space.
The X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle is similar to the space shuttle, except it's about a fourth the size and unmanned. The OTV can return from space on its own, said Lt. Col. Kevin Walker, an Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office program manager.
"All you do from the ground is send up the command for it to de-orbit, then stand back and it de-orbits itself," he said. "The OTV gets itself ready for re-entry, descends through the atmosphere, lines up on the runway, puts down its landing gear ... and it does it all on its own."
The vehicle will land at either Vandenberg or Edwards Air Force bases in California.
The OTV will serve as a test platform for satellites and other space technologies. The vehicle allows satellite sensors, subsystems, components and associated technology to be transported into the environment where they will be used -- space.
Scientists will prepare components in the OTV's experiment bay, and then the craft is launched into space aboard an Atlas V launch vehicle. Once in space, the OTV begins testing its payload. Colonel Walker said the doors aboard the craft could simply open, exposing the experiment bay, or mission scientists could design more elaborate experiments.
"You could design something to extend itself out of the experiment bay, or have it on a retractable arm, or it could just stay inside the bay," Colonel Walker said. "The OTV is a very flexible space test platform for any number of various experiments."
Being able to test parts in their actual operational environment will allow scientists to better judge how those parts will perform when deployed, so fewer redundancies may occur in future satellites.
"Rather than build unproven components into a high-cost satellite, with multiple layers of redundancy to make sure they work -- you can use the OTV to get those components into space to see how they respond to the environment, and make sure they work the way they were designed," Colonel Walker said. "When the OTV returns to Earth, you can inspect the tested component and use that information to potentially alter your design."
The Air Force's Rapid Capabilities Office has been tasked with acquiring, testing and demonstrating the OTV. Colonel Walker said much of the X-37B system vehicle is now being built and will soon move into a testing phase.
"We are getting into the subsystem and systems-wide testing, which will go on for about the next year," he said. "We are projecting our first launch for the beginning of 2008."
After a few flight tests in space, the OTV should be ready to begin experimentation in orbit, Colonel Walker said.
"The first flight or two will be to check out the OTV itself to make sure it works the way it is designed to," he said. "After that, you get into the realm of using it as a reusable space test platform -- putting space components into its experimental bay and taking them to space for testing."
Though the OTV is designed to provide a testing platform for new space technologies, it is made up of several advanced, untested technologies itself.
Randy Walden, RCO deputy and technical director, said there are a number of cutting-edge technologies on the OTV besides the auto de-orbit capability. It has new thermal protection tiles underneath and high-temperature components and seals throughout that need to be proven in orbit.
"There will be a great deal of extremely useful data coming from the OTV on its first flights,' said Mr. Walden. "Our plan is to share this data with other government agencies such as NASA."
The X-37 program, originally a NASA initiative, was transferred to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency in 2004. The Air Force's X-37B program builds upon the early development and testing conducted by NASA, DARPA and the Air Force Research Laboratory.
"We are honored to be developing this unique space platform," said David Hamilton, Jr., RCO director, "and very excited about the potential benefits to future space programs."
Honestly I find the whole thing quite baffling.
I think some are WAYYYYY over-imagining the intent of this bird.
http://www.af.mil/news/story_print.asp?id=123032226 (http://www.af.mil/news/story_print.asp?id=123032226)
I think some are WAYYYYY over-imagining the intent of this bird.
It's mysterious and doesn't make much sense. If the goal is to gain some spaceflight experience for new hardware or materials, why use X-37? Why not simply toss a smallsat off of an EELV with mass to spare? And what could they be launching that only requires a few days/weeks/months of exposure instead of the years that you would want to test for an operational spacecraft?
I'm just hoping ULA provides the same amount of launch coverage we got the other day with IS-14 8)
It's mysterious and doesn't make much sense. If the goal is to gain some spaceflight experience for new hardware or materials, why use X-37? Why not simply toss a smallsat off of an EELV with mass to spare? And what could they be launching that only requires a few days/weeks/months of exposure instead of the years that you would want to test for an operational spacecraft?
Probably killing multiple birds with one stone. They get to space test certain sensors and other systems (whose exact nature is classified). Simultaneously, they do a flight test of a new spacecraft geometry and test proceedures for a reusable multi-role spacecraft under development.
One of the reasons I think 'ASAT' or even 'PGS' is that both these ideas are at least in violation of the spirit of the long-held gentlemen's agreement against overtly militarising space. It isn't the sort of thing that one discusses with the media... Heck, it isn't even the sort of thing one discusses with the Defence Appropriations Committee at Congress (does the phrase 'blacker than night' mean anything? ;) ).
...
It's mysterious and doesn't make much sense. If the goal is to gain some spaceflight experience for new hardware or materials, why use X-37? Why not simply toss a smallsat off of an EELV with mass to spare? And what could they be launching that only requires a few days/weeks/months of exposure instead of the years that you would want to test for an operational spacecraft?
Yeah, except for the fact that--as more current articles state--the Air Force clams up when asked what is in the payload bay, or how long the mission will last, or anything like that. If the whole thing is banal, why the secrecy?
There is no gentlemen's agreement against militarizing space, that is a fantasy delusion of peaceniks, and propaganda promulgated by enemies who don't have to deal with uppity citizenry
{snip}
Yeah, except for the fact that--as more current articles state--the Air Force clams up when asked what is in the payload bay, or how long the mission will last, or anything like that. If the whole thing is banal, why the secrecy?
3) Maybe LOM can still enable landing, whereas a smallsat might not, or could end up in the wrong hands. They must use a destruct mechanism for these sorts of missions.
Taking the act of war out of the equation, there is still the possibility of advanced spaceborne technology getting into the hands of unintended parties.
We are not back to spying using cameras with real film are we? Possibly for higher accuracy or a weird frequency. The X-37 removing the need for a catcher plane.
{snip}
Yeah, except for the fact that--as more current articles state--the Air Force clams up when asked what is in the payload bay, or how long the mission will last, or anything like that. If the whole thing is banal, why the secrecy?
3) Maybe LOM can still enable landing, whereas a smallsat might not, or could end up in the wrong hands. They must use a destruct mechanism for these sorts of missions.
We are not back to spying using cameras with real film are we? Possibly for higher accuracy or a weird frequency. The X-37 removing the need for a catcher plane.
The military has recently wondered about a return to manuverable aerial 'assets', re, SR-71 or U2 type aircraft, because you can only get close coverage of enemy assets during certain points of a satellite's orbit.; http://warisboring.com/?p=2675
The X-37 could be a prototype of an automated manuverable spy-sat, or spy-sat killer.
You are wrong. On many points.
Analyst
I think some are WAYYYYY over-imagining the intent of this bird.
You are wrong. On many points.
Analyst
Analyst, would you please be so kind as to elaborate on exactly what the guy is wrong about? Thanks.
Two questions:
1. Could X-37 be used as a platform for iterative testing of new sensor technology? Fly the sensor hardware in an initial configuration and get some test results, plus get the hardware back down. Evaluate the results, modify the hardware, and fly it again. Iterate until the hardware does just what you want, then integrate a bunch of them onto permanent satellite platforms. I'm thinking there are certain kinds of events the USAF really wants to notice when they happen....
I think what has everyone scratching there head is how much it costs to do that and the amount of time it takes between flights. So $100 million a tweak and then what wait 18 months for a re-flight?
The military has recently wondered about a return to manuverable aerial 'assets', re, SR-71 or U2 type aircraft, because you can only get close coverage of enemy assets during certain points of a satellite's orbit.; http://warisboring.com/?p=2675
The X-37 could be a prototype of an automated manuverable spy-sat, or spy-sat killer.
Another version could be a suborbital troop carrier that could be released by a WhightKnight Two type carrier.
1-They already have a U2 replacement. It's called Global Hawk. No pilot means no Gary Powers incident.
2-The X-37 is a test vehicle for technologies that could be used for ASAT, satellite recovery, surveillance, space bomber, or yes, troop carrying. But one most not underestimate the futility of government procuring.
3-The Soviet Union thought Space Shuttle was created for these kinds of tasks, I mean why else would you want a vehicle that big, with that amount of crossrange, if you weren't going for a bomber or satellite recovery? Hah.
Jim.
1. I expect to soon stick my 1/144 X-37 inside the shroud. I have a general question about how payloads are placed inside. For the model, I was just going to stick it on top of the adapter, but from looking at New Horizons, it appears it is suspended from the verticle sides of the payload shroud and not on a bottom solid surface.
2. You have also stated that no SRMs will be needed, but I recall (dimly) someplace that when they use the large shroud, they use 1 in order to overcome the drag. Or, in this case, is the payload so light that they don't need to worry about such things.
Thanks in advance.
Mike
Any thoughts on the possibility of using the X-37 as a means to deploy a highly secret and stealthy satellite?
Boondoggle ?I think what has everyone scratching there head is how much it costs to do that and the amount of time it takes between flights. So $100 million a tweak and then what wait 18 months for a re-flight?
Yep, that's exactly it. It's hard to see what tweeking of hardware is worth that much money. It's undoubtedly more efficient to simply throw the extra millions into more ground-testing of the hardware.
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?
...
What sort of delta-V is it capable of?
What sort of delta-V is it capable of?
Out of curiosity, is this the first time that a winged spacecraft has been launched on top of a rocket (instead of side-mounted)? I know this is something that's been proposed quite often, from the 1960s Dyna-Soar to the 2000s Orbital Space Plane, but I don't know of any time that any of them have even gotten to an attempted launch.
The results, if any of them are made public, could be interesting for the Dream Chaser folks.
Out of curiosity, is this the first time that a winged spacecraft has been launched on top of a rocket (instead of side-mounted)? I know this is something that's been proposed quite often, from the 1960s Dyna-Soar to the 2000s Orbital Space Plane, but I don't know of any time that any of them have even gotten to an attempted launch.
The results, if any of them are made public, could be interesting for the Dream Chaser folks.
X-37 will be launched inside a fairing, no?
Out of curiosity, is this the first time that a winged spacecraft has been launched on top of a rocket (instead of side-mounted)? I know this is something that's been proposed quite often, from the 1960s Dyna-Soar to the 2000s Orbital Space Plane, but I don't know of any time that any of them have even gotten to an attempted launch.
The results, if any of them are made public, could be interesting for the Dream Chaser folks.
X-37 will be launched inside a fairing, no?
Oh right, that's true, although I was actually wondering about a spaceplane being launched on top of a rocket period. In any case, I *think* the BOR-4 was launched in such a manner on top of the Kosmos, although I haven't found any photos.
Out of curiosity, is this the first time that a winged spacecraft has been launched on top of a rocket (instead of side-mounted)? I know this is something that's been proposed quite often, from the 1960s Dyna-Soar to the 2000s Orbital Space Plane, but I don't know of any time that any of them have even gotten to an attempted launch.
The results, if any of them are made public, could be interesting for the Dream Chaser folks.
X-37 will be launched inside a fairing, no?
Oh right, that's true, although I was actually wondering about a spaceplane being launched on top of a rocket period. In any case, I *think* the BOR-4 was launched in such a manner on top of the Kosmos, although I haven't found any photos.
Do ASSET/PRIME qualify as spaceplanes?
Boondoggle ?I think what has everyone scratching there head is how much it costs to do that and the amount of time it takes between flights. So $100 million a tweak and then what wait 18 months for a re-flight?
Yep, that's exactly it. It's hard to see what tweeking of hardware is worth that much money. It's undoubtedly more efficient to simply throw the extra millions into more ground-testing of the hardware.
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?
My take? This vehicle, so far as can be determined, offers only one obvious function that a regular expendable satellite cannot offer. It can bring stuff back.
The intriguing question is; "what stuff"?
- Ed Kyle
BTW, If 2.2 km/s is in the right ball-park for the X-37B, then I think it could put itself into low orbit powered just by an Atlas V first-stage... That's sort of like SSTO (but cheating, since your payload is also another stage). If the delta-v is higher, like 3km/s, then even a double-sized (22 ton) X-37B could be put into LEO with just an Atlas V first stage. Of course, I am probably forgetting something important.
My take? This vehicle, so far as can be determined, offers only one obvious function that a regular expendable satellite cannot offer. It can bring stuff back.
The intriguing question is; "what stuff"?
- Ed Kyle
Another question I have is, will there be a larger follow-on vehicle, or is this it? And if there is to be a larger craft, what will launch it? (Back when Boeing was pitching an X-37 based OSP, apparently Delta IV Heavy was thought to be sufficient.)
My take? This vehicle, so far as can be determined, offers only one obvious function that a regular expendable satellite cannot offer. It can bring stuff back.
The intriguing question is; "what stuff"?
- Ed Kyle
If the X-37 can last 270 days in orbit....well that would be great for an ISS crew return vehicle too. Stick a crew compartment in the payload bay......I know, I know, it's not really meant for that, it's an unmanned test vehicle owned by the Air Force. But if this vehicle successfully flies, might a derivative be offered up as a commercial crew return vehicle or cargo craft?
If the X-37 can last 270 days in orbit....well that would be great for an ISS crew return vehicle too. Stick a crew compartment in the payload bay......I know, I know, it's not really meant for that, it's an unmanned test vehicle owned by the Air Force. But if this vehicle successfully flies, might a derivative be offered up as a commercial crew return vehicle or cargo craft?
BTW, If 2.2 km/s is in the right ball-park for the X-37B, then I think it could put itself into low orbit powered just by an Atlas V first-stage... That's sort of like SSTO (but cheating, since your payload is also another stage). If the delta-v is higher, like 3km/s, then even a double-sized (22 ton) X-37B could be put into LEO with just an Atlas V first stage. Of course, I am probably forgetting something important.
(Now, recover that first stage and you've got yourself a reusable launch vehicle of sorts, though it'd be too small to make sense, with only a 1-ton payload size with a 22-ton X-37B-derivative...).
Close the doors, come home, and now you have flight qualified sensors/components.
If the X-37 can last 270 days in orbit....well that would be great for an ISS crew return vehicle too. Stick a crew compartment in the payload bay......I know, I know, it's not really meant for that, it's an unmanned test vehicle owned by the Air Force. But if this vehicle successfully flies, might a derivative be offered up as a commercial crew return vehicle or cargo craft?
no, it is too small and would be too expensive to enlarge. Boeing is going with a capsule
Actually, this was point #2 in my post. My first response was the manufacture of the bulk material ;)
Close the doors, come home, and now you have flight qualified sensors/components.
One minor nit with that. It is not that you will end up manufacturing a sensor/component on orbit. It is more likely you will manufacture either a high purity or exotic bulk material that can be turned into a sensor/component on the ground.
High purity bulk materials will allow the production of very large semiconductor devices (think giga pixel imaging chips). Exotic materials produced in a gravity well may have so many defects in them that it is difficult (if not impossible) to produce large devices with them (This has been one of the limitations with IR sensors).
Just a thought, in my minds eye you can not fit an entire fab inside of an X-37. I honestly wonder if you could fit one inside of ISS. For real bulk material manufacturing, I do wonder how large the equipment will be and how much power will be required.
If you check out the photos on Wikipedia of X-37B underneath the Rutan lift vehicle, you can see what looks like a flagpole sticking out of the nose. This spike is retracted at launch and extended prior to re-entry. The purpose of the spike is to create the leading sonic boom (hypersonic bow wave) and transonic region during re-entry -- well in front of the vehicle itself. The atmosphere reaching the wings and thermal protection surfaces is much slower than the hypersonic bow wave -- thus less heating occurs on the fuselage than on the spike.
The retractable/extensible spike absorbs such an enormous amount of energy and transforms it into heat, yet the spike is not very massive. In order to dissipate the heat without transferring it to the fuselage or melting in an uncontrolled manner, the spike is designed to ablate like many heat shields have (e.g. Apollo). "Ablate" means that the spike flakes apart in a controlled manner which leaves behind useful which continues to be the interface between the craft and the hypersonic flow.
The spike is shown extended in the re-entry test photo because the vehicle was configured for re-entry.
Before GWB scuttled Al Gore's X-38 ISS re-entry vehicle, there had been some talk of incorporating the ablative re-entry spike into ISS return craft. It appeared from the outside (I'm not an insider) that the military community in the US was getting paranoid that revealing the secret ablative spike technology to the foreign competition.
I came across the following slashdot comment about the X-37 having an "ablative spike" (which seems to be in the WK2 photos (http://www.space.com/common/forums/viewtopic.php?t=20686)). Anybody know anything more about this, if the comment below is nonsense, or if ablative reentry spikes have been tested in the past?
...
Anybody know anything more about this, if the comment below is nonsense, or if ablative reentry spikes have been tested in the past?
There is no such thing on X-37. It is just some B S by someone incorrect
Does the shuttle have one?
Yes it did, it is a air data boom. Very common on new aircraft configs undergoing flight test.
...
Also, I remember once noticing Trident and M-51 SLBM's have spikes in the front. Never figured out what those are for. If it is just because they are supposed to be launched underwater, or what.
I came across the following slashdot comment about the X-37 having an "ablative spike" (which seems to be in the WK2 photos (http://www.space.com/common/forums/viewtopic.php?t=20686)). Anybody know anything more about this, if the comment below is nonsense, or if ablative reentry spikes have been tested in the past?
There is no such thing on X-37. It is just some B S by someone incorrect
Does the shuttle have one?
Yes it did, it is a air data boom. Very common on new aircraft configs undergoing flight test.
http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/luceneweb/fullimage.jsp?searchpage=true&keywords=enterprise&textsearch=Go&hitsperpage=30&pageno=2&photoId=S77-28140
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?
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?
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?
1. Yes
2. no
3. 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?
1. Yes
2. no
3. no
So 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.
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.
How is it operationally responsible if its launch vehicle needs something like 1.5 years from ATP and its launch manifest is booked?
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
To 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/
Update 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.
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 ?
Or that its stupid. It is exactly what they want and what they need.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.
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?
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 :)
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.
As far as I know it's using hydrogen peroxide and JP8 far easier to handle stuff then the hypergolics in use today.
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.
How large is a roll of 70mm film?
How large is a roll of 70mm film?
Too small for reconn.
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)
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)
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)
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.
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
1-Not sure if I'd call it a boondoggle as a lot of useful information can be gained from the program.
2-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.
3-Looking at the rest of the specs it seems to be testing long term storage of alternative propellants.
How long did some of the last agena based vehicles stay in orbit at the end of the program?
For mapping, sure, but what about high-resolution spysat functions? For 100lbs, you can grab almost a billion frames of 70mm IMAX-style pictures. Each frame is equal to approx an 80-120megapixel sensor. To store that many raw frames you'd need over 60 exabytes of storage space, or you'd need a computer able of processing 160GFLOPS up there to compress it without loss of fidelity.How long did some of the last agena based vehicles stay in orbit at the end of the program?
Nine months.
But mapping is a lower-resolution mission. You don't need film for it.
For mapping, sure, but what about high-resolution spysat functions?
For mapping, sure, but what about high-resolution spysat functions?
The high resolution film spysats that were replace by electronic ones had film formats of 9 inches. 70mm was for the old, original spysats.
Marine officers say they relied on photographs from the U-2’s old film cameras, which take panoramic images at such a high resolution they can see insurgent footpaths, while the U-2’s newer digital cameras beamed back frequent updates on 25 spots where the Marines thought they could be vulnerable.
1. In other words, film still has a place. And the U-2 can not overfly denied territory.
2. Film is starting to have some shine... when wide area at high resolution is needed.
3. Might not be something that needs to be done daily, but once every couple of years to create maps and such.
Might not be something that needs to be done daily, but once every couple of years to create maps and such.
Might not be something that needs to be done daily, but once every couple of years to create maps and such.
You do not need high resolution to make maps. That's what maps are by definition--lower resolution.
And since there are commercial imagery satellites in orbit right now that can beam down images at half-meter resolution, which is more than adequate for maps, why would you need to do this with a film system and an X-37B?
. Otherwise, there is no need for a payload bay that opens.
. Otherwise, there is no need for a payload bay that opens.
Yes, there is, to deploy the solar array and radiator.
Still, we are using film to make maps for troops on the ground with the U-2, the dog is not dead yet.
They are using OLD systems that require film. I don't know of any reconnaissance system company that designs new systems to use film. They just don't do it. If you're starting now, or if you started in the last 10 years, you started with a CCD array. And they have many other advantages too, including new arrays that have broader frequency sensitivity, meaning that they can look at an image across a broad spectrum and then separate out the data to show things like new vegetation vs. old vegetation vs. sick vegetation.
True, but who knows, maybe they are flying a modification of an old system. Makes no sense, but nothing makes sense on the X-37.
2-Human spaceflight is not a military mission and has not been one since the MOL was canceled 41 years ago. In addition, there's no indication of US government interest in human spaceplanes.
We can keep speculating about what might be in that payload bay, but a film-based mapping camera seems about as likely as a dog in a spacesuit.I agree.
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.
The same sized aperture you need for imaging people is the same size needed to fry them (assuming the same wavelength for both). Remember, filled aperture, people! No cheating with (significantly) sparse arrays here! It's not at all physically impossible, though. Just stupid.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.
You're simply not thinking creatively. Just deorbit the laser on top of the target.
The same sized aperture you need for imaging people is the same size needed to fry them (assuming the same wavelength for both). Remember, filled aperture, people! No cheating with (significantly) sparse arrays here! It's not at all physically impossible, though. Just stupid.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.
You're simply not thinking creatively. Just deorbit the laser on top of the target.
It'd be slightly less stupid if you didn't use chemical lasers, but then you need a solar array (or nuclear reactor, I suppose) by far bigger than any deployed to date, almost on the same scale needed for a solar-electric-propulsion manned Mars transfer vehicle. That, and successive advances in solid-state lasers (both efficiency and power). And of course, with such a big array, you could be seen , perhaps even in the day if you were in LEO. If you have to go to GEO, you'll need as big of an HLV payload fairing you can possibly get, and mount the mirror sideways. 20m mirror is probably needed, which is far, far bigger than any monolithic mirror ever fabricated. So, yeah, stupid, but not impossible.
EDIT:Not so bad with a LEO chemical laser (a mirror the size used on the Airborne Laser would suffice), but you are SEVERELY limited in your magazine capacity. And, unless you have dozens of these birds, a tomohawk missile will be more responsive, usually. It'd be stupid.
...I know. ;) I was responding to the previous poster... sorry. Anyway, I doubt x-37 is testing orbital strike weapons. Maybe something like "brilliant pebbles," but highly unlikely... Then again, maybe they want to test an orbital (or at least microgravity and vacuum) version of this without raising eyebrows:
I think you missed his point (or perhaps was being unintentionally ironic). Kinetic kill from space to point targets is quite feasible.
Please apply a little logic.
AF wanted Shuttle ... so they could have military hands in space.
AF dropped Shuttle ... way too fragile/costly/unreliable. People in harm's way for too little advantage, too easy to shoot at, too easy to break.
... it may be what they originally wanted in the first place.
Please apply a little logic.
1.You first.
2. I bet you that they are different names than the first group of names.... it may be what they originally wanted in the first place.
3. If that requirement did not need to be filled for four decades, what has changed now that makes it necessary to fill the requirement?
4. Another confusing variable is that really small payload bay (anybody know the size?
5. X-37B is not an operational vehicle and cannot be one because it is very expensive for very little capability--something like several hundred million dollars in order to put a few hundred pounds into orbit and then bring it back.
1-Sorry to intrude in this discussion, but I was just passing and got a bit puzzled by the above comment. I thought that the US military was interested in space planes, particularly for point-to-point insertion, known as the SUSTAIN program:
2-I would have thought that the X-37 was part of this? This has probably been beaten to death somewhere on this forum though?
5. Dirt cheap for what it does. A very smart mission if it works out.
That then turns X-37B back into an experimental flight. But why do this kind of experiment unless it is connected to something that is really needed and is already planned?The thing isn't much bigger than a Cessna and a 500 pound payload is enough to carry two people. I think that maybe spy satellite sensors are evolving rapidly, and that the cost of sending up a new satellite each time a new generation of sensors is invented is becoming cost prohibitive. So the X-37C will carry two astronauts on future missions whose job is to take off in the morning, rendezvous with a spy satellite, swap out the sensors, and then be back in time for dinner.
Another confusing variable is that really small payload bay (anybody know the size? A quick search did not turn up anything) that limits what you can do there.
I don't think 500 pounds would even support one astronaut.....experts?
I'll answer #2 first: X-37B is not linked to SUSTAIN in any way. SUSTAIN would require a significantly larger craft. But more importantly, they are being pursued by entirely different organizations and people. Simply put, X-37B is USAF and SUSTAIN is US Marines.
...
...
I think that maybe spy satellite sensors are evolving rapidly, and that the cost of sending up a new satellite each time a new generation of sensors is invented is becoming cost prohibitive. So the X-37C will carry two astronauts on future missions whose job is to take off in the morning, rendezvous with a spy satellite, swap out the sensors, and then be back in time for dinner.
He forgot the gold plated wheel hubs and platinum heat-tiles....I think that maybe spy satellite sensors are evolving rapidly, and that the cost of sending up a new satellite each time a new generation of sensors is invented is becoming cost prohibitive. So the X-37C will carry two astronauts on future missions whose job is to take off in the morning, rendezvous with a spy satellite, swap out the sensors, and then be back in time for dinner.
So you replace the expensive satellite for a more expensive X-37C with crew and now EVA compatible sensors?
So the X-37C will carry two astronauts on future missions whose job is to take off in the morning, rendezvous with a spy satellite, swap out the sensors, and then be back in time for dinner.
Thanks for that detailed reply. Most of it is beyond me, so I'll naively take your word for it all :)
Did I write monkeys? I meant to write chimps. Yes, definitely chimps.
The USAF has wanted capability like that since the 1950s, IIRC.
The X-37 does not have the sensors for rendezvous.
The X-37 does not have the sensors for rendezvous.
Jim, can we agree that X-37B is a test machine, not a finished product? It probably lacks a lot of things that a finished USV would have. However, these simply aren't needed for a machine whose main function will probably be to prove the ascent, orbital maneouvring, descent and recovery elements of the design.
Jim, can we agree that X-37B is a test machine, not a finished product? ......
FWIW, in the opinion of the professionals out there, what would be required on an 'X-37C' operational vehicle, depending on its designed mission?
USV
USV
You mean spacecraft, space vehicle, satellite, etc which have been flying autonomously for decades.
USV is not a term.
No I don't. Comparing what X-37 potentially could be to a satellite is a bit like comparing a Predator to a kite.
Not at present. Mark my words, though: there will be a specific term to describe an uncrewed spacecraft that performs a flexible function and can be reused multiple times because of its difference to existing military space technology.
No I don't. Comparing what X-37 potentially could be to a satellite is a bit like comparing a Predator to a kite.
Not at present. Mark my words, though: there will be a specific term to describe an uncrewed spacecraft that performs a flexible function and can be reused multiple times because of its difference to existing military space technology.
You don't understand spacecraft then.
Other than reuse, it doesn't do anything special and nothing that hasn't been done before.
See Agena and SRV's.
Agena could fly on Atlas, Titan and Thor. It could fly as an upperstage or as a spacecraft. It supported missions that involved a recovery vehicle. It flew LEO, HEO and GEO missions.
Reusability doesn't buy anything for a spacecraft. A cheaper expendable bus can do the same thing and be ready quicker.
See how useful return capability was for the STS for non ISS missions. It is an after thought now.
You're really heading down a dead end on this. We already have spysats. The big, powerful ones operate for at least five years (with degraded operations for longer than that) in higher orbits. There are commercial ones that also operate for many years too and get at least .5 meter resolution. That stuff happens now.
There's no reason to do that mission from a constrained X-37B with a short lifetime. If you are going to do the mission, you are going to want something that lasts at least several years.
With exploration being pushed back to the distant future, and the urgency by manned advocates to get SOME kind of US manned vehicle going, the X-37B gives a glimmer of hope to have a winged 37B based "OSP" envisaged years ago.My favorite part of that link:
(i.e. capsule vs. winged OSP)
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/38/1
"The Apollo heritage and relatively simple design would allow a capsule OSP to enter service relatively quickly. Durrance said he believes such a vehicle can—and must—be ready by 2007 in order to meet station requirements. While not putting a price tag on the system, he believed that a capsule would also be less expensive to develop than a winged vehicle."After cancelling a very frugal X-38. $9B+ and 7 years later where are we? Yeah, OT, but can't resist. Not fast, not cheap, ...
For highly encrypted data, unencryption is basically impossible. With a large enough encryption key (a large encryption key like 4096bits long or more is feasible) even if use a supercomputer in 100 years (given Moore's law holds), you won't be able to crack the encryption. Quantum computing buys you a little more computational capability, but not infinitely more. There are no quantum computers that can out-compute a pocket calculator. The biggest quantum computers are still simulated (largest is 42-bits, and that's simulated) on a conventional supercomputer, buying you nothing in terms of performance.You're really heading down a dead end on this. We already have spysats. The big, powerful ones operate for at least five years (with degraded operations for longer than that) in higher orbits. There are commercial ones that also operate for many years too and get at least .5 meter resolution. That stuff happens now.
There's no reason to do that mission from a constrained X-37B with a short lifetime. If you are going to do the mission, you are going to want something that lasts at least several years.
One big weakness of a spysat is the enemy soon knows when they are passing over head and they'll just hide what they don't want seen.
Saddam's forces knew when spysats were passing overhead.
Other issues are secure com links really all that secure?
I would say if the US can intercept and decrypt encrypted transmissions it's safe to say Russia and China also can.
With the advent of highpower lasers I'd wonder if the days of the conventional spysat may be numbered.
Here something you can send up for a short flight and get back before it's orbit gets listed would be desirable.
It is an amazing piece of work to demonstrate the capability to deploy on orbit and recover via an automated reentry using an airframe. Elements of the Shuttle, but without people and risk.
You seem to think this is routine and has been done before - it hasn't.
No I don't. Comparing what X-37 potentially could be to a satellite is a bit like comparing a Predator to a kite.
Not at present. Mark my words, though: there will be a specific term to describe an uncrewed spacecraft that performs a flexible function and can be reused multiple times because of its difference to existing military space technology.
You don't understand spacecraft then.
Other than reuse, it doesn't do anything special and nothing that hasn't been done before.
See Agena and SRV's.
Agena could fly on Atlas, Titan and Thor. It could fly as an upperstage or as a spacecraft. It supported missions that involved a recovery vehicle. It flew LEO, HEO and GEO missions.
Reusability doesn't buy anything for a spacecraft. A cheaper expendable bus can do the same thing and be ready quicker.
See how useful return capability was for the STS for non ISS missions. It is an after thought now.
By anyone. X-37 is fully autonomous flight control and landing - set it and forget it. BOR-4 was a parachute splashdown with NO terminal guidance - they just wanted to examine the damn tiles. Buran relied on a microwave landing system, range finder beacons, and human intervention (lots). You'd be surprised how little X-37 needs from the ground. Hell of a lot less than Shuttle.
It is an amazing piece of work to demonstrate the capability to deploy on orbit and recover via an automated reentry using an airframe. Elements of the Shuttle, but without people and risk.
You seem to think this is routine and has been done before - it hasn't.
I guess I don't understand what aspect of this wasn't demonstrated by BOR-4 and (for runway recovery) Buran?
Oh, maybe you meant demonstrated by the US?
By anyone. X-37 is fully autonomous flight control and landing - set it and forget it. BOR-4 was a parachute splashdown with NO terminal guidance - they just wanted to examine the damn tiles. Buran relied on a microwave landing system, range finder beacons, and human intervention (lots). You'd be surprised how little X-37 needs from the ground. Hell of a lot less than Shuttle.
It is an amazing piece of work to demonstrate the capability to deploy on orbit and recover via an automated reentry using an airframe. Elements of the Shuttle, but without people and risk.
You seem to think this is routine and has been done before - it hasn't.
I guess I don't understand what aspect of this wasn't demonstrated by BOR-4 and (for runway recovery) Buran?
Oh, maybe you meant demonstrated by the US?
Yes, Agena could fly on many different launch vehicles, and could support a variety of payloads. But Agena was also very expensive, and went by the wayside when the switch to digital imaging satellites caused a huge decline in the number of launches and reduced the economies of scale from using common hardware.
Yes, Agena could fly on many different launch vehicles, and could support a variety of payloads. But Agena was also very expensive, and went by the wayside when the switch to digital imaging satellites caused a huge decline in the number of launches and reduced the economies of scale from using common hardware.
1-There is a chicken-and-egg problem with the Responsive Space work that the USAF has been kicking around the past few years. It's not possible to pay $5M a launch when you only buy one or two a year, but there's no money to build the tons of payloads needed to get the flight rate up and the costs down. Some people have dreams of a complete system (payload, satellite, and launch vehicle) that uses reusability to afford high flight rates. The problem is always that making one component of a system reusable costs too much money and can't provide enough of a benefit to make sense by itself.
2-Yes, flying reusable payloads in an X-37B launched by an Atlas V doesn't make sense. Building a reusable first stage to launch existing upper stages and payloads doesn't make sense either. But if you believe in a future of fully reusable spacecraft, you have to start somewhere. And if you combine a program manager with a vision and a powerful congressman looking to keep money flowing to contractors in his district, that might be enough to keep the X-37B alive.
The new issue of Popular Science (or maybe it's Popular Mechanics--it's not online at the moment and I confuse the two) has a cover story on X-37B. A really cool cover illustration--that isn't the X-37! The vehicle on the cover looks cooler.
In the article, it mentions that: according to David Hamilton, Director of the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office, a second test is scheduled for 2011.
Yes, Agena could fly on many different launch vehicles, and could support a variety of payloads. But Agena was also very expensive, and went by the wayside when the switch to digital imaging satellites caused a huge decline in the number of launches and reduced the economies of scale from using common hardware.
What evidence do you have for the high cost of an Agena? Everything I've seen indicated that it was dirt cheap. After all, it was a legacy design and had been around a long time. There was nothing at all exotic about it (no cryo, for example). When it was flying during the 1960s it was considered cheap. Very cheap. Probably by far the cheapest upper stage that the US had.
I think that the history shows that in earlier times, people would use the Agena as a combination upper stage and satellite bus. Not only would it deliver the payload to orbit, but it would remain attached and provide attitude control, communications, and sometimes power. The biggest users of the Agena in this manner were the film-return spy satellites, of course, but a bunch of other people used it as well.
But Agena usage tapered off a lot in the early 70s, and there was a corresponding increase in the number of flights of such things as the Atlas with various solid upper stages and Thor-Delta. The existing generation of Agena-based NRO payloads (KH-8A, Jumpseat, Canyon) continued flying Agena, but that's about it. New satellites provided their own power and attitude control and whatnot.
Why was this? I think it's because the Agena was expensive - it was a very capable upper stage that dated from the beginning of the space age. Once the state of the art advanced and once you didn't have the film-return spy satellites flying once a month to keep the production lines running, other approaches started to look cheaper.
I think that the history shows that in earlier times, people would use the Agena as a combination upper stage and satellite bus. Not only would it deliver the payload to orbit, but it would remain attached and provide attitude control, communications, and sometimes power. The biggest users of the Agena in this manner were the film-return spy satellites, of course, but a bunch of other people used it as well.
But Agena usage tapered off a lot in the early 70s, and there was a corresponding increase in the number of flights of such things as the Atlas with various solid upper stages and Thor-Delta. The existing generation of Agena-based NRO payloads (KH-8A, Jumpseat, Canyon) continued flying Agena, but that's about it. New satellites provided their own power and attitude control and whatnot.
Why was this? I think it's because the Agena was expensive - it was a very capable upper stage that dated from the beginning of the space age. Once the state of the art advanced and once you didn't have the film-return spy satellites flying once a month to keep the production lines running, other approaches started to look cheaper.
Your logic is pretty sound (although I would also add that another factor is that relying on the Agena for power, stabilization, etc., also limited what you could do with your satellite--an integrated capability is better). But I'd still prefer evidence.
I'm trying to get in touch with Steven Isakowitz to see if he has ever had any costing information on the Agena. The vehicle cost might also be in 1970s-era budget documents. It may not have been as cheap as a solid, but all the circumstantial evidence I've seen is that it was a mature and inexpensive upper stage by the 1970s.
This document (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730061028_1973061028.pdf) seems to list the Agena D at about $2.5M in small quantities, which is half the price of the Atlas SLV-
Has the spacecraft indeed been mated to the Atlas 5, after we saw it moved out to the pad Thurs.?
Has the spacecraft indeed been mated to the Atlas 5, after we saw it moved out to the pad Thurs.?
There is no place for it go at the pad other than on top of the Atlas V. It is directly lifted onto the Atlas once arriving at the pad.
This document (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730061028_1973061028.pdf) seems to list the Agena D at about $2.5M in small quantities, which is half the price of the Atlas SLV-
Is that a bad price considering that the Agena had its own guidance system? I think it would be better to compare it to other upper stages with similar capability rather than to the rocket.
Itemized Agena: "long" life, multiple restarts, solar panels, subsatellites and experiments capability and other ?? Any other US upper stage to compare to? 28 year operational life. Interested to find average cost.
I had a thought about the X-37B. The Russians have been testing a maneuverable reentry vehicle, supposedly to evade US missile defenses. I wonder if X-37B could be intended to simulate that profile in some way.
Yeah, I know it's a poor fit. But X-37B is the only thing we have that can maneuver during reentry.Wanna bet?
Yeah, I know it's a poor fit. But X-37B is the only thing we have that can maneuver during reentry.
It is an amazing piece of work to demonstrate the capability to deploy on orbit and recover via an automated reentry using an airframe. Elements of the Shuttle, but without people and risk.
You seem to think this is routine and has been done before - it hasn't.
I guess I don't understand what aspect of this wasn't demonstrated by BOR-4 and (for runway recovery) Buran?
Oh, maybe you meant demonstrated by the US?
Until recently, I was under the impression that the flight Buran orbiter landed completely autonomously, until somebody set me straight. They used a clever solution, and a little sleight of hand to pull it off.
A friend of mine, who has a friend serving as a fighter pilot in the Russian air force explained how they did it. Apparently they just had a modified trainer fly a stack of landings on the airstrip, simulating a large set of Buran orbiter landing scenarios, and recorded everything. These scenarios were then uploaded into the orbiter's avionics, and right before the orbiter landing, they used various means to find the closest matching scenario, and then instructed the orbiter to fly it.
Yeah, I know it's a poor fit. But X-37B is the only thing we have that can maneuver during reentry.
But the shape is not optimal for a manoevering warhead. Something with wings is designed to fly slow. A manoevering warhead should be fast - something like the Pershing-II-RV, or the BGRV (Boost Glide Reentry Vehicle) of the late 60ies
Until recently, I was under the impression that the flight Buran orbiter landed completely autonomously, until somebody set me straight.Thats still autonomous, isnt it ? Most of "intelligent" computing uses prerecorded and precomputed databases and knowledge, that doesnt make the realtime control algorithms any less autonomous.
... they used various means to find the closest matching scenario, and then instructed the orbiter to fly it.
Another article on the X-37B:
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/air-force-x-37b-spaceplane-speculation-100412.html
Another article on the X-37B:
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/air-force-x-37b-spaceplane-speculation-100412.html
There's a lot of speculation there. But none of these people can explain why any of these possible missions requires a reusable vehicle with wings. And some of the comments don't make any sense at all--how can X-37B be "quick response" or fly to multiple orbits when it is stuck on top of an Atlas V? Atlas V is not a quick response rocket, nor can it fly to a wide range of orbits (it's limited by the launch site).
The key question mark for X-37B is the partial reusability aspect. What is so vital about that? And what kind of payload is necessary to return to Earth, especially constrained by the limited on-orbit lifetime of the X-37B. Otherwise, all the other things listed in the article can be done cheaper without a reusable vehicle.
So lots of speculation, but none of it convincing.
Could this not reduce that time to months? Similar to Hubble, you can also update specific instruments when they mature, and change them out as needed.
So how long does it take to build and launch a boilerplate spy sat?
If USAF had a statement that they are going to build a bigger reusable spaceplane in the next decade, then X-37B would make sense.
So how long does it take to build and launch a boilerplate spy sat?
I'll give you a very general rule of thumb for satellites (not spysats) in general:
Time to build a new version of an existing design--minimum of one year for relatively simple satellites, more like 2-3 years for more sophisticated satellites.
Time to build a satellite of a new, relatively simple, design--minimum of 2 years, more likely 3-4 years.
Time to build a satellite of a new, moderately sophisticated, design--minimum of 4 years, more likely 5-7 years.
Time to build a satellite of a new, highly sophisticated, design--minimum of 8-9 years, often more like 10-13.
(At the high end, all the subsystems tend to multiply the complexity. In other words, if you have a sophisticated sensor, it is going to require a sophisticated onboard system to handle all the data, and that is going to require a more sophisticated comm system, etc.)
But getting to what I think you're interested in, the long pole in the tent is going to be the sensor (or the actual payload, like the communications transponder). In general, things like solar panels, stabilization, etc., are not going to take a long time. Designing that sensor, which is usually the most sophisticated part of the satellite, takes the most time and causes the most problems.
What that means is that having a standard bus like the X-37B to plug your things into may not save you any development time, because it still takes awhile to build the sensors to launch.
I can accept X-37B as a technology demonstration, but it seems like an awful expensive way to demonstrate technology that doesn't have an end-user. If USAF had a statement that they are going to build a bigger reusable spaceplane in the next decade, then X-37B would make sense.
[
If it takes that long to build, and you put all your eggs in one basket, you have to start over. However, if you plan for the basic premise of 'commercialized' operations (larger quantities), then if you have an on-orbit failure, you simply replace the sensor pack when it lands. You also don't have to spend as much on the infrastructure since you can accept slightly lower robustness since it will be retrieved in short order, and possibly replaced.
Time to build a satellite of a new, moderately sophisticated, design--minimum of 4 years, more likely 5-7 years.If this is part of what they tell people in Aerospace 101 classes, i can see why the hiring pool is drying up.
Time to build a satellite of a new, highly sophisticated, design--minimum of 8-9 years, often more like 10-13.
If this is part of what they tell people in Aerospace 101 classes, i can see why the hiring pool is drying up.
Development times for spacecraft have gotten longer, and it is an impediment. On the science side it is hard to attract students when the time to develop an experiment and retrieve data is longer than a normal Ph.D. program. Nobody wants to sit around for years just so that they can finish.
But I think there is another factor at work, which is the perception that space is essentially a mature field and there are fewer new and exciting breakthroughs to be made. In engineering or science, the perception is that the frontier is being pushed back in many other areas and they are exciting--things like genetics and electronics. But space lacks that reputation.
Or devote their heart and soul to something that can be canceled anytime at the whim of a politician.Thats even further off topic. No, the entire aerospace industry is not subject to whims of politicians. Comsat example above is good, that has almost no friction with politics.
But I think there is another factor at work, which is the perception that space is essentially a mature field and there are fewer new and exciting breakthroughs to be made. In engineering or science, the perception is that the frontier is being pushed back in many other areas and they are exciting--things like genetics and electronics. But space lacks that reputation.
speaking as a young scientist on the biotech side of things, my perception is that chemical rocketry from ground to LEO is fairly mature. most other technologies of interest at this stage of space development ("coaling" stuff like docking/propellant transfer, in-space solar/nuclear propulsion, long term ECLSS) are immature and living on paper.
speaking as a young scientist on the biotech side of things, my perception is that chemical rocketry from ground to LEO is fairly mature. most other technologies of interest at this stage of space development ("coaling" stuff like docking/propellant transfer, in-space solar/nuclear propulsion, long term ECLSS) are immature and living on paper.
I wish we would start seriously working on things like scramjet propulsion again.
And all the amateur satellite watchers -- and the Russians too -- will be looking in the wrong direction for days.
There is nothing technical wrong in the scenario, but the same could be achieved by some yaw steering during the ascent, or by flying to an elliptic orbit, and/or doing a plane change burn at apogee.
The just-released NOTAMS suggest an orbital inclination near 28 degrees, so much of this speculation is OBE. But I circulated this note of partially baked ideas last week and it's still provoking thought:
We've all been wondering about why the X-37B is to be launched aboard a booster that seems to have twice the required payload performance.
I'll also note this thread is huuuuuge. So we'll start a new thread for the live launch updates.
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/x-37b-robot-space-plane-launch-100420.html
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/x-37b-robot-space-plane-launch-100420.html
BTW - this reminds me of an rocket booster concept published by Boeing ten years ago. It was a winged, Castor-120 based vehicle launched from the Back of a Boeing 747 whith a X-37 as payload:
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2000/news_release_000302s.html
...none of these people can explain why any of these possible missions requires a reusable vehicle with wings. And some of the comments don't make any sense at all--how can X-37B be "quick response" or fly to multiple orbits when it is stuck on top of an Atlas V?...The stated on-orbit duration is 270 days. Once on orbit it would be quick response over that period.
...none of these people can explain why any of these possible missions requires a reusable vehicle with wings. And some of the comments don't make any sense at all--how can X-37B be "quick response" or fly to multiple orbits when it is stuck on top of an Atlas V?...
Why should the Pentagon inform you or any other civilian
what any of the missions of that spacecraft are?
It's called "top-secret" for a reason.
You don't want to let America's enemies know what it's upto.
Would you prefer all the details of the X-37's missions be splashed
all over cyberspace to let America's enemies know everything about it?
Why should the North Koreans and Iranians be allowed the opportunity
to get this vital info on the NET simply because you want your curiosity craving satisfied?
65 years ago you could go to jail in America for trying to expose
military secrets you had NO business finding out.
Experimental X-37B Robot Space Plane to Launch Thursday
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/x-37b-robot-space-plane-launch-100420.html
"The X-37B is the only self-contained effort intended to be an economically viable experimental test platform on-orbit for months at a time and then return," said David Hamilton Jr., the Air Force Rapid Capabilities office director in a recently released article by the Air Force.
There could be a trio of rationales, suggested military space specialist, Roger Handberg, Professor and Chair in the Department of Political Science at the University of Central Florida in Orlando.
...
A third reason, Handberg continued, is to think of this effort "as the logical extension of the push into unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) where vehicles used for observation have moved into weapon carriers and various of other missions, many classified." Indeed, one could build an architecture linking UAVs and such vehicles to give you truly global reach, he added.
BTW - this reminds me of an rocket booster concept published by Boeing ten years ago. It was a winged, Castor-120 based vehicle launched from the Back of a Boeing 747 whith a X-37 as payload:
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2000/news_release_000302s.html
Well, it's shaped like an X-37, but it would have to be 3500 lb lighter than X-37B for AirLaunch to place it in LEO.
1-The stated on-orbit duration is 270 days. Once on orbit it would be quick response over that period.
2-Various plausible missions could require hypersonic manuvering. Either intelligence or dropping non-nuclear kinetic strike munitions would benefit from this.
2A-Intelligence satellites are quite easy to spot and predict, even for a lesser power. However a winged vehicle with significant cross range (or even possible re-boost) would be unpredictable -- almost impossible to guard against.
2B-A manuvering, reusable hypersonic vehicle could conceivably deploy non-nuclear kinetic munitions, much like the Prompt Global Strike (PGS) concept. However PGS is inhibited by possible confusion with a nuclear ICBM -- the trajectory is identical.
... The other thing that makes this mission head-scratching is the cost. It's not cheap, especially since the Atlas is expendable and costs over $100 million. Now if they had a reusable first stage, I could start to understand this a little better. But right now they appear to be spending a lot of money for something that provides relatively little capability. And if it is merely a test program, they are still spending a lot of money on something that doesn't appear to have a defined end goal.Maybe the USAF is looking ahead to 2025? See:
...You get the vehicle back -- it's like a reusable recon sat with possible strike capability. On orbit standby is the only thing that works for this role -- for reasons already stated, you can't launch a conventional booster quickly enough.
1-And if nothing happens, you've just spent several hundred million dollars for nothing. Doesn't it make more sense to have a vehicle on the ground ready to go?
...What good is the "hypersonic maneuvering" when you actually have to open the doors to deploy a payload?Nobody knows if that's necessary. It's not a little unmanned shuttle. It or the production version if capable of dropping payloads would be obviously designed for that. It could easily skip into the atmosphere to maneuver then back out to release payloads. Or atmospheric release is technically possible. An ICBM bus maneuvers to deliver multiple warheads on unique trajectories, all while in a vacuum.
And if you want to maneuver a hypersonic payload to smash a target, why do you need the X-37B? Why not just design something that can maneuver itself down to a target and smash it?It might only be recon, or with a secondary strike role. You already paid for the platform, so why develop a redundant capability for strike? Picture a maneuverable, recallable, reusable ICBM bus.
The US has stealth satellites.Many can be spotted by dedicated amateurs, certainly by a state.
Besides, how much payload could this carry? Could it carry a useful intelligence payload in its tiny payload bay?It could be a prototype for a later, larger vehicle. But if a Global Hawk UAV can carry a meaningful recon payload at 1,900 lbs, it seems the X-37B could.
...What kind of target would you want to spend several hundred millions of dollars on? Keep in mind that the cost of an Atlas V alone is over $130 million.That's less than the cost of a single F-22 fighter plane. IF prompt global strike is one role for the X-37B or successors, it would be reserved for situations where the cost of a single fighter plane is a worthwhile expenditure.
...It's like the old question about sending a space shuttle to the moon--you wouldn't want to do that, because you're carrying a lot of useless mass, like wings, that you don't need for that particular mission...
1. You get the vehicle back -- it's like a reusable recon sat with possible strike capability. On orbit standby is the only thing that works for this role -- for reasons already stated, you can't launch a conventional booster quickly enough.
2. The stated endurance of 270 days could be understated, or this could be a prototype for one with much longer endurance.
3. Nobody knows if that's necessary. It's not a little unmanned shuttle. It or the production version if capable of dropping payloads would be obviously designed for that. It could easily skip into the atmosphere to maneuver then back out to release payloads. Or atmospheric release is technically possible. An ICBM bus maneuvers to deliver multiple warheads on unique trajectories, all while in a vacuum.
4. It might only be recon, or with a secondary strike role. You already paid for the platform, so why develop a redundant capability for strike? Picture a maneuverable, recallable, reusable ICBM bus.
5. Many can be spotted by dedicated amateurs, certainly by a state.
6. It could be a prototype for a later, larger vehicle. But if a Global Hawk UAV can carry a meaningful recon payload at 1,900 lbs, it seems the X-37B could.
7. That's less than the cost of a single F-22 fighter plane. IF prompt global strike is one role for the X-37B or successors, it would be reserved for situations where the cost of a single fighter plane is a worthwhile expenditure.
Wings aren't useless if you need the maneuverability for tactical reasons. Quick-reaction recon or global strike from an orbital loiter are two possible scenarios.
c. There is no production version
6. It is not prototype. It can only carry 500lbs. Reconn from 60kft is different than 100 miles.
...As a orbital platform, it is useless for quick strike. It is bound to its orbital inclination -+ a few degree, meaning it has no range. Also, it is has no capability for both weapon and recon packagePresumably you'd eventually have several on orbit, just like recon sats. They could be configured for either weapons or intelligence, not necessarily both simultaneously. Delta wings indicate good hypersonic cross range. Unlike the predictable trajectory of satellites, a winged vehicle deorbit burn is unpredictable, and it could steer significantly left or right of its orbital groundtrack.
It is not a strike platform and it is useless as one.I agree the chance of that is very low. However a robotic winged strike platform based in orbit has compelling advantages.
Not stealth spacecraftThey can apparently be spotted, just with greater difficulty. The stealth characteristics are evidently highly directional, which makes it difficult for the limited number of amateur satellite observers. A significant nation state has no such constraints: http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/afp-731.htm
It can only carry 500lbs. Reconn from 60kft is different than 100 miles.Using the shuttle as a guide, the scaled payload would be 2,750 lbs. But you're right there are a couple of references saying it's 500 lbs.
ICBM's perform that role and not orbital platforms.They currently do. But there has been compelling incentive since the Dyna Soar for a winged hypersonic research, intelligence and strike platform. The advent of precision guidance has enabled conventionally-armed ICBMs, but various political and technical factors inhibit their use. An orbital winged platform performing the same function would be less constrained. However I agree the X-37B may not be that.
1. Presumably you'd eventually have several on orbit, just like recon sats. They could be configured for either weapons or intelligence, not necessarily both simultaneously. Delta wings indicate good hypersonic cross range. Unlike the predictable trajectory of satellites, a winged vehicle deorbit burn is unpredictable, and it could steer significantly left or right of its orbital groundtrack.
2. http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/afp-731.htm
3. sing the shuttle as a guide, the scaled payload would be 2,750 lbs. But you're right there are a couple of references saying it's 500 lbs.
4. An orbital winged platform performing the same function would be less constrained.
Why should the Pentagon inform you or any other civilian
what any of the missions of that spacecraft are?
It's called "top-secret" for a reason.
You don't want to let America's enemies know what it's upto.
Would you prefer all the details of the X-37's missions be splashed
all over cyberspace to let America's enemies know everything about it?
Why should the North Koreans and Iranians be allowed the opportunity
to get this vital info on the NET simply because you want your curiosity craving satisfied?
65 years ago you could go to jail in America for trying to expose
military secrets you had NO business finding out.
Multiple sources persist in listing X-37B propulsion as a heritage AR2-3 engine fueled by H2O2/kerosene, but we've been told that it actually has N2O4/Hydrazine propulsion. Does anyone know what the real hypergolic engine (or engines) is/are?
Payton interview. You can also download the transcript.
http://www.dodlive.mil/index.php/tag/gary-payton/
Question: A quick follow-up on in-orbit capability. Do you have, what kind of props on this thing? I know you can get up to like 500 nautical miles, something like that. Is there any expectation to do some orbit maneuvering of this vehicle to different altitudes?
Mr. Payton: Just the way we handle satellites in general. We would, and like we handle low earth orbit satellites. We move them a little bit with their own on-board propulsion system.
You’re starting to touch on the notion of using a winged vehicle to really change the inclination of the orbit by sort of dipping into the top of the atmosphere and turning and then bouncing back up off the top of the atmosphere. You need a very very good, very very high. Again, hypersonic lift over drag, in order for that to be beneficial. This bird does not have that high hypersonic lift over drag ratio that you would need to do that kind of maneuver.
Sorry, I didn’t intend to give a lecture on Aero 562.
...
Question: Air Force Magazine.
You talked before about how this could handle a small sized satellite. In more lay person’s terms, what does that mean? Is the payload large enough to hold like a Volkswagen Beetle or an SUV? Can you give us some idea there?
Mr. Payton: You know our ORS program, Operation Responsive Space?
Question: Yes.
Mr. Payton: Maybe a couple of satellites that are a few hundred kilograms each.
Question: Aviation Week.
Can I just confirm something? You said that the second vehicle may be ready to launch before the first vehicle is back from it’s -- This is not a short hop. This is a long journey, a planned long flight.
Mr. Payton: Right. We have a maximum of 270 days on orbit with this bird. Again, we don’t want to launch the second one until we’ve learned everything we can from the first one. So we will keep the second one on the ground until the first one comes home.
Again, that may be, it won’t be any more than 270 days but again, it all depends on the progress of the on-orbit experiments, then we’ll make a conscious decision on the success of those on-orbit experiments before we bring it home.
...
Question: Flight International.
Given the expense of going through this reusable vehicle, what type of interest is there in the Air Force in particular of bringing back payloads as opposed to just dropping them off?
Mr. Payton: The advantage of this vehicle is that you can take something up that’s new, you haven't ever flown it before, it’s new technology, and operate it on orbit, then bring it back and inspect it. Kind of a truck mode. You take it up and bring it back all in the same flight over the course of weeks or months. Shuttle has a limit of I believe 16 days on orbit. This bird can go a lot longer than 16 days.
Multiple sources persist in listing X-37B propulsion as a heritage AR2-3 engine fueled by H2O2/kerosene, but we've been told that it actually has N2O4/Hydrazine propulsion. Does anyone know what the real hypergolic engine (or engines) is/are?
Hydrazine. Payton was asked this at his press conference a few days ago.
2 km/s is the DeltaV I've read.
Sounds about right. The back half of the vehicle is basically propellant tanks.2 km/s is the DeltaV I've read.
That might imply 2,300 kg of propellant, or 47% of the spacecraft mass. Not out of the question, I suppose, but seems like a lot of delta-v. That mass could be converted directly into payload if not used. Then again, delivering payload seems not to be this thing's primary mission.
- Ed Kyle
Hmm, what if the goal here was to test aeropodal maneuvering? That is, skipping off of the atmosphere, like the Dynasoar and Sanger Amerika bomber? The extra propellant would lend itself well for such testing.
Back when it was a NASA program, it had two 100 kb OME's and was biprop with tanks on each end of the payload bay.
2,500 ft/sec was the spec for delta V
Back when it was a NASA program, it had two 100 kb OME's and was biprop with tanks on each end of the payload bay.
2,500 ft/sec was the spec for delta V
Two primary RCS engines (0.4 tonnes thrust each)? That sounds about right, since it would roughly equal the T/W ratio of the OMS pair on Shuttle.
- Ed Kyle
Back when it was a NASA program, it had two 100 kb OME's and was biprop with tanks on each end of the payload bay.
2,500 ft/sec was the spec for delta V
Two primary RCS engines (0.4 tonnes thrust each)? That sounds about right, since it would roughly equal the T/W ratio of the OMS pair on Shuttle.
- Ed Kyle
They only use one at a time
One at a time for time-rating reasons probably?
One at a time for time-rating reasons probably?
2nd one was for backup. If it not used, mission turnaround is easier.
What is the winged X-37B tail section for? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:X-37_upright.jpg
Superficially it looks like an upper stage but wings don't make sense on a booster launched inside a shroud. The only logical reason is for atmospheric maneuvering during reentry. It appears to be jettisonable, but maybe that's just a seam for the payload doors.
But if not jettisonable, how could it land? The c.g. appears off for normal landing gear locations.
IF the aft section is for propulsion, why would you need that during reentry or descent? If it's for orbital maneuvering, why the wings?
There is similar heat shielding on the aft section as the main vehicle, including high-temperature leading edge tiles.
Could this imply reboost after hypersonic upper-atmospheric maneuvering?
Could this imply reboost after hypersonic upper-atmospheric maneuvering?
Could this imply reboost after hypersonic upper-atmospheric maneuvering?
It is not that type of vehicle.
Could this imply reboost after hypersonic upper-atmospheric maneuvering?
It is not that type of vehicle.
That was my thought.. a little atmospheric skip for an orbital plane change.. Oh well.. It was an interesting thought.
wrong shape, it is has bad hypersonic L/D
Back when it was a NASA program, it had two 100 kb OME's and was biprop with tanks on each end of the payload bay.
2,500 ft/sec was the spec for delta V
So where IS it?
Does anybody know of anybody who's seen it?
Why not?
Low visibility solar arrays? That would be a neat trick
Has anyone noticed how much larger the X-37B tail section is vs the X-37? It's interesting the only images of the X-37B on a runway are from the front, which minimizes this difference.
So where IS it?
Does anybody know of anybody who's seen it?
Why not?
Experimental active optical detection interdictor ('Cloaking Device')? ;)
More seriously, expermental passive optical low-observability technolgy (to the point where it is practically invisible up to nearly point-blank range). This is more than possible using known and predicted refractive and light-absorbing materials, especially against the dark background of space. Unless it transits the Moon or Sun, it would be effectively undetectable to ground optical tracking in the same way the F-117 and B-2 are to most types of radar.
Has anyone noticed how much larger the X-37B tail section is vs the X-37? It's interesting the only images of the X-37B on a runway are from the front, which minimizes this difference.
I think the thruster is like the 100 lb apogee thrusters on many comsats.