I'm just hoping ULA provides the same amount of launch coverage we got the other day with IS-14
Quote from: Blackstar on 11/26/2009 03:31 amIt'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?
...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
Quote from: Blackstar on 11/26/2009 03:31 amYeah, 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?{snip}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.
Quote from: robertross on 11/30/2009 03:40 pmQuote from: Blackstar on 11/26/2009 03:31 amYeah, 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?{snip}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=2675The 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.
Quote from: Analyst on 11/30/2009 07:17 amYou are wrong. On many points.AnalystAnalyst, 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=2675The 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.