NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

Commercial and US Government Launch Vehicles => ULA - Delta, Atlas, Vulcan => Topic started by: kevin-rf on 11/18/2006 07:37 pm

Title: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: kevin-rf on 11/18/2006 07:37 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...
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: meiza on 11/18/2006 09:00 pm
Satellite retrieval? Combined with XSS-11-heritage rendezvous operations...
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 11/19/2006 04:51 pm
Where is Vt_hokie?

I thought he would have brought this up sooner. First NASA, then DARPA, now USAF the X-37 is getting around. Looks to me like they are going to do what NASA planned on doing, use it as a TPS evaluation system. Also evaluating guidance, navigation and control systems. Lets see...
Non-ballistic autonomous fast response bomber?
Anti-satellite weapons platform?
ABM weapons platform?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: vt_hokie on 11/19/2006 08:28 pm
Quote
Norm Hartnett - 19/11/2006  12:34 PM

Where is Vt_hokie?

Just saw this now!   :)  Very interesting indeed!
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 11/20/2006 12:28 am
not an Atlas 5 but an EELV.
Down mass is not part of the equation.
Too small for any retrievals.
It flies inside of the fairing at launch.

In one of my many tasks, I was working X-37 OTV-launch vehicle integration before it was cancelled.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Rocket Guy on 11/20/2006 01:04 am
The release says they have chosen Atlas 5.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 11/20/2006 01:18 am
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
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: quark on 11/20/2006 05:17 am
Quote
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

It will fly on an Atlas V 501.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Dante Wynter on 11/20/2006 08:30 am
I take it this is not a manned craft?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: MATTBLAK on 11/20/2006 08:46 am
More power to them, I hope they succeed. I've told Hokie and others that spaceplanes were coming; on a long and slow road.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 11/20/2006 11:36 am
Quote
Dante Wynter - 20/11/2006  4:13 AM

I take it this is not a manned craft?

It is too small to be manned.

This is a spaceplane and not an RLV.  It is a spacecraft that has wings.   It gets placed in its final orbit just like any other satellite.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Skylab on 11/20/2006 01:54 pm
Quote
kevin-rf - 18/11/2006  9:20 PM

http://space.com/news/061117_x27b_otv.html
"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."

Guess someone forgot all about Progress M!
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: JWag on 11/20/2006 07:19 pm

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.

Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 11/20/2006 07:51 pm
Boeing spacecraft have flown on many Atlases and the same for LM spacecraft on Delta

There are "firewalls" to prevent spacecraft divisions from working directly with the launch vehicle divisions of the same company.  MRO personel had no Atlas launch experience, only Delta II
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: NotGncDude on 11/20/2006 08:51 pm
Quote
meiza - 18/11/2006  4:43 PM

Satellite retrieval? Combined with XSS-11-heritage rendezvous operations...

XSS-11-heritage? Interesting. Did you see this somewhere or just guessing?

-Ian
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Zond on 11/20/2006 09:06 pm
Does anybody know if they are still planning to use the peroxide/kerosene AR2-3 rocket engine on the X-37?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 11/20/2006 10:48 pm
Quote
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?

That was changed to hypergolic engines when NASA ran the program.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: dwmzmm on 11/20/2006 10:50 pm
Are there any diagrams or pictures that shows how the X-37/Atlas 5 configuration will look?  Inquiring minds would like to know!
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 11/20/2006 11:22 pm
I have only notional ones and I can't show the.   It would be inside of the fairing on top of the Centaur like any other spacecraft.

And actually it would be too early for the diagrams.  Originally, it was going to fly on a Delta II Heavy and then Boeing errorous thought it would fly on a Delta IV.  But it had to be competed and the prep for the RFP is where it was left off.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: yinzer on 11/20/2006 11:38 pm
Delta II Heavy and 5-m fairing don't go together.  Was it going to be out in the airstream?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 11/20/2006 11:59 pm
Quote
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?

Yes and controllablity was an issue.  It would have required the vectoring GEM-46.  There were also 2nd stage interface issues
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: mike robel on 11/21/2006 01:47 am
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
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 11/21/2006 01:59 am
Quote
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

No solids are required
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: dwmzmm on 11/21/2006 03:16 am
That's why I was asking the question earlier about how'd the X-37/Atlas - V would look; we have many modellers ready to take on a new project!!
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: TitanFan on 11/21/2006 03:35 am
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 :(.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: yinzer on 11/21/2006 03:40 am
Shouldn't be too hard to model the X-37/Atlas V, surely?  There are plenty of pictures of both, and even though the X-37 will be inside the fairing, it'd look pretty cool with one fairing bisector and the CFLR in place.

Another interesting thing in the article were the repeated mentions of multiple flights of the X-37.  Would be nice to see, but it might get expensive.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: lmike on 11/21/2006 08:25 am
Quote
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...

I think it's futile, a reason for some tax injections, but practically... useless.  It's the next iteration of money expenditure for no apparent reason.  Quite normal.  Just another Incorrect project.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 11/21/2006 11:46 am
Quote
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 :(.

VAFB is more likely.  Less overflight issues.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: meiza on 11/21/2006 03:25 pm
Really, the only possible use I can think for this kind of space plane is mass return with no time constraints (lots of cross range).
All the other things are much better done without a space plane at all (just retire into orbit or burn up re-entering after use) or if you need downmass, a simple capsule/ballute.

I don't really understand the point of this otherwise.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: kevin-rf on 11/21/2006 04:15 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...
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 11/21/2006 05:08 pm
It has a solar array.  It has a payload bay
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: yinzer on 11/21/2006 05:13 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.

As for launching it on an Atlas V, well... that wasn't the plan.  There have been all sorts of low-cost launch efforts that have come and gone by the wayside, and so now if you want to launch something that won't fit in a 10-foot fairing or weighs more than 20,000 lbs, you get an Atlas V or a Delta IV.  And the reason that these options are so expensive is that they never fly, so the cost of adding one more EELV launch should be pretty low.

I'm excited to see them try; if nothing else breaking the current high-cost/low-availability logjam will require at least one side to take actions that don't make absolute financial sense in the current environment.  The LV providers tried by building EELV to support huge flight rates, maybe now it's the payload providers' turn.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 11/21/2006 05:36 pm
Quote
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.

It wasn't designed for "returning" payloads.   It can only carry 500 lbs.  The vehicle itself is the payload.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: meiza on 11/21/2006 05:41 pm
Quote
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...

Yeah well if the vehicle is a scale model test by itself... but then it wouldn't make sense to have those orbital capabilities, it could be flown with a sounding rocket.

If you have a surveillance telescope or really, any space payload there, it'd be cheaper to stick it to a smallsat bus and leave it to orbit, you could launch it on Pegasus...
Maybe if the payload was some extremely hyper-expensive one-of-a-kind thing then it'd make sense to bring it back, but I really doubt it.

It's really hard to come up with uses for a spaceplane.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: thomasafb on 11/21/2006 05:46 pm
I still remember seeing graphics of the X-37 sitting in the payload bay (and it looked great there)...but then it was still a NASA project and it was the good old OSP time. Nevertheless, it's really nice to see that someone in the federal space program seems to see a need for testing things in space and returning them for post flight analysis and ontop of that, using a winged vehicle for that; guess they did not hear that there already is a very capable system for that...oh right, that one is supposed to be replaced by something less capable......sad, just sad....

Another interesting thing is, that the military, that wanted something like the shuttle in the beginning (X-20, high cross range orbiter) walked out of it and is now comming back with something similiar....ok, unmannded, but at least it comes back from space the way one's supposed to come back.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Propforce on 11/21/2006 06:59 pm
Quote
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.

You need a higher level clearance :)
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 11/21/2006 07:29 pm
Quote
Propforce - 21/11/2006  2:42 PM

Quote
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.

You need a higher level clearance :)

not for X-37
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: yinzer on 11/21/2006 08:14 pm
Quote
Jim - 21/11/2006  10:19 AM

Quote
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.

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?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 11/21/2006 08:30 pm
Some, but not really enough.  Plus it has a "dirty environment like the shuttle
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: yinzer on 11/21/2006 09:07 pm
Sure, it's not ideal.  But at least in some sense, the concept of the X-37 is that of a reusable satellite bus.  This may indeed turn out to be a bad idea, or perhaps a not-very-useful idea, but it's not obviously idiotic, and since the only data point we have for reusable spacecraft is the Shuttle, and one would hope that it's possible to do better than that, but you can only sprinkle the words "aircraft-like operations" throughout your powerpoints for so long - at some point you have to actually try.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Propforce on 11/21/2006 09:13 pm
Quote
yinzer - 21/11/2006  12:57 PM

Quote
Jim - 21/11/2006  10:19 AM

Quote
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.

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?

The X-37 can not be looked at as a classical satellite.  The vehicle itself is a "bus" (yes, it has all that stuff) in additon to having "sensors".  It's a "hybrid" as it has a much more flexible missions, plus the reentry.  

It should be a real fun project for your guys to design a payload adaptor & interfaces for this bird.   You should be able to get an IRD on this.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Propforce on 11/21/2006 09:21 pm
Quote
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.

It's more like "RV-like" operation.

Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 11/21/2006 09:27 pm
Got the IRD but can't release it
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Propforce on 11/21/2006 09:34 pm
Lockheed guys need to get it thru the official channel.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 11/21/2006 09:52 pm
Boeing, the X-37 contractor, is/was to supply the adapter.  It  would probably be the same way
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: BarryKirk on 11/22/2006 05:29 pm
While I like to see new hardware tested out and flown.  You never know what good can come out of it.

I do have a question.

What is the maximum weight that can be returned with a vehile like this?

What is the maximum weight that could be returned with a capsule of the same weight that would fit inside
a similar fairing on the same rocket?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 11/23/2006 01:36 pm
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
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: mike robel on 11/23/2006 06:48 pm
So, does anyone have a three or five view drawing of an X-37?  Dang if I can find one on the web.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: edkyle99 on 11/23/2006 07:17 pm
Quote
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

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
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Propforce on 11/23/2006 07:32 pm
Quote
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.

I have a desk top model that I can take a picture then post it for ya :)

I'll do it this weekend.  Turkey day today ya know...
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 11/23/2006 07:50 pm
Quote
edkyle99 - 23/11/2006  3:00 PM

Quote
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

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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: bombay on 11/23/2006 08:02 pm
Quote
Jim - 23/11/2006  2:33 PM

Quote
edkyle99 - 23/11/2006  3:00 PM

Quote
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

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.
If it landed at 7500lbs, would it be able to return with any payload?

Specs. show 13090 lbs at launch with 7290 lbs propellant.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 11/23/2006 08:16 pm
With a 500lb payload any sort of weapons platform wouldn't be likely. My guess is that it is going to do exactly what they say it is, test TPS systems. Acourding to what I have read so far it is now equiped with some advanced bricks. Would the mass to surface ratio be large enough to allow testing of metalic TPS?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 11/23/2006 08:16 pm
landed weight of 7500lbs with 500lb payload
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: vt_hokie on 12/15/2006 06:37 am
I wonder if Honeywell developed any of the X-37 software.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: gladiator1332 on 03/03/2007 10:52 pm
Any updates on the X-37 in the last few months?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: publiusr on 03/30/2007 07:16 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
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 03/31/2007 12:32 am
Quote
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

It is not.  It also uses hydrazine
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: vt_hokie on 08/30/2007 12:33 am
Any updates on the orbital X-37?  I don't see it listed on the spaceflightnow.com launch schedule.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: William Graham on 08/30/2007 01:05 pm
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: vt_hokie on 08/30/2007 06:49 pm
Does X-37 use the same type of metallic TPS that X-33 would have?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 08/30/2007 06:56 pm
nope
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: dmc6960 on 08/30/2007 07:02 pm
What kind of TPS does it use?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: WHAP on 08/30/2007 07:17 pm
Quote
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.

Delays in launch of X-37 are not necessarily tied to the valve issue.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Rocket Guy on 08/30/2007 07:48 pm
It is still slated for 2008.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Skyrocket on 08/30/2007 09:41 pm
Is the Atlas-V launch for X-37 even contracted?

Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: William Graham on 08/31/2007 12:52 pm
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: WHAP on 09/01/2007 02:24 am
Quote
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.

Those gaps are always moving around.  Can someone confirm that X-37 would even be ready to fly in that time period?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: PhalanxTX on 09/04/2007 01:45 pm
The X-37 has a well-known landing runway length problem and my source on the particulars of that hasn't heard anything to suggest that they've fixed it yet.  If the Air Force has made progress, they're not saying anything.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: tnphysics on 09/07/2007 04:00 am
What is it?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: PhalanxTX on 09/07/2007 01:46 pm
From what I was shown, the X-37 team failed to do basic undergrad-level landing length analysis using the parameters they settled on for the design.  The X-38 team did when Boeing was trying to get X-38 killed, arguing the X-37 could do the job instead, and found that the X-37's landing run was very badly underestimated.  They weren't surprised at all when the X-37 went off the runway because they had predicted it and been ignored.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: simonbp on 09/11/2007 06:06 am
Or they could pull a shuttle, and squeeze in a drag chute at the last minute....

Simon ;)
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: tnphysics on 09/12/2007 03:14 am
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?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: uko on 03/17/2008 10:09 pm
Quote
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?

It is expected to launch from KSC and land at Vandenberg..
Source: http://www.pacbiztimes.com/index.cfm?go2=articles/wk_011408d

Btw.. Any new information about this launch and status of the X-37???
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 03/17/2008 10:44 pm
it is on the manifest
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: NEWUSER on 03/17/2008 11:05 pm
So X-37 will be launched in 2008 ?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Analyst on 03/18/2008 07:04 am
Quote
NEWUSER - 18/3/2008  2:05 AM

So X-37 will be launched in 2008 ?

Doubt it.

Analyst
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: space_dreamer on 03/18/2008 09:28 am
What about in 2009? Anyway won't they keep the launch secret?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 03/18/2008 09:48 am
Quote
space_dreamer - 18/3/2008  6:28 AM

What about in 2009? Anyway won't they keep the launch secret?
why?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: space_dreamer on 03/18/2008 09:55 am
As it's a USAF program, i thought they would keep the launch under raps until its flown.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Analyst on 03/18/2008 10:22 am
NRO does in some way, but even they have a launch schedule.

Analyst
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 03/18/2008 10:26 am
Quote
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.

Look at all the unclassified USAF missions here*

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=8184&start=151&posts=162

In fact, all the USAF payload designations are unclassified
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: sandrot on 07/30/2008 04:24 pm
X-37B to fly in November 2008.

http://www.aviationnow.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/SPACE07298.xml&headline=USAF%20Sets%20Orbital%20Spaceplane%20Test%20Flight&channel=space
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: pm1823 on 07/30/2008 06:06 pm
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 07/30/2008 06:18 pm
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
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Skyrocket on 07/30/2008 06:31 pm
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.


Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: pm1823 on 07/30/2008 06:33 pm
Oh, that's quite another thing... thanks for the clarifying!
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: toddbronco2 on 07/31/2008 01:24 am
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!
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: WHAP on 07/31/2008 04:03 am
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.




I hadn't heard that LRO was unable to meet its date - the AvWeek article made it sound like the AF wanted to launch X-37 by the end of the year and bumped LRO.  Maybe I read too much into it.

Despite the AV-002 precedent, X-37 and LRO will keep their original launch vehicle assignments (they will not swap boosters).
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: WHAP on 07/31/2008 04:16 am
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).

Quote
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!

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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Skyrocket on 07/31/2008 06:14 am
A naked launch would be interesting, indeed.

The aerodynamics of an unshrouded launch are complicated and are the reason, why X-37 launches on an Atlas-V. Earlier an unshrouded launch on a Delta II was planned.

Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Analyst on 07/31/2008 07:16 am
Wasn't X-37 once planned to be launched on a Shuttle? 15ft payload bay then, 15ft fairing now. Fit check passed.

Analyst
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Skyrocket on 07/31/2008 07:45 am
Wasn't X-37 once planned to be launched on a Shuttle? 15ft payload bay then, 15ft fairing now. Fit check passed.

Analyst

Yes, originally Shuttle, then Delta (unshrouded), then Atlas V (shrouded)

Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Orbiter on 07/31/2008 08:34 am
Holy cow! I had no idea they were doing this till just now! So, a November Launch?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 07/31/2008 11:01 am
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).

Quote
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!

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.

Worked it when it was a NASA mission a few years ago.   The Atlas "5 meter" fairing is bigger than 5 meters (5.3).  It is the same fairing as Ariane.  You can go to Ruag Aerospace in Switzerland and see both Atlas and Ariane fairings being assembled.

Will look for pics.  At that time, the LV wasn't selected yet and both Atlas and Delta  (EELV)were being considered.  The Delta II idea didn't last long
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: clongton on 07/31/2008 11:04 am
What is the TPS material on X-37?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: WHAP on 08/01/2008 01:53 am
Holy cow! I had no idea they were doing this till just now! So, a November Launch?

December
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Capt. Nemo on 08/01/2008 05:20 am
Here are some pictures for anyone that wants them.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Capt. Nemo on 08/01/2008 05:24 am
Just one more picture folks. This is a concept drawing, pre-spaceshuttle.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: kevin-rf on 08/01/2008 04:02 pm
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!!!
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 08/01/2008 04:17 pm
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.


No just LRO delayed itself.  X-37 was always there
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Free2Think on 08/02/2008 01:11 am
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Orbiter on 08/02/2008 08:42 am
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.

Actually the Launch is April 2009 for the Ares I-X. Only delayed a few months in a 2 year time frame.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jose on 08/05/2008 12:25 am
What is the TPS material on X-37?

"Advanced reusable TPS". No other details given.

The outer surface is a foil-gage, Inconel 617 metallic honeycomb sandwich panel. This outer panel is structurally connected to an inner box beam by a thin Inconel 718 metal support bracket at each corner of the panel. (http://"http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/armor_tps_020130-1.html")

http://www.m-r-d.com/experience/thermal-systems.htm

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/humaninspace/humansinspace-x37.html
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: BLUR on 08/06/2008 01:39 am
Quote
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?

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)
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 08/06/2008 01:53 am

Alternative: Taurus-II (with 5m fairing)

Taurus-II  isn't going to have a 5m fairing.  Also the SRM for a 2nd stage would have some control issues

Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: BLUR on 08/06/2008 01:54 am
yes, optional.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 08/06/2008 01:57 am
yes, optional.

Source? 

5M would be useless with the lower Delta II class performance of the T-II
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: BLUR on 08/06/2008 02:01 am
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!
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 08/06/2008 02:09 am
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
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: BLUR on 08/06/2008 02:14 am
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

Only time will tell, my friend
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 08/06/2008 02:25 am
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. 
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: BLUR on 08/06/2008 02:36 am
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. 

I think we are getting off track.  T-II (5m option) would be a great alternative launcher fo X-37B down the road (i.e. "time") and for much less $$ than an Altas-V.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 08/06/2008 02:46 am

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
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: BLUR on 08/06/2008 03:01 am

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 don't know everything...but more than you give me credit!
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: simonbp on 08/06/2008 04:07 am
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 ;)
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: kevin-rf on 08/06/2008 12:49 pm
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 ;)

...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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 08/06/2008 12:51 pm
weapons delivery, see CAV
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: kevin-rf on 08/06/2008 01:01 pm
weapons delivery

Don't buy it. Yes that is a capability the DOD wants, global strike anywhere in the world in 90 minutes or less... Still I have a hard time believing this would be a time or cost effective method. 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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 08/06/2008 01:29 pm
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.

This is a test vehicle and test launch.  ULA wouldn't be involved with any deployment of an operational vehicle

The "shroud" allows for maneuvering

Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: simonbp on 08/06/2008 04:05 pm

...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 ~18 cm is the theoretical max resolution for an ideal telescope using the Rayleigh criterion; the main limiter isn't materials, it's aperture size (limited by the payload bay) and atmospheric effects...

An Elint package would require a large antenna to deploy and then fold back up. Not impossible, but not much easier than the telescope. Either way, the real advantage of a "reusable spy satellite" is that they can launch it directly into an orbit that has the most dwell time over the target area, wherever that may be. The result would be more and better data than trying to retask spy sats already in polar orbits...

Simon ;)
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 08/06/2008 05:15 pm
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
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: iamlucky13 on 08/06/2008 05:54 pm

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.

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/sigint/design.htm

But mission-specific ELINT seems wasteful due to the fixed orbits and large distances. Hence why we have odd-looking aircraft like the RC-135:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RC-135
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 08/06/2008 05:59 pm

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"
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: simonbp on 08/06/2008 09:06 pm
Well, that's the point of X-37/SMV/CAV/whatever-this-is; you fly a "tactical satellite" for a few weeks in one orbit, and then land it and launch it to another. Repeated passes of the same area are useful if you are, say, fighting a land war and need to follow troop movements...

Simon ;)
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: pm1823 on 08/06/2008 10:15 pm
What do you call "for a few weeks"? They said, that want to send it for 270 days in space and then maybe for years. Let'em place nukes on it and send on a 3-years-in-orbit-patrol and you don't need an expansive infrastructure for Navy's submarines. Just a russian POV on the X-37 program as part of the US Air Force Space Maneuver Vehicle (SMV) program.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: simonbp on 08/07/2008 01:26 am
A few weeks because I really hope that we never have to deal with a land war that lasts more than that. Technically, though, you could launch X-37 into a really low, fast decaying orbit (for better resolution), and then command a reentry just before it decays...

Mounting nuclear weapons in them would be bad for two reasons: 1) It violates the Outer Space Treaty, which should be respected, and 2) satellites in predictable orbits are far easier to detect and shoot down than nuclear sub hidden the oceans...

Simon ;)
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: mike robel on 08/07/2008 01:30 am
Um, the current land war has lasted 7 years,  probably only 93 to go.  :)
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Capt. Nemo on 08/07/2008 04:35 am
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?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Bubbinski on 08/07/2008 05:16 am
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?

Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 08/07/2008 11:09 am
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 08/07/2008 11:10 am
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
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Propforce on 08/07/2008 05:34 pm
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

The X-37B is a 'risk reduction' technology development/ demonstrator, it's neither a 'pure' spacecraft nor a launch vehicle.  The concept is a reusable spacecraft/re-entry vehicle.

The X-37B is a platform.  If demonstrated successfully, it could be used with a number of applications with various sensors/ payloads to be placed for various imaginable scenarios including, but not limited to, the ISS emergency crew escape, reentry & autonomous landing vehicle .  The vehicle also can be scaled up but then the methods of delivering it to orbit becomes severely limited in that case.

Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Capt. Nemo on 08/08/2008 06:09 am
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.

I was thinking maybe a small laser to test atmospheric dispersion and stuff like that.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: jcm on 08/08/2008 02:30 pm

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"

You are misquoting this paper. It argues against the *tactical* use of ELINT satellites, it doesn't
say that ELINT in general isn't viable from LEO.
The first LEO ELINT satellite was launched in 1960 (GRAB). Russia still launches LEO ELINT missions (US-P, Tselina) and the US Navy's ocean surveillance system is a form of ELINT. The paper you quote is arguing that while LEO ELINT satellites are all very well for strategic intelligence - e.g. cataloging the enemy's radars - they are not responsive enough to be useful as a tactical asset. Not clear if Tomme is entirely correct - the US Navy sats have been used in situations one might think of as tactical, and I suspect the problem may be that different people are thinking of different scenarios when they use the word 'tactical'.  So the real question is that for an X-37 type vehicle where the whol e point is rapid response, is ELINT a useful capability, even if you only have occasional passes. I don't know, but it seems at least arguable.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: iamlucky13 on 08/08/2008 07:44 pm
Well, the theory in question is responsive tactical space ELINT, and I think Jim's interpretation of the paper is reasonable there. It's a lot of resources for little return. I suppose the AF would be interested, however, since spacecraft overflights by international agreements are not prohibited, whereas an RC-135 flying into someone elses airspace to get the same coverage would be subject to their welcome during peacetime, and a easy SAM target during wartime.

Jim, I'm confused by this statement:

Quote
I was referring to LEO (low earth orbit).  Didn't say orbit

Was that a typo? Are you talking about sub-orbital (once-around) ELINT?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: EE Scott on 10/02/2008 12:54 am
Can someone share why this mission has been pushed back to 2009?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 10/02/2008 01:19 am
Can someone share why this mission has been pushed back to 2009?

The same reason as why DMSP has been delayed
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: WHAP on 10/02/2008 02:13 am
I'm going to pull a Jim here:

Nope.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Propforce on 10/02/2008 02:33 am
I'm going to pull a Jim here:

Nope.

Haha... too funny

I'd assume that was in response to EE Scott's post
Quote
Can 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.....

Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: HydTVC on 10/02/2008 03:12 am
I'm going to pull a Jim here:

Nope.

www.livescience.com/blogs/author/leonarddavid/

Maybe Atlas engine issues being worked out???
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Analyst on 10/02/2008 06:27 am
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
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: EE Scott on 10/02/2008 11:29 am
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.   ;)
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: NEWUSER on 10/02/2008 11:48 am
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 ?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 10/02/2008 11:55 am
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? ;)
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: NEWUSER on 10/02/2008 12:11 pm
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? ;)

0038-0148 GMT on 5th (7:38-8:48 p.m. EST on Dec. 4th)

Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 10/02/2008 12:22 pm

If reason about RD-180 , then why they don't change plan of WGS SV2 launch ?

They already have, it was to fly in Sep/Oct.  Dec was the X-37 slot
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 10/02/2008 12:24 pm
I'm going to pull a Jim here:

Nope.

Haha... too funny

I'd assume that was in response to EE Scott's post
Quote
Can 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
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Propforce on 10/02/2008 02:33 pm

That's funny because they admitted to it when it  was a NASA program

Different security classification now....

Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: EE Scott on 10/02/2008 02:38 pm
It's all making sense to me now.

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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: WHAP on 10/03/2008 01:06 am
If you look at the schedules, both Atlas V and Delta IV have had delays.  Some of the issues are related, some are not.  Although DMSP was affected by these issues, it appears that the spacecraft community has elected to push the launch out much farther that would be necessary to resolve the launch vehicle issues.

Quote
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. 

It may not endanger national security as much as it may endanger that person's job security.

Quote
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.

You're not the only one.  Launch slips are, unfortunately, very common.  If it's not the LV, is the spacecraft.  I'm hoping things get back on track, too.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Antares on 10/03/2008 04:49 am
I was looking over someone's shoulder the other day and actually saw the cause of this slip on a widely distributed, very thorough daily news out of NASA HQ.  If I had the quote, I'd post it.  But it's a place to look for any of you who might (or a place to start asking WTH for those of you who protect this kind of stuff).
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: faustod on 10/03/2008 08:30 am
The launch is now delayed to February 19, 2009.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jos on 10/05/2008 12:03 pm
I found this:
http://www.space.com/spacenews/spacenews_summary.html#BM_3

Concerns about inadequate testing of about 20 pieces of gear on the Delta and Atlas launch vehicles also have slowed the launch schedule. Earlier this year, program managers discovered equipment that conducts vibration tests had not been properly calibrated for the past several years, said Gary Payton, deputy undersecretary of the Air Force for space programs.

"We've got a batch of piece parts in our supply stream that we thought had been tested to adequate levels but may not be," Payton said. "We're chasing down those parts, pulling them out and sending them through proper testing before we launch a rocket with one of those questionable piece parts."

The new tests will take months, not years, to complete, Payton said.


Is this the reason for the Atlas and Delta delays?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 10/05/2008 01:01 pm
One of the reasons.  There are a few others
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: edkyle99 on 10/07/2008 04:45 pm

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
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: EE Scott on 10/07/2008 05:42 pm

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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: iamlucky13 on 10/07/2008 06:42 pm

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.

Correct:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2007/05/sea-launchs-odyssey-heading-to-vancouver-failure-update/

Somewhere a while back I also came across a fairly vivid description of what exactly they believe happened in the turbopump when it came apart. It sounded pretty impressive, especially since I read it right after watching the video.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: simonbp on 10/07/2008 06:57 pm
So, was LRO pushed to the spring in favor of X-37 because of the same issue?

On the "acknowledgment" issue, as of last year, there was a detailed ~1:24 model of the X-37 in the lobby of the Huntsville Airport; anyone know if it is still there? :)

Simon ;)
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: hop on 10/07/2008 06:59 pm
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Analyst on 10/07/2008 07:44 pm
Also not that ULA currently deals with other, domestic quality control issues too.

Analyst
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: EE Scott on 10/07/2008 11:06 pm
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.

Good point.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: EE Scott on 10/07/2008 11:08 pm
Also not that ULA currently deals with other, domestic quality control issues too.

Analyst

Understood, very good point - quality control is a universal issue to which the USA is not by any means immune.(!)
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: edkyle99 on 11/07/2008 09:21 pm
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.

It didn't sound that way to me.  The Sea Launch Failure Review Oversight Board statement
http://boeing.com/special/sea-launch/news_releases/nr_070611.html
seemed to point toward RD-171M handling issues.   

The commission reviewed "operations on the RD-171M engine, following the standard full duration acceptance test that each manufactured engine undergoes at the Energomash test stand. ... The commission found two operations with the potential for introduction of foreign object debris (FOD) into the LOx feed system."

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Antares on 11/08/2008 06:19 pm
That statement does not specifically impugn the engine or the feed system on the vehicle.  It could have come from anywhere on either side.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: edkyle99 on 11/08/2008 10:56 pm
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 specifically mentioned "operations on the RD-171M engine".  Not operations on the first stage, etc.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Antares on 11/09/2008 06:23 pm
Sigh.

1) On which side of the engine interface is the LOX feed system?
2) Operations on an engine include installation of it into the stage.

The fact that the FROB inspected an engine already integrated on a stage (in the omitted part of your quote) suggests that they were looking at both sides of the interface.  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; but we can never know definitively.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Propforce on 11/10/2008 12:50 am
...... it's excessively unlikely that the FOD originated in the engine; but we can never know definitively.

Hey you never know... that's why we design "bolt-catcher" in  feedlines !! :D
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: ugordan on 11/10/2008 09:45 am
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?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: gospacex on 11/10/2008 10:01 am
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; ...

How did you reach this interesting conclusion? I read RD-170 development story. They had *huge* problems with metallurgy. At nearly supersonic turbine blade speeds + high gas temp they had problems with metal parts shedding debris. Many special coatings were tried and the combination that works was found, but it was hard to find.

There is still some fears from engineers that this engine can be a bit too close to limits and these mysterious "foreign particles" actually are originating in the engine, just not very often. Of course these thoughts are not spoken too loud...
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: gospacex on 11/10/2008 10:03 am
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?

Depends on the size. Single atom sized bits wouldn't hurt for sure :)

Ok I'm serious now. From what I know, safe limit is on the order of 0.1 mm.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: edkyle99 on 11/11/2008 06:05 am
Launch planned for 26 February ( Spaceflight Now).


A question.  Will we see any photos of X-37B before it flies?  Presumably, this payload is bound for the Cape, or somewhere near the Cape, in a few weeks (if it isn't already there). 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Antares on 11/11/2008 07:02 am
Huh, yours too is an interesting point.  I'll boil down your hypothesis to "An engine that is basically qualified still has design defects, due to operating on the bleeding edge of performance, that only occasionally manifest themselves."  Fair enough?  But one would think that repeated teardowns of tested engines would uncover incipient failures.  Or, one would think that the metallurgical processes themselves could be tested outside of a full-up engine, again to the point of complete or incipient failure.  I don't think I have a solid answer, but there are obviously lots of smart engineers in several countries who think it's good enough.

But, if the debris liberated under that scenario, it would be DOD not FOD.

The safe debris size is a function of the metals that collide and the temperature of LOX.  It's pretty much empirical testing to figure it out.  I think 100um is an order of magnitude small.  Inlet filters aren't that tight.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: vt_hokie on 11/17/2008 03:34 am

Different security classification now....

Why does all the good stuff have to be classified?!  ;)
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Propforce on 11/18/2008 03:56 pm

Different security classification now....

Why does all the good stuff have to be classified?!  ;)

To keep nosy people like us out of the loop :D
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jose on 01/08/2009 07:07 pm
Launch planned for 26 February ( Spaceflight Now).


This has been pushed back until January 2010, according to the latest on the US launch schedule thread.  Anyone know why?  All I could find was this Spaceflight Now (http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0812/19sdo/) article which only mentions a delay until March of this year.  They also mention schedule pressures on the Atlas V, though.  Is that the cause?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Analyst on 01/08/2009 07:25 pm
If this delay is true, you are probably correct. Funny how fast the Atlas manifest is considered "full" today. Remember the 1990ies with up to 11 Atlas 1/2/2A/2AS per year.

Analyst
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: WHAP on 01/08/2009 08:51 pm
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?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: William Graham on 01/08/2009 09:13 pm
Would ULA ever consider building a second VIF?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: yinzer on 01/08/2009 10:08 pm
Would ULA ever consider building a second VIF?

I'm sure they would, given appropriate circumstances.  If the flight rate is high enough to warrant two VIFs and launch platforms, why not build them?

Now most attempts at long-term planning in the context of the EELV program have gone horribly wrong, so you'd need a really strong case to get the second VIF/platform built.  But if you had the case, it'd get done.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Art LeBrun on 01/09/2009 12:01 am
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..............
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: edkyle99 on 01/09/2009 12:29 am
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
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Art LeBrun on 01/09/2009 12:56 am
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

Thank you for the correction. Now I need to find out how a Centaur
(only?) would be tested at LC-36A...configuration and such........
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Antares on 01/09/2009 01:22 am
"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....
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: WHAP on 01/09/2009 01:42 am
"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....

Same process that Atlas V currently follows.  They can probably launch 6 per year from LC41, including tanking tests.  Still OT...
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Analyst on 01/09/2009 07:23 am
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.

Analyst
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: yinzer on 01/09/2009 07:52 am
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.

Two launch tables, two integration buildings. Although they put the launcher together in one building, roll it over to the second, and install the payload and load storable propellants into the upper stage there. Presumably they could demount the payload and swap launchers if needed.

Kind of like the old Titan LC-41, I guess, but without on-pad payload installation.

I've also heard that Arianespace does much less launcher customization for  specific payloads. They may also be able to do more shuffling since most of their flights are dual manifested and to the same destination. 
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 01/09/2009 11:41 am

And why exactly aren't we stacking at the pad anymore? Shouldn't there be an improvement with Atlas V (EELV) over old Atlas?


Right now manpower is limiting the Atlas launch rate.  They can launch every 60 days.  They are looking to increase to every 45
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Analyst on 01/09/2009 12:11 pm
What would be the maximum rate with the current launch facilities, assuming man power is not an issue? What would be the maximum vehicle production rate right using current facilities, again assuming man power is not an issue?

Analyst
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 01/09/2009 12:20 pm
12 a year launch rate.  production meet the flight rate
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Analyst on 01/09/2009 12:28 pm
Thanks. 12 being enough to do some business, now they only need some business.

Analyst
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: William Graham on 01/09/2009 07:06 pm
12 a year launch rate.  production meet the flight rate
Does that include SLC-3 or not?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 01/09/2009 08:07 pm
12 a year launch rate.  production meet the flight rate
Does that include SLC-3 or not?

No
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: K-P on 03/03/2009 06:05 pm
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?

Will the first X-37B flight unit be reusable (if it survives landing nominally)?

Does anyone have info about the evolution of the program after OTV?
What are the future missions?
Is OTV gonna be evolved into a manned system?
Used as unmanned satellite launcher/tug?
Or just a testbed/stepping stone to a bigger OTV-design?

I just can not see the purpose of the program yet. I mean, for basic satellite launches you don't need any novelties, for tug purposes you have better concepts and for manned missions a capsule design will do just fine. We also have lots of knowledge of various hypersonic winged vehicles so what is the real purpose of this? Why wings & cross-range capabilities? Why military interest?

Please shed some light on me on this issue if you know better...
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: vt_hokie on 03/03/2009 06:11 pm
There was a previous discussion in the US Launchers section:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=5364.0

I'm certainly interested in X-37, though I don't know if we'll hear too much about it.  I suppose if it were really a black program, we wouldn't even know it exists!  But I think it still may be somewhat low key. 

I wonder if Honeywell provided any of the avionics, and if so whether any of the X-33 architecture got carried over to this vehicle.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/03/2009 06:18 pm
Now merged. Please use the search function for thread finding.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: WHAP on 03/03/2009 07:32 pm
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?

Currently planned for 12/2009.  Launch dates that late in the year typically move into the next year, but nothing is ever a guarantee in the launch business.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/04/2009 12:37 pm
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

Given the problems with the Atlas-V upper stage that delayed a couple of launches earlier this year, I'm guessing that Atlas-V's whole schedule must have slipped.  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?

Quote
"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.

Interesting comments made in the Space.com article (quoted above).  Should X-37 be considered an X-33-style precursor for an actual RCV (Reusable Crew Vehicle) that may ultimately be a rival to Orion or are the Boeing PR guys just expressing aspirations?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Skyrocket on 06/04/2009 12:41 pm
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?

It will be an Atlas V(501)
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Analyst on 06/04/2009 12:42 pm
Atlas 501, AFAIR.

The thread title is desperately in need of revision.

Analyst
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: WHAP on 06/04/2009 02:41 pm
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

As has been posted in this forum since April 30:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=8184.msg396906#msg396906
You can find the vehicle configuration along with schedule changes on that thread.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Antares on 06/04/2009 03:03 pm
I like that the space.com article made it to a link on Drudge Report.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: 2ThumbsUp on 06/23/2009 04:36 pm
X-37B is now at VAFB, slowly inching toward launch.

Flying from VAFB, not Cape Canaveral?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: William Graham on 06/23/2009 06:39 pm
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/23/2009 09:25 pm
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.

How many Atlas-capable pads are there? I know that LC-41 only has a single pad, what is at Vandenberg?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 06/23/2009 09:35 pm
one
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: EE Scott on 09/13/2009 12:08 am
Wondering what is new with this.  Any updated info?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 09/13/2009 03:46 am
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: William Graham on 09/13/2009 06:49 am
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.

There are no gaps in either Atlas manifest in the "next few months". I'd be surprised if it went before April 2010.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: EE Scott on 09/13/2009 04:17 pm
Thanks for the responses.  I was confused because this launch was on the Atlas manifest as of this Spring as happening in late 09/early 10.  So I took my eye off the Atlas launch schedule for a few months, and when I checked it again, I saw no mention of this launch at all.  So I assume that it has been pushed back deeper into 2010, wherever they find the opportunity, or perhaps cancelled.  Again it seems a launch that is interesting on so many levels gets pushed back years for seemingly no good reason.  Is there so little flexibility to slot in these launches?

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.  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?  If I had to guess I suppose they are running at full speed with X number of supporting personnel; 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?  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?  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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 09/13/2009 06:33 pm
Jim knows more about the EELV capabilities than I do, but they cannot handle a big new contract without adding capabilities.  They have some surge capability in some aspects of their operations, but they're tight in others.

There's an interesting story concerning Atlas and the planned launch of the Juno Jupiter spacecraft and the Mars Science Laboratory (i.e. the Curiosity rover), both scheduled for 2011.  Their launch windows are close together, and they are tight.  Right now it takes 45 days to prep an Atlas for launch and 90 days to prep an Atlas with an RTG for launch.  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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: JosephB on 09/13/2009 08:21 pm
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 pubished?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 09/13/2009 08:31 pm
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.

1.  Payloads can have problems.  How long has STSS Demo been on the Delta II manifest.

2. That would be optimum from a personnel point of view to be running at 100%. 

3.  Personnel and facility capacities are two different things

4. yes.  1 shift/5 days with some OT and off shifting

5.  yes and yes

6.  Yes and yes.   The cape and range has plenty of capability.  They are only needed a few days for each launch campaign

7. Another VIF would add flexibility but the launch rate with the current one can be increased with more people and more shifts.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 09/13/2009 08:34 pm
  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
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 09/13/2009 08:45 pm
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.

Sorry to be so obtuse, but it's not my article or research.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 09/13/2009 08:48 pm
  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 fairing on the MSL.

Glossary:
MSL=Mars Science Laboratory
GSE=Ground Support Equipment
VIF=Vehicle Integration Facility
RTG=Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator
MMRTG=MultiMission RTG (essentially a robust version of an RTG designed to be landed on Mars)
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 09/13/2009 08:56 pm

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
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 09/13/2009 08:57 pm
I've sat in on several MSL briefings where the Atlas launch schedule acceleration was explained, but I've forgotten all the details.  See the attached file which is from here:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/pss/jan92009/

It explains the launch windows for MSL and Juno and how they could accelerate the schedule to accommodate the two launches.  At the time of this presentation, USAF was apparently seriously considering accelerating Atlas launches at the Cape in order to clear a backlog, and they were going to pay for this acceleration (meaning that NASA would get the acceleration for free and not have to specifically pay for it in 2011).  I do not know when or if the schedule acceleration in general is still in the works.  I do know that the manifest was apparently getting crowded.  I believe that the acceleration primarily required, as Jim noted, adding a shift and some more personnel.

As for X-37, the person writing the article was apparently having a hard time finding out what the heck is going on with it.  USAF has been really squirrely about discussing when it is going to be launched, what it is supposed to do, where it is going to land, and who is paying for all of it and why.  This must be an expensive program.  The rocket must cost $150 million at least (I don't have the current price list for the different Atlas variants), and the spacecraft must be getting pricey by now.  Who would throw at least a few hundred million dollars at a tech demo unless it had a clear purpose?  Dunno.  It's an odd bird.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 09/13/2009 08:58 pm

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

Mine don't have markings.  Just have to find them.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: EE Scott on 09/14/2009 01:14 am
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: JosephB on 09/14/2009 01:30 am
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.

Sounds good Blackstar, thanks. I'm sure more than a few members will be looking forward to any more tidbits.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 09/14/2009 02:08 am
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.

Less than the astronomers.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 09/16/2009 04:17 pm
After much digging, I finally found the Mars Science Laboratory presentation I had concerning the use of MMRTGs and their installation on the vehicle.  I have excerpted several of the more visual slides that cover this subject.  I may also post these images in another thread where they are more relevant.  But I promised I'd include them, so here you are.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 09/16/2009 05:22 pm
Okay, I managed to convert some of the pdf to images.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 09/16/2009 05:24 pm
Here are some images showing how they reject, and recovery MMRTG heat on the MSL.  And also how they load the MMRTG on the launch pad, atop the Atlas V.

To get a little back on topic, loading an MMRTG requires a lot of prep, so it requires more preparation time before an Atlas V launch.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: EE Scott on 09/17/2009 01:42 am
Great stuff!
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: kevin-rf on 09/17/2009 02:15 am

Great stuff, but why isn't it on the MSL thread?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: robertross on 09/17/2009 09:27 pm
Thanks Blackstar!! Yeah, I think this is on the wrong thread...but whatever works  :)
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: kch on 09/17/2009 09:34 pm
Thanks Blackstar!! Yeah, I think this is on the wrong thread...but whatever works  :)

I've been a bit puzzled, too -- not sure how this ties-in with the X-37 launch that seems to be coming up last year ... ;)
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 09/17/2009 11:04 pm
We got sidelined onto the issue of Atlas V launch rates, and I commented that launches with RTGs took longer to prepare.  That led to a discussion of adding equipment to the pad in order to put the RTGs into the vehicle, and I mentioned that I had slides that dealt with that and promised to look for them.

If you want, I can remove all of that stuff.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: EE Scott on 09/18/2009 04:17 pm
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: kch on 09/18/2009 04:20 pm
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.

Agreed -- glad you posted it!  Interesting stuff.  :)
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 09/18/2009 04:50 pm
MSL presentation here:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15026.60
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: kevin-rf on 09/24/2009 02:43 am
Second mission could occur in 2011.

? ? ? ?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: kch on 09/24/2009 03:15 am
Second mission could occur in 2011.

? ? ? ?

Why the question marks?  It *is* intended to be reusable -- if it survives the first flight, why not fly it again?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 09/24/2009 03:51 am
Just because it is intended to be reusable that doesn't mean it should be reused.

There are still some questions about just why the USAF is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on what is at best a technology demonstrator.  What's worth that kind of money?  (Note that a few hundred million thrown at Operationally Responsive Space would make a big difference there.)
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: kevin-rf on 09/24/2009 02:50 pm

It's the first I've seen any indication of a "reflight". Is it Aerospace Daily adding one and one and getting three, or real?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 10/22/2009 03:28 pm
The article I mentioned is up:

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/091022-x37b-testlaunch.html

Not too much new.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Analyst on 10/22/2009 04:54 pm
Please someone change the thread title.

Analyst
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: JosephB on 10/24/2009 02:52 am
The article I mentioned is up:

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/091022-x37b-testlaunch.html

Not too much new.

Thanks Blackstar.
I'll be very surprised if video of the landing will be for public consumption.
I've heard that it's some sort of winged vehicle. Oh wait, that's been classified too now.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 10/24/2009 03:54 am
This one is just a head-scratcher.  Hundreds of millions on something that just doesn't seem to have much utility.  And they're being secretive about it.  Why?  I'm guessing some kind of connection to Prompt Global Strike, but that just has not been funded very highly and was not popular with Congress.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: JosephB on 10/25/2009 07:25 am
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, not unlike the old shuttle missions. Of course that opens it up to bureaucratic control issues but at least us space enthusiasts might get more info! And with ISS most likely in use for many years an X-37 derived OSP makes more sense than a capsule for ISS crew transfer. In a perfect world we could have Orion as well for exploration. And could I also get a large fry & medium coke with that? And an Ares V and that should do it.

One could envision a purely unmanned research version and a seperate manned one for crew transfer. Goofy? How much was that bail out? 700 Billion?
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/73212.html

Rant mode aside, it will be interesting to read the speculation on this program in the upcoming years. Hopefully we'll have something to chew on after the first couple launches.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 10/25/2009 11:23 am
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: mmeijeri on 10/25/2009 11:25 am
There is no overarching they.

Muhahahah!  ;D
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: JosephB on 10/25/2009 01:25 pm
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.

Did I use the omnipotent "they"? Poor writing on my part.
The Ares I vs DIVH debate for Orion clarifies that point really well.


Here's a question. The AF sees some kind of value in this. Does the cost of downmass capability for sat refurb have benefits over the cost of disposable milsats? Or do you think Blackstar's hunch is more of the driver?
Maybe both make it worthy of pressing ahead?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 10/25/2009 04:16 pm
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.

FWIW, I think it is just an X-program where all the contracts were already signed.  It is being seen through to its conclusion because early cancellation would simply cost more than completing the flight program.  That said, whilst the data will doubtless initially be classified, it could ultimately teach us a lot about hypersonic lifting bodies through re-entry.  There is no 'end product' at the moment, but the data may one day be used on another program.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: robertross on 10/25/2009 05:01 pm
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.


I think I saw that on TV recently...no, seriously! I think it was the military channel.

It has major benefits for crises, and you could also deploy special hardware in a hurry.

Cost never seemed to mind CIA or DoD in the past: just get the job done.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 10/25/2009 05:15 pm
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'.

Where are they going to land it? 
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 10/25/2009 05:16 pm
I hope everybody realizes that the X-37 is too small to do any of these tasks.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 10/25/2009 05:21 pm
Of course.  X-37 is just the technology demonstrator.  The operational vehicle would be larger - probably just scaled up.  Landing would be on a conventional airstrip.

I think I should add again that I don't think that this scenario is likely.  The costs would be immense and I'm not sure that even an ICBM technology-based (instant response standy) LV would allow the vehicle to be ready quick enough to actually have any response time advantage over a conventional transport aircraft.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 10/25/2009 05:25 pm
  Landing would be on a conventional airstrip.
And of course, there is one next to every situation.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: mmeijeri on 10/25/2009 05:26 pm
How would the intrepid SEALs be extracted?

1. Insert SEAL team by top secret spaceplane
2. ...
3. Profit!
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 10/25/2009 05:31 pm
@ 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.  Naturally, they will not want to attempt to land a very, very unsubtle hypersonic transport next to the location of a hostage situation.

How would the intrepid SEALs be extracted?

1. Insert SEAL team by top secret spaceplane;
2. Bad people made to go away;
3. SEALs get onto MH-60 for flight to nearest major airport;
4. Transfer to C-17 Globemaster II for flight to USA;
5. Insertion vehicle loaded onto C-5 Galaxy (or, if it is too large, loaded onto the back of a specialised carrier aircraft) and shipped back to the USA;
6. None of these things ever happened, citizen.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 10/25/2009 10:58 pm
@ 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.


My point still applies.  There isn't always airstrips within helicopter distances
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: JosephB on 10/25/2009 11:31 pm
So is it pretty likely we will have OTV1 & OTV2 and then shelve everything?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 10/26/2009 12:33 am
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.

That sound you hear is the sound of me banging my head on my desk.

No.  No.  No.  And no.

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.  There is a name for small special-ops squads landed deep behind enemy lines: casualties.  (Yes, I know that special ops squads go behind enemy lines all the time, but the concept of SUSTAIN is that they're put smack dab in the middle of enemy territory really fast, whereas the normal method is to plan carefully how you're going to put them in and get them out, often by the same method.)

It's dumb for another reason too: how do you provide air support?  Or resupply?  Or reinforcement?

X-37 has nothing to do with that.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: MKremer on 10/26/2009 01:22 am

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!)

Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 10/26/2009 10:00 am
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?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: William Barton on 10/26/2009 10:39 am

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!)


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...
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: edkyle99 on 10/26/2009 02:32 pm

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!)


Finally, at long last I know what that DC-X thing was really all about! ;)

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: mmeijeri on 10/26/2009 02:34 pm
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?

Because the idea is intriguing.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 10/26/2009 04:05 pm
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?

Because it is so far from being realistic that it's goofy.  It's a great Heinlein story, until you do the math.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackout on 10/26/2009 04:30 pm
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: MKremer on 10/26/2009 05:32 pm
TPS, shape, guidance, communications, ect. all get to be tested by the X-37.  Hence its X-pane status as a technology demonstrator.

And the vehicle has already been designed and built, which is a major bonus.

Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: edkyle99 on 10/26/2009 07:30 pm
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.

This might be worthwhile even if this led only to a reusable spacecraft.  That's usually the single most expensive hardware element of an orbital mission.

One problem is that it can only be applied to LEO missions probably.  That's a subset of total DoD missions.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 10/26/2009 08:07 pm
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 10/26/2009 08:49 pm
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.

Inertia.  The program, regardless of its goals, was conceived in secrecy.  As you know and as you have yourself written, it's much more difficult to declassify something than it's usually worth.  Regardless of what the ultimate goal is NOW, if it was classified then, we might find out about it within the next 20 years or so.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 10/26/2009 09:34 pm
That doesn't gibe with a claim that this is simply an obvious project.  And I'm not sure what you mean by conceived in secrecy.  It started as an open NASA program.  It got transferred to USAF and then it got weird.  And the bureaucratic inertia that goes along with secrecy doesn't really work the way you imply. 

I think the more likely explanation is that this is in some way testing technology for Prompt Global Strike.  That can explain the secrecy (although I still find it weird).
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: StarGeezer on 10/26/2009 10:41 pm
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?...
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 10/26/2009 10:59 pm

...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?...

It would be more classified then
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 10/26/2009 11:01 pm

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. 
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: JosephB on 10/27/2009 12:57 am

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. 

It makes sense the payload is the reason for the secrecy but why is the AF so tight lipped about the X-37 itself compared to when NASA had it? A few pictures and an interesting article every now & then would be nice. Almost everything known about it comes from those days. It seems they are trying to classify everything after the fact.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 10/27/2009 01:03 am
Almost everything known about it comes from those days.

And nothing has changed.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: vt_hokie on 10/27/2009 01:45 am
Speaking of TPS, does anyone know what materials are used for thermal protection on X-37B? 
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Antares on 10/27/2009 01:49 am
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?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jorge on 10/27/2009 01:59 am
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?

Conventional vs. nuclear payload

Precision terminal guidance vs. ballistic

An ICBM is great for taking out a base or a city. It's pretty lousy at hitting one building without taking out the ones around it.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: mmeijeri on 10/27/2009 02:01 am
What would be the advantage over cruise missiles? Faster and more difficult to shoot down?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 10/27/2009 04:30 am
What would be the advantage over cruise missiles? Faster and more difficult to shoot down?

Primarily faster.

The concept is essentially the ability to respond very quickly to an emerging situation or threat.  The most commonly cited example is spotting Osama bin Laden somewhere and needing the ability to kill him quickly.  A cruise missile takes anywhere from dozens of minutes to hours to target and hit.  PGS would aim to hit in under 30 minutes.  Concepts include hypersonic missiles or conventionally-armed ICBMs or SLBMs.

There are numerous problems with the concept, including what I consider the big one, which is that intelligence is never good enough to provide that kind of confidence.  The only way to know that you have a good target is to have an asset right there (such as a UAV) and that asset would probably be armed.  It seems pretty unlikely that you'd have good intel and then require a weapon to travel thousands of miles.

Other objections include such things as the highly provocative nature of a ballistic missile launch (would Russia be ready to accept that a ballistic missile flying over its territory was not aimed at Russia?).

Within the US government, PGS has a sketchy history.  Although the previous administration supported the idea in concept, Congress was opposed, primarily because they were concerned about the limited utility (i.e. the very few times that it could be used) and the provocative nature of such a weapon.  They prevented development of such a weapon.

It seems likely that if X-37 has been developed to prove out some of this technology, that the current administration would be less likely to support it.

However, there's still a big question if X-37 is indeed associated with prompt global strike.  It's just not at all how you would do it.  You would not use a rocket and an expensive spaceplane.  So that implies that this is a test of technologies.  But which ones?  And why?  Just weird.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 10/27/2009 10:48 am
What would be the advantage over cruise missiles? Faster and more difficult to shoot down?

Primarily faster.

Just out of interest, what would be the largest cross-range possible for an X-37-derived PGS carrying, say a 'bullpup' explosive warhead descending from a intercontinental ballistic flight? I'm thinking that it is launched and, as it descends, manouvres to change its aiming point in response to signals from an E-3 or intelligence personnel on the ground (as well as possibly terminal laser-designated homing).  The latest versions of the Tomahawk can do this.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 10/27/2009 04:05 pm
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.

There are.  But the question is if this is testing some technologies related to it, such as terminal maneuvering, that could then be adapted to a different vehicle, like an ICBM.

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?

Because they have been more open about other spacecraft.  For example, look at the recent STSS mission.  There's quite a bit on the web on that.

But USAF refuses to say what is in the payload bay of X-37.  Why?  And they've been circumspect explaining who is in charge of the project.  Again, why?  It's a head-scratcher.

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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/27/2009 04:29 pm

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.

It followed us home, can we keep it? A stretch, since how many payloads would fit in the bay? It would be just a "little" obvious.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: edkyle99 on 10/27/2009 04:57 pm
You folks are conjuring up spectres and ghosts in the absence of facts.

But that is the point, isn't it?  If the Air Force was even just a tiny bit more transparent about this flight, there wouldn't be so much rampant speculation about its mission!

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: yinzer on 10/27/2009 05:07 pm
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.

The X-37B has a long history.  It started in 1996 as the USAF's Space Maneuver Vehicle.  The USAF paid for a subscale aerodynamic demonstrator called the X-40A, then declined to fund the orbital X-40B.  After some congressional pressure, the X-40B was renamed the X-37 and funded as a NASA technology demonstrator.  The USAF was dragged back on board.  After Columbia, NASA decided it'd rather send people to the moon than do RLV technology work, so the project was sent back to DARPA.  Years later, and it's finally ready to fly.

Asking "why" it has wings and is reusable is kind of pointless - it was designed to demonstrate wings and reusability so that some future operational system would have the technology available.  It was also apparently designed to spend a lot of money in Dana Rohrabacher's congressional district.

I don't know that it has to make much more sense than that.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 10/27/2009 05:13 pm
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 10/27/2009 05:17 pm
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.

Several articles written about X-37B have made that connection.  I didn't invent the speculation, merely repeated it.

Air-breathing hypersonics have not been selected as the technology of choice.  There are in fact a range of options, including conventional SLBMs.  There's no indication of active programs in any of these technologies.


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.

That is true, but the people who write about these things have noticed that X-37B is an outlier.  They have asked Air Force leaders about it and gotten stone-faced silence.  They wonder what the explanation for that is.

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.

No, we are trying to find an explanation for the absence of facts.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: yinzer on 10/27/2009 05:34 pm
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.

But look at the entire history of the program, not just the last few years.  It's been a mostly unwanted technology demonstrator that gets kicked from agency to agency because its congressional sponsors won't let it die.  DARPA is just the most recent home of many.

DARPA may very well have some secret payload that they are going to put in the payload bay.  That payload, plus the technology demonstration value, plus the pork value, may be worth the money spent since DARPA took it over.

But seriously, how many times do you read in the news that the DoD claims they don't want some new bunch of airplanes that Congress is allocating money for?

I'm not saying that there is nothing hiding behind the curtain, I'm just saying that there's a lot of stuff that happens in military procurement that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.  How much did DARPA spend on that MIPCC stuff?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: robertross on 10/27/2009 07:22 pm
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)?

I do like the idea of a satellite 'repair' mission, but one of replacing a component on board from an old camera to a new one for instance. Perhaps they have develped a small 'arm' to help with the repair. Just thinking out loud. Obviously not at all cost effective, as pad rat points out.

Lots of healthy speculation, that's for sure.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: MKremer on 10/28/2009 07:17 am
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/28/2009 12:07 pm
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.


Other than being an act of war... Just a minor pesky detail.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Analyst on 10/28/2009 12:18 pm
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.

Huh. They can have up there whatever they want, short of a weapon system. Noone has to be informed about it. Well, short of the UN, but some here don't seem to give a damn about the UN anyway, and the US itself is quite lazy with registering its payloads there.

Analyst
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/28/2009 05:15 pm
They can have up there whatever they want, short of a weapon system.

Are you sure of that. Weapons have been placed in space in the past, and I am sure they will be again.

Besides, "weapon system" is a very fuzzy word. GPS/Weather Sats/Remote Sensing/Com Sats/Early Warning Sats can all be used as part of a modern military machine. Are they weapons? They guide munitions, tell you where the bad guy is, let to spy on him, tell you if he is firing back at you... Very Very fuzzy.

What was the quote from the UN back in the 1960s? "Oh that one had a camera on it".
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Analyst on 10/28/2009 05:50 pm
And your point being, with respect to my reaction to MKremer?

A car can be a weapon too, as can my kitchen knife.

Analyst
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/28/2009 05:55 pm

You can't ban weapons from space.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Analyst on 10/28/2009 05:59 pm
Even if this is true, something very debatable, what is the relation to this thread? Drop "short of a weapon system" and my post and everything I say is still valid. So what is the point?

Analyst
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Antares on 10/28/2009 06:01 pm
You can't ban weapons from space.

Where's Hans 'Brix' when you need him?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 10/28/2009 07:22 pm
Weapons are allowed in space.  Here is Article IV of the Outer Space Treaty:

"Article IV
States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.

The Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military maneuvers on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the Moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited."

Yeah, we're straying off topic, but it's no big deal.  The point is that if X-37B is a weapon, it is allowed in space according to international law.  (It's just not allowed on the Moon.)
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 10/28/2009 08:30 pm
Does anybody know of hi-res versions of some of the original X-37B concept art when it was a NASA project?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: JosephB on 10/28/2009 08:47 pm
I'm not sure about Hi Res but here's one for starters. I have more but have to find it first...

Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: mmeijeri on 10/28/2009 08:58 pm
What's the Isp of the JP-8/H2O2 engine?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: JosephB on 10/28/2009 09:03 pm
A poster in Q&A "Rocket Engine Questions" noted that the AR2-3 is not being used anymore and I don't know what has replaced it.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 10/28/2009 10:02 pm
I'm not sure about Hi Res but here's one for starters. I have more but have to find it first...

Thanks.  I went to the NASA Image Exchange and did a search under X-37 and came up with a few.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 10/28/2009 10:04 pm
Here's another.  Not as good as the last one.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 10/28/2009 10:17 pm
What's the Isp of the JP-8/H2O2 engine?

that isn't being used anymore
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: mmeijeri on 10/28/2009 10:20 pm
What's being used now? And do you know what the Isp of the old engine was?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: robertross on 10/29/2009 12:11 am
Here's another.  Not as good as the last one.

Well if they were going to bring back a satellite with that thing, it better fit in your hand!  lol

Wow, is that ever small. the shuttle's PLB certainly gives it a sense of scale.

Thanks for the images.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: JosephB on 10/29/2009 12:16 am
mmeijeri: Here is a link I came across: http://www.astronautix.com/engines/ar23.htm

but as noted above it apparently was replaced. Jim or Propforce might know but it may very well be classified now given the lack of info? Dunno.

Blackstar: Those are good finds. Never have seen those before.
I know I have more somewhere. I'll keep looking but here are two more for this thread.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: mmeijeri on 10/29/2009 12:18 am
I did some googling and Isp is apparently around 310s. Not great, but good enough for a moon lander, noncryogenic and less hazardous than MMH/NTO...
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: JosephB on 10/29/2009 12:20 am
Also, it sure would be neat to see the launch and/or mission patches for this guy!
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: JosephB on 10/29/2009 12:47 am
In the past I've searched like a SOB for pics/graphics, found a few & gave up.
Searched just now & found a few more on foxnews.com of all places. Check out their slide show. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,569143,00.html

Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 10/29/2009 12:52 am
I have a whole crap load of diagrams but they are in propriety and ITAR documents from when I was working on it while it was a NASA program
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 10/29/2009 03:51 am
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?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: MKremer on 10/29/2009 09:26 am
... Just a case of everybody going batty for a moment?

A very expensive test flight. (Wow, that seems really familiar to something else recently...)
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 10/29/2009 09:59 am
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?

No, I think it is, rather, that some at NASA still hadn't got over the 'the Shuttle makes all other LVs unnecessary' attitude and felt that any 'flagship' mission or one with plenty of cool visuals had to be flown on the shuttle. 
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: bobthemonkey on 10/29/2009 12:06 pm
Wasn't it more of a case of looking for things to do with Columbia while the rest of the fleet managed ISS assembly ops.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: edkyle99 on 10/29/2009 12:36 pm
... Just a case of everybody going batty for a moment?

A very expensive test flight. (Wow, that seems really familiar to something else recently...)


I'm trying to remember if the proposed mission would have flown "piggyback" on an ISS crew transfer, or some other, flight.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: bobthemonkey on 10/29/2009 12:46 pm
Not crew transfer, no. IIRC it targeting a lower inclination.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: JosephB on 11/03/2009 07:41 pm
Not the most interresting patch I've seen but had come across it in a search for something else... still haven't seen any patch for the upcoming flights.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: cheesybagel on 11/15/2009 12:57 pm
What's being used now? And do you know what the Isp of the old engine was?

The old engine was basically the rocket engine used in the NF-104A (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_NF-104A). This presentation (http://www.gkllc.com/history/rmi/AIAA-2001-3838_History_of_RMI_Super_Performance_90_Percent_H2O2-Kerosene_LR-40_RE-pitch.pdf) lists the AR2-3 vacuum Isp as 241 sec in the table at page 9.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: mmeijeri on 11/15/2009 01:04 pm
Thanks for the link. That Isp is pretty bad. The presentation says the estimated Isp of an LR-40 with 98% H2O2/JP-10 is 324s, which would be much better.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: robertross on 11/18/2009 08:45 pm
Fuel for the fire: http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/Space-Shuttle-Jr.html?c=y&page=1

Fuel, as in hypergolic! Thanks for the link. A few snippets:

"The Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office, which is running the program, says only that the orbital test version, the X-37B, will take a suite of next-generation technologies to orbit and will break new ground in the realm of launch, recovery, and reuse, all with an unmanned twist that the shuttle never offered."

"The press-shy Rapid Capabilities Office, established in 2003, is charged with getting special combat support and weapon systems developed and fielded as fast as possible. The office answers directly to the Air Force Chief of Staff, the Secretary of the Air Force, and two high-level procurement officials. 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."

Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: vt_hokie on 11/18/2009 09:35 pm
Any chance this thing could be used for ISS logistics support?  I wonder if it could carry something like a CMG.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Aeroman on 11/18/2009 10:11 pm
The payload bay for the X-37B is only 4' x 7' and can not hold a whole lot of logistic  support equipment.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 11/18/2009 11:29 pm
. 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
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: robertross on 11/19/2009 12:01 am
So some of the capabilities we seem to have left are:

1. Quick deployment of a generic satellite for recon or tactical
2. Quick deployment of a VERY SMALL weapons launch bed
3. Orbital test-bed for sensitive materials/payloads

Since it's Air Force, it's doubtful ISS will ever be involved with (or benefit from) this.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: vt_hokie on 11/19/2009 12:16 am
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.)
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Patchouli on 11/19/2009 12:29 am
The X37 is just a test vehicle but they probably will make a larger variant in the future.
I think this may represent the shape of things to come in LEO reentry vehicles.

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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: WHAP on 11/19/2009 01:39 am
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Propforce on 11/19/2009 10:56 am
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.

NASA has worked with the Air Force on the X-37 program.  The advanced TPS is a collarborative effort with NASA.  X-37A program was continued as a part of NASA NGLT program.

Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Propforce on 11/19/2009 10:58 am
. 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

Perhaps one can consider the X-37B itself as a payload that is reusable.

Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 11/19/2009 12:00 pm
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: William Barton on 11/19/2009 12:09 pm
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.

Ares I with a solid upper stage?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: kevin-rf on 11/19/2009 12:33 pm

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?
[/quote]

Or a retired minute man or MX ...
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: William Barton on 11/19/2009 12:40 pm

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?

Or a retired minute man or MX ...
[/quote]

Are they big enough? And do they still exist?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: William Barton on 11/19/2009 01:31 pm
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.

What I was reacting off was the article's suggestion of a somewhat larger operational successor vehicle to X-37, and the mention that neither EELV is in the quick launch ballpark. Ares I is the obvious basis for something that could be an all-solid EELV-class LV. Would make ATK happy, at least. The current test vehicle is too small to be the basis for a manned spaceplane, but a larger one... they didn't really say how much larger. Anyway, it's easy enough to think of a path that would lead to that.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 11/19/2009 01:47 pm
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: kevin-rf on 11/19/2009 04:30 pm
Remeber that you would need a lot of fuel onboard the spacecraft for orbital and terminal manoeuvring for ASAT missions.

Who said anything about ASAT missions? We already proved that mission can be done buy a much smaller and mobile ship launched SM-3.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: bobthemonkey on 11/20/2009 12:35 am
The is massive gulf between the SM-3 shoot down of USA-193 and SM-3 being considered in any way a viable ASAT.

Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Halidon on 11/20/2009 02:57 am
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Analyst on 11/20/2009 07:00 am
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.

Analyst
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 11/20/2009 10:45 am
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.  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?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: 8900 on 11/20/2009 11:26 am
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.  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?
killing early warning satellite would be a terribly bad move
being blind/unable to know whether the other side's move would increae the likelihood of pressing the red button
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 11/20/2009 12:02 pm
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.

China's solitary test was MUCH less indicative of any real capability.  They required a coplanar intercept from a fixed site using a very large booster.  They're test was much less "real" than that developed by the U.S.S.R. and the U.S. during the Cold War.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: William Barton on 11/20/2009 12:10 pm
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.

I wasn't thinking in terms of ASAT or even "satellite theft," just an unmanned spaceplane that could do a number of jobs. My thought was, it'd need to be about as maneuverable on-orbit, as a Dragon (hypothetically speaking, since Dragon hasn't flown). As noted, I don't know enough about solids, but I wouldn't see a problem with three stage solid, or even a hypergolic upper stage. Is there anything still in existence that would do? Or leftovers from Titan that could be refurbished? Titan IIs sat in silos, fully fuelled.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Analyst on 11/20/2009 12:18 pm
And sometimes Titan II didn't like sitting in a silo, feeling alone, and escaped in an uncontrolled way.

Analyst
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: William Barton on 11/20/2009 12:27 pm
And sometimes Titan II didn't like sitting in a silo, feeling alone, and escaped in an uncontrolled way.

Analyst

Yes, I remember. And once a solid rocket booster was dropped while being moved by a crane, and ignited (vaporizing one poor soul). Analyst, it's possible to come up with a nitpick on anything that's been done more than a few times. Objections are only valid when they point out a more usual problem. How many Titan IIs exploded in their silos, over how many years? Anyway, it was just a thought/question. I think solids would probably be seen as more viable, particularly for an unmanned vehicle.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Analyst on 11/20/2009 12:40 pm
No nitpicking. I just think messing with hypergols on a large scale isn't a good idea. And yes, I am aware of Proton.

Analyst
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 11/20/2009 08:46 pm
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 11/20/2009 08:59 pm
Bottom line is that hypergols are unpleasant and people don't like to use them for good reasons.

Ironic in retrospect that Korolev was sidelined by Kruschev for his refusal to work on a hypergol-fuelled ICBM.  As in so many other ways, time would prove him right.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: William Barton on 11/20/2009 09:05 pm
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.

Oh, I'm familiar with handling dangerous substances (before I worked at the shipyard, I was a sewer worker, so chlorine gas, among other deadlies), and I agree it wouldn't be the best choice. But it would be a choice, if solids proved impractical for whatever reason. People still propose using high-test H202, for that matter, and I wouldn't want to handle that, either, if I could avoid it. My point was, the fact that there have been a few accidents isn't cause for ruling hypergols out. A number of Titan-derived LVs have exploded due to problems with solids, too, so they're not totally benign either. If you'd filled all the Titan silos with water, sooner or later somebody would have drowned.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: mmeijeri on 11/20/2009 09:19 pm
If you're building a new launch vehicle kerosene/peroxide isn't a bad choice. That was what Beal wanted to do. Of course that didn't work out, but that probably had more to do with a lack of demand for new launchers than technical obstacles. The key point here is storable, not hypergolic though kerosene/peroxide can be made hypergolic with additives which could be useful. Hypergolic != storable != toxic.

As you know I'm in favour of using traditional hypergolics for anything beyond L1/L2 if the plan is to go beyond LEO soon. If instead the idea is commercial suborbital -> commercial orbital -> cheap commercial orbital, then kerosene/peroxide engines could be available by the time exploration got underway. In that case you could avoid using traditional hypergolics altogether. Performance of kerosene would be less than that of hydrazine, but not necessarily by enough to prefer it.

Getting slightly back to the topic of the thread, kerosene/peroxide was at one point the propellant combination that was planned for X-37.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 11/20/2009 09:55 pm
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: DiggyCoxwell on 11/20/2009 10:06 pm
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.

True...however, whatever timeframe a hazard endures, it takes only
a matter of seconds for any hazard to turn into something tragic
and deadly.
To quote a fictional police sergeant (from Hill Street Blues),
"be careful out there."
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Zond on 11/20/2009 11:00 pm
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).
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 11/21/2009 12:30 am
Do you mean LOX/H2 or H2O2? LOX/H2 is not the same as H2O2 (=peroxide).

You're right.  I read that wrong and thought he meant Lox/Hydrogen.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 11/22/2009 07:39 pm
http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/Space-Shuttle-Jr.html?utm_source=newsletter20091118&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ASMNovember

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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: William Barton on 11/22/2009 07:56 pm
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.

I did mean hydrogen peroxide, not hydrolox. An article I read about one of he Me-163 explosions said there wasn't enough left of the pilot to scrape up in a teaspoon. Pictures of fuelling suggests H202 was pretty nasty to handle. 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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 11/22/2009 09:58 pm
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: mmeijeri on 11/22/2009 10:00 pm
Beal chose peroxide as an oxidiser because it was easier to handle than liquid oxygen.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: JosephB on 11/23/2009 02:51 am
http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/Space-Shuttle-Jr.html?utm_source=newsletter20091118&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ASMNovember

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.
At long last! Another good article on this one, especially on the TPS.
Got a chuckle when Klesius referenced the numerous hosts of this program "Today, call up any of these organizations and say "X-37" and it's like spraying a garden hose at housecats."


Oh yeah, and that third pic in the gallery...sweet!
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Art LeBrun on 11/23/2009 03:00 am
Any date for this image?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 11/23/2009 03:16 am
Beal chose peroxide as an oxidiser because it was easier to handle than liquid oxygen.

Beal who?

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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Antares on 11/23/2009 06:44 am
Gawd, I wish this thing were flying unshrouded.  The other side of the Cape would be having conniptions.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 11/23/2009 09:43 am
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: mmeijeri on 11/23/2009 12:16 pm
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.

But not for technical reasons, right? There just didn't appear to be a market for yet another launcher.

But do you disagree peroxide is easier to handle than liquid oxygen? Depending on the concentration of course...
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: William Barton on 11/23/2009 02:55 pm
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.

What's the "safest" hypergolic, turpentine and white nitric acid?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: mmeijeri on 11/23/2009 02:58 pm
Methanol + catalyst + peroxide?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: mmeijeri on 11/23/2009 03:06 pm
A very old discussion (a 1955 meeting of the British Interplanetary Society) about the handling characteristics of various oxidisers:

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1955/1955%20-%200149.html (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1955/1955%20-%200149.html)
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 11/23/2009 03:11 pm
Any date for this image?

The caption says

"The X-37B orbital test vehicle in Boeing’s Huntington Beach, California plant last August. The adaptor at its base will link it to an Atlas V booster."

But since the dateline of the article is Jan 01 2010 I'm not quite sure what to make of that.
Best guess Aug 2009 or Aug 2008
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 11/23/2009 03:31 pm
Any date for this image?

I gotta say, that's a cool-looking spacecraft...
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 11/23/2009 03:37 pm
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...

1-When he flamed out, he claimed that it was because NASA was unfairly subsidizing launches or something.  I forget the exact reasons, but his press release at the time seemed remarkably petty, and also naive.  After all, the other US rockets were actually mostly subsidized by DoD, not NASA.  It looked like he was blaming the wrong party.  And blaming them for something he should have known about when he started.

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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: mmeijeri on 11/23/2009 03:49 pm
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.

As for environmental concerns about peroxide: it's not toxic like hydrazine, NTO etc and not carcinogenic like hydrazine either. It's a fire hazard (obviously) and it's aggressive, but it decomposes naturally to water and oxygen. Quick googling reveals it is even used for cleaning up other forms of environmental pollution!

EDIT: is ELC the correct term?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Antares on 11/23/2009 04:21 pm
Yes, if you're talking about the EELV Launch Capabilities contract.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: yinzer on 11/23/2009 05:50 pm
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 11/23/2009 05:53 pm
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.

I agree.  And I'm not sure if that is what Beal was complaining about.  Some googling (should it be capitalized when used as a verb?) should turn up his final press release.  He was blaming NASA, when he probably meant DoD.

DoD subsidizes the rockets for national security purposes.  They want assured access to space.  They do this for the same reason that they don't leave things like submarine manufacturing to the whims of a free market.

Still, it was a rather bizarre complaint from Beal.  Everybody subsidizes launchers to some extent.  Everybody.  I don't know why he was so upset at the US market when he was just as likely to be undercut by the Russians or the French.  Companies that get into this business should realize that they're not entering a free market.  Anybody who doesn't recognize that should not be playing.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 11/23/2009 05:55 pm
http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/Space-Shuttle-Jr.html?utm_source=newsletter20091118&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ASMNovember


Having finally read this article all the way through, I highly recommend it.  It's a quick read and has some good quotes (including the one about chasing cats with a garden hose).  It also highlights the weirdness concerning the secrecy of what exactly X-37 is going to do in space.  The author notes that when people are asked what will be in the payload bay during the mission, they clam up.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: sdsds on 11/23/2009 06:36 pm
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!
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: WHAP on 11/23/2009 07:27 pm
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.

Yeah, but it depends on where the LO2 spills.  Most of the lessons have been learned, so you don't do things like connect a tanker to a fill line on an asphalt apron.  It's still an awesome oxidizer and can be extremely dangerous.  As the recent SpaceX incident shows, if you've got LO2, you don't need much fuel or much of an ignition source to have a problem:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=18936.msg499187#msg499187

How far off-topic are we, now that I've brought SpaceX into the discussion?
 
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: kevin-rf on 11/23/2009 07:58 pm

How far off-topic are we, now that I've brought SpaceX into the discussion?
 

Just so long as you don't roast any hot dogs in the flame trench ;)
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: William Barton on 11/23/2009 08:30 pm
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!

I started googling around to see about the dangers of HTP (concentrations above 40%, not the 3% stuff you can use as mouthwash). Of course, one of the first links that came up was warnings about the dangers of hydrogen peroxide enemas! Generally speaking the main danger from spills of rocket-grade peroxide (90% concentrations) is the rapid oxydation of many substances leads to thermal or chemical ignition, which is then fed by the oxygen liberated by the exothermic decomposition of the peroxide itself. I guess the plants mentioned above might catch fire from peroxide, but not from LO2. And lets not even think about the dangers of liquid oxygen enemas....
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: vt_hokie on 11/23/2009 09:12 pm
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
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 11/24/2009 01:09 am
How far off-topic are we, now that I've brought SpaceX into the discussion?


I think there's a law whereby eventually every thread here mentions Direct...
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: JosephB on 11/24/2009 02:00 am
Sometimes I think the site should be called directspaceflight.com
I was checking out "the" thread seconds after shuttle launched and was reading joyous accounts of another successful Jupiter prototype.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 11/24/2009 04:01 am
I've never been one to care all that much about subject creep.  After all, if the posters take the discussion in another direction, then clearly they want to take the discussion in another direction.  So what's the big deal?

That said, I wish that X-37 would just launch already so that we wouldn't have to wander around in the wilderness in this thread for another five months...
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: jongoff on 11/24/2009 05:14 am
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.

Ummmm....while the non-technical points more or less jive with what I know about peroxide, your technical comments don't sound correct.  I haven't worked with peroxide myself (just LOX and alcohol), but my boss did before he started Masten Space Systems.  IIRC, peroxide isn't toxic (you dilute spills with water, but mostly so it doesn't decompose on organic materials and burst into flame), it isn't corrosive, and there are plenty of sources of 98% peroxide--they're just hard to deal with commercially if you don't have a big government contract.  That isn't to say that they didn't have issues with setting up the chemical plant to crank out that much peroxide--chemical engineering is an expensive pain in the backside.  Just saying that there's nothing advanced black magic about high test peroxide production.

~Jon
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Nathan on 11/24/2009 09:14 am
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.

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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 11/24/2009 10:28 am
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

That Boeing X-37-derived OSP looks like it was meant to launch on a Delta-IVH, so a maximum weight of ~25t is likely; it had a crew compliment of four to six, equivalent to the Orion, in other words! You could probably beef it up a little to the 30t range and launch it on an SDLV in-line or side-mount.

It is probably just me, but I have the strangest vision of a larger version of the X-37, as in the picture posted up-thread.  Only, instead of 'USAF', the wing has "Enterprise OV-201" stencilled on the wing.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 11/24/2009 11:09 am

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
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 11/24/2009 12:48 pm
Another article about the X-37.  It doesn't say anything more than the A&S article:

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0911/24otv/
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: jcm on 11/24/2009 12:55 pm
Another article about the X-37.  It doesn't say anything more than the A&S article:

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0911/24otv/


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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Analyst on 11/24/2009 01:01 pm
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
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 11/24/2009 01:22 pm
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: jcm on 11/24/2009 01:24 pm
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

Yeah, I was misparsing the image, and getting confused with the X-38 which had a separate deorbit propulsion system. Sorry.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 11/24/2009 01:24 pm


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.

That is just an adapter. There wasn't a separate deorbit engine section.  The vehicle has a orbital maneuvering engine that is used for deorbit.  It is hanging in the middle of the adapter
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: William Barton on 11/24/2009 01:33 pm

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

What exactly makes it too small? The payload bay has more volume than a Mercury capsule, for example. Wouldn't you be able to stuff a spacesuited astronaut in a Soyuz seat crossways in there? I realize I have no idea what the internally-carried payload mass capability of X-37 is supposed to be.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 11/24/2009 02:15 pm
500 lbs
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: William Barton on 11/24/2009 02:20 pm
500 lbs

That would go a long way toward making it too small. Thanks!
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 11/24/2009 02:28 pm
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 11/24/2009 02:32 pm
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: agman25 on 11/24/2009 02:34 pm
Details about the adapter ...
http://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/publications/Dual%20Spacecraft%20System%202009.pdf
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 11/24/2009 02:37 pm
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.

The loads don't go into the lower spacecraft, they go into the cocoon around the spacecraft
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 11/24/2009 02:39 pm

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.
[/quote]

Delta calls theirs the DPAF and has flown a version on Delta II.  Ariane has had several, SPELDA is one name
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: mmeijeri on 11/24/2009 02:45 pm
500 lbs

What would the minimum amount be, given that you already have a spacecraft? According to the not always reliable Wikipedia the reentry weight of the entire Mercury capsule was a little over 1200kg. How much would you have to scale up X-37 to make it a one or two seater spaceplane?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: agman25 on 11/24/2009 02:55 pm
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 11/24/2009 02:58 pm
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

In other words, it is close to identical to the Ariane-5 arragement.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Analyst on 11/24/2009 05:19 pm
Arianespace did the very same with Ariane 4, since the 1980ies.

Analyst
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: sdsds on 11/24/2009 08:39 pm
Arianespace did the very same with Ariane 4, since the 1980ies.

Analyst

It's a cool idea.  It's even cooler that the Atlas/Centaur team was able to "repurpose" an existing flight-rated hardware design (Centaur forward adapters) to get the basic structure.

This team seems really good at the incremental improvement approach to engineering design!
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 11/25/2009 05:03 am
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?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: hop on 11/25/2009 05:35 am
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 not sure why you'd want to bring it back...

edit: oops, there was supposed to be a not up there. Sorry for the confusion.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Analyst on 11/25/2009 10:28 am
This mission seems to test much a 2nd generation Shuttle needs: More robust TPS, all electric (no APUs), automatic landing. Moving away from hypergols would be nice too. But step by step.

Analyst
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 11/25/2009 03:21 pm
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...

Well, if it was a payload bay mounted payload, then it would probably be pointing toward the Earth.  So where does the power come from?  It would have to deploy solar panels pointed in the other direction.  A deployable payload is another matter.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: agman25 on 11/25/2009 03:40 pm
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 11/25/2009 03:44 pm
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.

It will probably be something like the old Spacelab telescope mounts - Outward-pointed (possibly steerable) sensors mounted in bay pallets.  Open the doors, do your imaging run, close the doors and perform de-orbit on the first available window.

That is where good cross-range capability comes in.  Instead of probably going over the target country again (and maybe having an ABM sent your way for your trouble), you can re-enter as soon as you are over CONUS and then use cross-range to get to Nellis, Edwards or wherever the mission is scheduled to recover.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: DarthVader on 11/25/2009 04:02 pm
One of the CGI of the X-37B (like the one on http://www.msfc.nasa.gov/news/x37news/index.html) shows a deployable solar panel ...
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: hop on 11/25/2009 09:43 pm
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.

Not that I think this is a credible mission. A large liquid EELV (using over-booked ranges and launch pads) and complicated re-usable space plane strike me as exactly the opposite of what you want for responsive launch. If you wanted to be able to launch a modest size stop gap optical payload on short notice, there appears to be much saner ways of doing it.

Honestly I find the whole thing quite baffling.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: TimL on 11/25/2009 10:44 pm
I think some are WAYYYYY over-imagining the intent of this bird.

Quote
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."

http://www.af.mil/news/story_print.asp?id=123032226 (http://www.af.mil/news/story_print.asp?id=123032226)
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: mmeijeri on 11/25/2009 11:04 pm
Honestly I find the whole thing quite baffling.

Maybe the whole purpose is to make the Russians/Chinese go "hmm, what do these guys know that we don't?". Like the scene in Burn After Reading where the foul-mouthed CIA operative goes WTF when he finds out the dim-witted gym instructor wants to sell his secret tapes to the Russians of all people.  ;D
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: robertross on 11/26/2009 12:09 am
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)

Thanks for the link.

One thing is for sure: It would be REALLY COOL to watch this bird come down and land. Probably second to the excitement of watching the shuttle land.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: TimL on 11/26/2009 01:04 am
I'm just hoping ULA provides the same amount of launch coverage we got the other day with IS-14  8)
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 11/26/2009 03:31 am
I think some are WAYYYYY over-imagining the intent of this bird.

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?

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?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 11/26/2009 10:11 am
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? ;) ).
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Antares on 11/26/2009 07:25 pm
I'm just hoping ULA provides the same amount of launch coverage we got the other day with IS-14  8)

Customer dictates the coverage, so that's doubtful.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: mlorrey on 11/29/2009 08:31 pm
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? ;) ).

Now that NASA is getting out of the space plane business, USAF is moving ahead. Nice to see.

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. The USAF has many wings and squadrons in the Space Command controlling tons of space assets on a 24/7 basis, and according to the force structure, has at least one space covert ops unit. The US, China and Russia have all tested ASAT weapons, and at least one Soviet space station had a machine gun mounted on its exterior.

FWIW, frankly I think the best thing to help develop commercial use of space is to actually expand militarization in space. Military installations always need civillians and commercial contractors, and THOSE people need all sorts of other civillian support.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Analyst on 11/30/2009 07:17 am
You are wrong. On many points.

Analyst
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: renclod on 11/30/2009 11:35 am
...
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?

Here's a crazy possibility, inspired by this story ;) :

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/388/2

Suppose you need to assess the efectiveness of the airborne laser as an ASAT weapon -"There are several operational advantages of this. One is that it does not create debris in orbit, just a dead satellite".

You launch the X-37 with a "target", deploy the target, conduct an ABL fire test, retrieve the target and land it intact for inspection.

Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: robertross on 11/30/2009 03:40 pm

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?


Maybe to create a veil of secrecy overall, rather than a few missions. If they start picking and choosing which missions to black out, then it guarantees which ones are important and which ones aren't.

1) It entices your opponent to keep guessing which launch is high value(all war is deception).
2) It deters your opponent from choosing a specific mission if they wish to target for some covert reason.
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 11/30/2009 04:16 pm
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

It's easy to go way off topic on this discussion (and like I noted, until X-37 flies, we have little to discuss).

However, I would simply note two things:

1-there is a difference between militarization and weaponization.  Countries and people do recognize the difference, and it has been codified in policies and international law.  So while there are certainly many military satellites in space, it has always been considered a major step to put, or use, weapons in space.

2-it's worthwhile to go read the Outer Space Treaty (google it).  It's a short document, so you can read it in ten minutes or so.  The most important part, if I remember correctly, is Article 4.  I'm not saying that you have to agree with it, or discuss it, or anything like that.  But it helps to at least understand what has and has not been codified in international law.  It's a good starting point when discussing militarization and weaponization of space.

To that I would add that X-37 is perfectly acceptable under international law and the OST, even if it does contain weapons (as long as they are not WMDs). 

So now that we've made that little diversion, we can divert back to being fully on topic...
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 12/01/2009 12:04 am

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?

{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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: robertross on 12/01/2009 01:09 am

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.
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: dad2059 on 12/01/2009 04:31 pm

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?

{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.

Actually, that probably isn't too far from the truth.

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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 12/01/2009 05:41 pm


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.


The airplane analogy is wrong.  Planes are transmitting the data no days.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: woods170 on 12/01/2009 07:05 pm
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: vt_hokie on 12/01/2009 09:20 pm
I would be very curious to learn about the autonomous flight control system, but I suppose that will likely remain kept under wraps.  In particular, I wonder how close the flight software is to what would have been used for X-33, especially for "terminal area energy management" and final approach/touchdown.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: kevin-rf on 12/03/2009 02:38 pm
I think some are WAYYYYY over-imagining the intent of this bird.

While adjusting my tin foil hat this morning, a thought struck. While much is know about what happens during space collisions, it is all based upon modeling, observed effects, and lab tests. To sum it up, it is all good theory, but it is all theory and models. The X-37 is an excellent platform to examining up close and bringing home debris from these events. Much material science can be learned by seeing what shape and deformations occur in the materials after such "real" events. That can only be done with sample return.

Like I said, it's a tin foil and not gold lined tin foil hat. I doubt the cost vs. knowledge learned is worth the price. It is something you could do with an X-37 type mission. There is a bunch of collision debris up there right now. Let's see what orbit the X-37 ends up in.

Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: mlorrey on 12/09/2009 11:13 pm
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.

Which particular person was he directing that at? If it was me, I'd be happy to document and cite everything I said.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: sdsds on 12/11/2009 06:04 pm
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....

2. Could Atlas deliver X-37 into a high eccentricity and low perigee orbit that would allow it to be an aerobraking testbed?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: kevin-rf on 12/11/2009 06:07 pm
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?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 12/17/2009 03:42 pm
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?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: kevin-rf on 12/17/2009 04:15 pm

Or with 500lbs of payload, just toss it up on a cheaper Pegasus a few times.

Time will tell if there is a real need or if it is all about getting an oinker to fly...
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Rabidpanda on 12/24/2009 11:20 pm
I am of the opinion that it IS a technology demonstrator that will be used to test certain re-entry techniques, hypersonic flight, etc.  It could be a precursor to a secret hypersonic bomber project or a suborbital troop transport.  This would explain the secrecy of the project and makes sense if you think about. Hell, even if no such succesor project exists, they might be testing new technologies for when a project exists in the future.

And as for the payload bay, it seems to small to carry anything of great importance or secrecy.  Perhaps in the future it will be used to test specific technologies needed for a succesor project.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: cheesybagel on 12/25/2009 01:04 am
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.

They already have a U2 replacement. It's called Global Hawk. No pilot means no Gary Powers incident.
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. 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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 12/27/2009 11:38 pm
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.

1-Yes and no.  Global Hawk is supposed to replace the U-2, but that supposed to has been put off several years now.  Naturally, the U-2 community has a certain amount of disdain for the GH and think that it's a lousy replacement.  There's also been some political maneuvering by the USAF which would rather retire the U-2 before proving that GH can really do the mission.  Bottom line: we're not there yet.

2-It's not really suited as a test vehicle for technologies for any of these missions.  As for the troop carrying, forget it.  There's been a crazy idea called SUSTAIN that has been floating around for awhile and has a near zero chance of getting implemented.  It is really really hard to put a squad of armed soldiers on a rocket and land them somewhere.

3-The Soviets believed a lot of crazy things about the shuttle.  Read my article:

http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/Soviet-Star-Wars.html
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: mike robel on 12/29/2009 11:11 pm
Jim.

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.

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
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 12/29/2009 11:18 pm
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

1.  New Horizons was mounted on the base on top of the centaur and so will X-37


2.  It is light.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: mike robel on 12/29/2009 11:57 pm
@ Jim.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: yinzer on 01/17/2010 04:56 am
Any thoughts on the possibility of using the X-37 as a means to deploy a highly secret and stealthy satellite?

It's practically impossible to hide launches, and finding a primary payload to tag along with can be difficult.  The X-37 provides a cover story, can deploy a satellite outside the range of tracking stations, relay initial communications to the ground, provide a comparison target for attempts to track the satellite, and possibly retrieve it if it turns out to not be as stealthy as desired.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Antares on 01/17/2010 06:42 am
I don't think so.  We've hidden satellites prior to this launch... unless the ways we hid those satellites are now detectable.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 01/17/2010 11:38 am
Any thoughts on the possibility of using the X-37 as a means to deploy a highly secret and stealthy satellite?


It would have to weigh less than 500 lbs
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/26/2010 08:27 pm
"The Air Force X-37B spaceplane arrived in Florida this week for April launch on an Atlas 5 rocket."
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/atlas/av012/100225x37arrival/

It looks kind of like what the Shuttle should've been (IMHO there were too many design constraints that were necessary to keep it funded), but a lot smaller.

What sort of delta-V is it capable of?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: agman25 on 02/26/2010 08:35 pm
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?
Boondoggle ?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/26/2010 09:17 pm
...
What sort of delta-V is it capable of?

Okay, replying to myself, it looks like from this picture ( that I got from here: http://www.space.com/common/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=20686 ) and assuming 29 feet long and 15 feet wide, which means that the cylindrical H202 tank has dimensions of about 5.5ftx5ft and density of 1.44kg/liter so that it carries about 4.84 tons of hydrogen peroxide, which at about a 7.35:1 oxidizer-to-fuel ratio, means about another 700kg of JP-8 (based on kerosene). According to Aeronautix, H202/kerosene has a vacuum Isp of about 319s. The Spaceflightnow article says that the X-37B weighs 11tons, and I assume that's fully fueled. Plugging that into the rocket equation via google, I get a delta-v of about 2.17km/s:
http://www.google.com/search?q=319s*9.81m*s^-2*ln(11/(11-4.84/7.35-4.84)) (http://www.google.com/search?q=319s*9.81m*s^-2*ln(11/(11-4.84/7.35-4.84)))
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: mmeijeri on 02/26/2010 09:21 pm
Earlier in this thread it was said that the OMS no longer uses kerosene peroxide. But if it uses hypergolics Isp should be similar.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 02/26/2010 09:29 pm

What sort of delta-V is it capable of?

I have the answer at work.   I was working it when it was a NASA program.  Unfortunately the documents are ITAR and propriety.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: neilh on 02/26/2010 09:41 pm
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Pittsburgh on 02/26/2010 10:28 pm
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?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: neilh on 02/26/2010 10:38 pm
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Art LeBrun on 02/26/2010 10:58 pm
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?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Skyrocket on 02/26/2010 11:17 pm
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?

ASSET was launched unshrouded, but PRIME was shrouded
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: edkyle99 on 02/26/2010 11:49 pm
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?
Boondoggle ?

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
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: vt_hokie on 02/27/2010 12:24 am

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.)
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/27/2010 12:42 am

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.)
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...).
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: robertross on 02/27/2010 01:23 am

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

One of the things I found intriguing was the 270 day in orbit requirement.

In a NASA science experiment document rdale posted a few days ago, it talked about the great promise of research & requirement of high purity semiconductor base material for IR sensors.

So I wonder if this a great way for DOD to manufacture its cutting edge sensor technology (or any other semiconductor) starting with the base material right in orbit in a furnace in zero G.

Furthermore, they could fly them later in a demonstrator mission, with PLB doors open to Earth, and check the performance of each. Close the doors, come home, and now you have flight qualified sensors/components.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Bubbinski on 02/27/2010 03:08 am
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?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: vt_hokie on 02/27/2010 03:21 am
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?

It would have to be a much larger derivative, but it frustrates me to think of how close we could be to having this right now if NASA had pursued it 5 years ago, rather than wasting precious time and resources on "the stick"...

http://i.space.com/images/ig152_04_boeing_osp.jpg
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 02/27/2010 03:30 am
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
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 02/27/2010 03:32 am

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...).

X-37 is a spacecraft and not a launch vehicle stage
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: kevin-rf on 02/27/2010 05:30 am

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.

While we are making stabs at what could need 270 days in LEO* What about researching to how coatings and paints hold up to LEO. This way you get the samples back. A capsule would be cheaper, assuming someone has one to sell/rent for your needs. Depending on the X-37 DeltaV capabilities it could also be used for studies on how things behave/degrade in the Van Allen. Solar Cells and Semiconductors come to mind.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: edkyle99 on 02/27/2010 07:38 pm
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

A capsule makes perfect sense for crew.  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
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: robertross on 02/27/2010 08:57 pm

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).
Actually, this was point #2 in my post. My first response was the manufacture of the bulk material  ;)

Quote
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.

I though about this last night, and came up with a more viable solution. The main point of the flight is to obtain the necessary environment: microgravity/zero gravity. So all you really need is to maintain the temperature of the sample as much as possible, and facilitate its correct cooling in orbit so that it solidifies perfectly. Perhaps all that is needed is to heat it on the pad or in the Payload Integration Facility, launch, and allow a special 'thermos' do cool the product.

The other parts of you post are best discussed in the Science experiments portion of the ISS thread  ;)
But I would say that if it truly is for DOD work, then there could be issues with international partners being on orbit during manufacturing. Hence all the more reason to have a dedicated military vehicle like X-37.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Antares on 03/07/2010 03:18 am
Do we have enough facts and intelligence to back the cross-range capability out of the pictures and dimensions we know?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jon_Jones on 03/14/2010 01:57 am
have you already seen:

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/launch/msp.htm

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/x-37.html

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/Photo/X-40A/index.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/x-40.htm

http://www.msfc.nasa.gov/news/x37news/index.html

http://www.aerospaceguide.net/space_planes/x-37.html

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/air/xplanes/x37.html

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/091022-x37b-testlaunch.html

http://spaceflightnow.com/atlas/av012/100225x37arrival/

also, an April 20th launch date is possible
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: TimL on 03/14/2010 03:48 pm
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: neilh on 03/14/2010 07:30 pm
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?

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1582228&cid=31473292
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 03/14/2010 08:03 pm
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 clueless

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
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: cheesybagel on 03/14/2010 11:44 pm
...
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.
...

I figured that much when I read that comment on /. (remembered past aircraft flight tests).

I actually considered something similar for reentry once when I was reading about supercavitation and the Russian VA-111 Shkval torpedo. However I am unsure if it would work as well for different media (air vs water). Also there is the problem that if the "spike" works too well, generating a vacuum in its wake large enough to engulf the whole ship, then the wings and any other control surfaces are useless. You need to use rocket power to control the craft all the way.

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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 03/15/2010 01:00 am


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.


That is for going thru the dense atmosphere on the way up and there is little heating.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: neilh on 03/15/2010 01:04 am
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

Thanks for the correction Jim, and that's a very neat photo, too.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: stealthyplains on 03/19/2010 03:42 am
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?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 03/19/2010 11:45 am
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
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: shuttlefan on 03/19/2010 12:36 pm
Has the X-37 been mated to the Atlas 5 yet?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: JosephB on 03/19/2010 10:00 pm
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?

This question brought up another.
Recall when a free flyer was envisaged to be in formation with ISS to pursue stringent microgravity experiments. Could X-37B fill this role to some lesser degree? That is, in a civilian (NASA) role which can be talked about? Maybe the need isn't there anymore?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Rabidpanda on 03/20/2010 02:40 am
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jorge on 03/20/2010 02:52 am
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.

I'm going to have to clarify Jim's words here (or contradict them, if he meant differently).

The X-37B can "reach" ISS only in the sense that it could be launched to ISS altitude and return.

It is capable of neither rendezvous nor prox ops with ISS. It could do an open-loop "intercept" but that would be limited to what ground targeting could achieve.

So no, your proposal is not only impractical, it is impossible.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: JosephB on 03/24/2010 03:12 pm
Anyone heard if landing video/photos will be public?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jon_Jones on 03/27/2010 09:42 pm
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?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 03/27/2010 09:46 pm
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?

1.  Name a  deployable space weapon with ASE that weighs 500 lbs

2.  Correct, such a payload could fly a Pegasus.

3.  No, NASA started the X-37
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jon_Jones on 03/29/2010 03:46 am
1. 499lbs of brass BBs and 10 'Nerf' guns
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Patchouli on 03/29/2010 05:57 am
I think the X-37B is just a sub scale model of something larger vs anything operational.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: clongton on 03/29/2010 12:05 pm
It's a technology test platform - nothing more.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: tankmodeler on 03/29/2010 12:45 pm
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
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: ugordan on 03/29/2010 01:04 pm
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?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 03/29/2010 01:20 pm
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?

That is the reason why some posters on this thread have speculated about an all-USAF quick-response orbital launch system.  Maybe something derived from Athena-2 or Minotaur-V.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: William Barton on 03/29/2010 01:34 pm
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

Lurkin', where I only have goofy things to say. When I was a teenager (maybe 3 years or so before I made  my first sale), I actually started working on a short story about a manned quick-reaction orbital recon vehicle. It was sort of like Gemini, but with the heat shield on the bottom of the SM, pilot in left ejection seat, camera system in the right,* silo-launched on a big solid-fuel ICBM. I had never heard of the vibration problems, of course. I got about halfway through it and realized I was out of my depth. The rough draft is probably in my files somewhere, and may even turn up when I relocate my office (now firmly scheduled for the end of May, when my lease on this one is up). The story begins as my character lifts off on his mission, and was supposed to transition to an apocalyptic adventure story, as he is in orbit when WW3 starts. "Hmm. I'm in a polar orbit. I can land anywhere. But where...?"

* My theory, ca. 1967, was a camera like that was worth as much as a pilot.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: JimO on 03/31/2010 08:59 pm
My story hits the 'net:

   U.S. Air Force Launches Secret Flying Twinkie
   http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/space-flight/us-air-force-launches-secret-flying-twinkie
   IEEE Spectrum, April 2010

I'm beginning to wonder if the 'excess' delta-v in the booster is for a major propulsive plane change, or for a fast shallow dive leading to an atmospheric lifting turn as a 'proof of concept'.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Kim Keller on 04/02/2010 04:46 pm
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.

It looks like ULA is performing the WDR today.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: TimL on 04/02/2010 05:50 pm
My first snag :)
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: yg1968 on 04/03/2010 02:10 am
Update from today:

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/atlas/av012/100402x37update/
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Kim Keller on 04/03/2010 01:55 pm
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 04/03/2010 02:03 pm
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/03/2010 02:36 pm
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?
 Those who know don't tell, those who tell don't know...

Anyway, even without a real good payload, it seems to be the perfect vehicle for testing a more perfect Shuttle. It has disproportionally smaller wings (not necessarily as big cross-range... Or perhaps it uses propellant for crossrange?). It has significant integrated fuel tanks. Because it is smaller, its TPS can be modified easier (on subsequent versions, if not the same vehicle), allowing optimization of an easily maintained TPS. Etc.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 04/03/2010 03:18 pm
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.

US doesn't do that.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 04/04/2010 12:20 am
This is not a cheap flight, and the confusing thing about it is that there seem to be no good explanations that justify spending the money.  So is there another explanation that we don't know about?
Boondoggle ?

Quite possibly.  Just because it's secret does not mean that it's smart.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 04/04/2010 12:21 am
Yet another article with a lengthy history of the program.  This one has a pretty good quote from John Pike.


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

Air Force to launch robotic winged space plane

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

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

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

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

The quietly scheduled launch culminates the project's long and expensive journey from NASA to the Pentagon's research and development arm and then to a secretive Air Force unit.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 04/04/2010 06:27 pm
This is not a cheap flight, and the confusing thing about it is that there seem to be no good explanations that justify spending the money.  So is there another explanation that we don't know about?
Boondoggle ?

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

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

It is always that way. You can't predetermine.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: kevin-rf on 04/05/2010 01:44 am
My wild guess about its payload: satellite refueling. From its own fuel tanks.
 Or perhaps reboosting, changing the orbit of other satellites without them using up their own fuel (okay, that one probably isn't it). Maybe on-orbit repair of satellites?

Makes no sense, you can do it cheaper /w more upmass on expendbles using a "smaller" launcher. Besides it can only reach assets in LEO...  I don't know, I really like the theory it is someone's pet project that ignores all "Logic" and common sense.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: kirghizstan on 04/05/2010 01:47 am
what about using the thing to go up close and personal to russian and chinese sats?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: hop on 04/05/2010 02:54 am
what about using the thing to go up close and personal to russian and chinese sats?
Why ? What advantages does a re-usable vehicle bring to that mission ? Do they negate the disadvantages of being large, easy to track, and restricted to low orbits ?
I don't know, I really like the theory it is someone's pet project that ignores all "Logic" and common sense.
I would bet that it least has some marginally justifiable mission, but I wouldn't be surprised if "pet project" has been responsible for it's survival at some point. Everybody loves a space plane :)
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Patchouli on 04/05/2010 03:59 am
This is not a cheap flight, and the confusing thing about it is that there seem to be no good explanations that justify spending the money.  So is there another explanation that we don't know about?
Boondoggle ?

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

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

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

Looking at the rest of the specs it seems to be testing long term storage of alternative propellants.
As far as I know it's using hydrogen peroxide and JP8 far easier to handle stuff then the hypergolics in use today.
 
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Nascent Ascent on 04/05/2010 04:26 am
Hey if it works and all is fine maybe they can scale it up for two astronauts and then the Air Force can finally have the space plane they always wanted.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 04/05/2010 05:37 am

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

no, it is using hypergols.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: tamarack on 04/05/2010 06:38 am
As far as I know it's using hydrogen peroxide and JP8 far easier to handle stuff then the hypergolics in use today.
no, it is using hypergols.

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

Any clarification that you're allowed to provide would be appreciated.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 04/05/2010 10:53 am
It was changed to N2O4 and MMH when it was a NASA program.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 04/05/2010 10:54 am
@ tamarack,

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

I guess I understand Jim's point.  Hypergolics (as I understand them) are bipropellent engines that don't need anything other than the reaction between the propellents to achieve ignition.  IIRC, hydrogen peroxide monopropellent needs some catalysts and other reactions to work.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Downix on 04/05/2010 05:30 pm
Think for a bit...

How large is a roll of 70mm film? 

How large is the payload bay?

Insert tab A into slot B.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 04/05/2010 05:48 pm

How large is a roll of 70mm film? 

Too small for reconn.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: jimvela on 04/05/2010 06:04 pm

How large is a roll of 70mm film? 

Too small for reconn.

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

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

Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Downix on 04/05/2010 06:19 pm

How large is a roll of 70mm film? 

Too small for reconn.

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

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


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

You can, however, use even larger film, I shoot with film 8" wide for instance.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 04/05/2010 07:06 pm
And to date, there are no sensors yet able to match it for quality/speed.  (you can get higher quality, but it's too slow for a fast moving shot, and vice-versa)


Not commercially. 

spacecraft use motion compensation
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/05/2010 11:17 pm
ULA provide a mission booklet, so starting a specific launch thread (no idea how much "live" coverage per webcasts etc, we'll get, however).
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 04/06/2010 02:06 am
Or that its stupid. It is exactly what they want and what they need.

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

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

Huh?  This makes no sense at all.

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or it could be brilliant.  I certainly hope so.  My tax dollars helped pay for it.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: kevin-rf on 04/06/2010 02:11 am
And to date, there are no sensors yet able to match it for quality/speed.  (you can get higher quality, but it's too slow for a fast moving shot, and vice-versa)


Not commercially. 

spacecraft use motion compensation

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

We assume that job was taken over by more modern birds. If there was such a gap it would be one way to fill the void. Would it cost the same as bringing back agena then developing a cover for it? Does get away from snatching the capsule in midair.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 04/06/2010 02:15 am
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.

1-But is the information really "useful"?  I would define useful information as that information that is required to fulfill goals that you have established and that make sense.  So if this is going to gain information for a next generation vehicle that we really need, then the information will be useful.  Right now there's no indication of that.  (See previous comments about no indication that there is a follow-on program.)

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.

3-How would you define long term?  Maximum duration for this craft seems to be 270 days.  Considering that some military satellites apparently have lifetimes of 15-20+ years, and most military satellites have lifetimes of 5+ years, the ability to store fuel for nine months doesn't seem to have much utility.  And if that's a goal, then why use a craft that has to come back to earth?  Why not use a craft that can stay up there for a duration test?  Fly it until the fuel leaks out for good.  That would tell you maximum duration.

I don't want to come across as snarky (I'm aiming for informative).  It's just that by all the obvious standards, X-37B doesn't make much sense.  There may indeed be a logical explanation, but at the moment it is not obvious to outsiders who regularly study military space issues or are at least familiar with them.  (Those people include: me, Jim Oberg, the RAND guy cited in the AP article above, John Pike, as well as a bunch of space reporters.  We're all scratching our heads.)

Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 04/06/2010 02:24 am
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Downix on 04/06/2010 12:16 pm
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 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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 04/06/2010 12:35 pm
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 04/06/2010 12:50 pm

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. 
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: kevin-rf on 04/06/2010 01:32 pm

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. 

Interesting quote on the U-2 from a mid march article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/business/22plane.html

Quote
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.

In other words, film still has a place. And the U-2 can not overfly denied territory.

Even using a strip camera, the equivalent to 9" film is what, at least 50K pixels for each line and if you want a strip thats hundreds of miles long you really can't use motion compensation, lets think 5 miles a second, assuming a 1 foot resolution requires 26,400 lines a second, 50Kx25K is 1.25 gig a second. So you have to have a readout rate from the sensor of at least 1.25 gig a second. A link to the ground that has the bandwidth, ect. Go color, go 16 bit AtoD's, go multispectral and these numbers start to climb like crazy. Film is starting to have some shine... when wide area at high resolution is needed.

Might not be something that needs to be done daily, but once every couple of years to create maps and such.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 04/06/2010 02:20 pm

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.

1. Only in a low altitude platform that has a short duration mission

2.  Not so.  There is no "business case", hence no more film spacecraft

3.  Still no advantage.  Maps can be done by sensors with high resolution and narrow field of view because the spacecraft can continuously take data from multiple passes over the same area.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 04/06/2010 02:37 pm
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?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: kevin-rf on 04/06/2010 02:46 pm
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?

Still, we are using film to make maps for troops on the ground with the U-2, the dog is not dead yet. If you are still using film, a recovery system is needed. A winged recovery system has some advantages over the capsule systems.

We are left with, someone wants to place something into space for up to nine months and needs to recover that actual something, not just transmit data from it. Otherwise, there is no need for a payload bay that opens. Film could be an option... It makes no less sense than any other of the options floated to date.

Sadly, at the pace the gov. declassifies things, most likely we will be all long dead and buried before the actual reasons for this mission are declassified.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 04/06/2010 02:54 pm
. Otherwise, there is no need for a payload bay that opens.

Yes, there is, to deploy the solar array and radiator.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: kevin-rf on 04/06/2010 03:00 pm
. Otherwise, there is no need for a payload bay that opens.

Yes, there is, to deploy the solar array and radiator.

Touche'

I think we will have to agree to disagree on the film point to avoid an all out war of words and just sit back and wait for the program to be declassified some forty odd years in the future.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 04/06/2010 03:01 pm
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: kevin-rf on 04/06/2010 03:26 pm
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. Why was it resurrected after being dropped, is a payload driving it, or an ego?

CCD and to a lesser degree CMOS have many advantages like higher quantum efficiency, but a 9" imager array? Very tricky to do, for that kinda of app, it will be a massively multi-tap system.

I admit film is a stretch, you should have seen the scramble in the high speed digital camera market when Kodak discontinued it's high speed film production. Groups that still used film bought up miles and miles of the stuff and then scrambled to get digital cameras to replace them as they ran out. Somewhere on a hard drive I have a great vid of a 5" shell leaving a muzzle and camera tracking it downrange, just jaw dropping. All done with an off the shelf digital color high speed camera and mirrors.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 04/06/2010 07:09 pm
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.

There's an old rule: in the absence of data, don't make $#it up.  I could go on at length about the history of US satellite mapping systems, and bore everybody to death in the process.  But I'll just point out again that you've made a fundamentally wrong connection: mapping cameras do not "require" film.  If anything, the requirements for a mapping camera are much less than for a high resolution camera.  You can easily obtain the kind of resolution necessary for maps with a lower-resolution system, which works just fine without film.

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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/06/2010 07:20 pm
Real-time surveillance is worth many times more than day-old (or worse) surveillance, and anyone can see that.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Garrett on 04/06/2010 07:39 pm
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.

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:
http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/conference/sustain.html

I would have thought that the X-37 was part of this? This has probably been beaten to death somewhere on this forum though?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: hop on 04/06/2010 07:51 pm
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.

I wondered whether there was something else that would generate such a vast quantity of data that the best way to bring it back was the space equivalent of sneakernet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sneakernet), but I can't really think of any good candidates. Compared to the cost of developing and flying a spaceplane, you could build a very capable ground segment.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 04/06/2010 09:18 pm
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.

X-37 is a Shuttle:
 1. w/o people to be in harms way
 2. w/o a standing army
 3. w/o massive complexity to "go wrong"

... it may be what they originally wanted in the first place.

Like spy sats ... who needs manned for the job?

Will it work out? Try it and see.

Seems reasonable enough to me. Doesn't even need a "dog in a space suit" to make it so. Woof!
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: spacedem on 04/06/2010 11:28 pm
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/06/2010 11:37 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 04/07/2010 12:08 am
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.

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 think you missed his point (or perhaps was being unintentionally ironic).  Kinetic kill from space to point targets is quite feasible.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/07/2010 12:17 am
...
I think you missed his point (or perhaps was being unintentionally ironic).  Kinetic kill from space to point targets is quite feasible.
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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9mNNA2gEF8

Should fit in the payload bay. Definitely looks less than 1000lbs. May even be captured again and returned, who knows?

Again, a wild guess.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 04/07/2010 02:19 am
Please apply a little logic.

You first.

AF wanted Shuttle ... so they could have military hands in space.

Who is "AF" in this instance?  Provide names.

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.

Who is "AF" in this instance?  Provide names.  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.

Who is "they" in this instance?  What are their names?

Here's the problem with what you say is a logical explanation: you just covered 40 years of history, during which the Air Force leadership has changed multiple times, and the Pentagon senior leadership has changed multiple times.  It is impossible to say that something that is being done today is going to satisfy a requirement that existed back in 1970.  If that requirement did not need to be filled for four decades, what has changed now that makes it necessary to fill the requirement?

And this also brings us back to the X-37B equation, which is so confusing because one of the variables is that big expensive throwaway rocket that is required to put it into orbit.  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.  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.  Nobody would do things this way routinely (what is really required is a fully reusable first stage, and even then the overall operational costs could be pretty high for such a small payload capability).

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?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 04/07/2010 02:47 am
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.

Since you asked so sweetly ...

1. Did.
2. Absolutely.
3. Requirement different. Capability not.
4. U-2 (and others) payload bay is small too. Nor do they lift tons.
5. Dirt cheap for what it does. A very smart mission if it works out.

But enough of these wacko posts. Definitely "dog in space suit" quality.

Enough barking up the wrong trees.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 04/07/2010 03:04 am
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?

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.

As for 1, the simple answer is that SUSTAIN is not a real program.  If you want to be uncharitable and accurate, you can say that SUSTAIN is a stupid pie-in-the-sky fantasy that has no funding, and will never get funding because it both defies physics and defies military logic.  I'll get back to that in a moment.

If you want to be nice, then it's worth asking what we mean when we say "the military is interested in" something.  Military officers study lots of crazy ideas.  They even have budget accounts that allow them to study these crazy ideas.  But it is really only accurate to say that "the military is interested in" something when it becomes a separately funded project with its own line item in the defense budget.  And this only happens when the people who first propose the idea are able to convince the civilian Pentagon leadership (and by extension, the White House) that something deserves money.

Right now SUSTAIN does not have any funding.  The US military spends upwards of $25 billion on space, and billions more on space-related equipment (GPS receivers, ground terminals, etc.).  But SUSTAIN probably only gets a few tens of thousands of dollars at most out of a general study account.

It helps to understand that SUSTAIN was initially advocated by a Marine general, but received no support from the civilian leadership in the Pentagon.  If you know the history of how military procurement works, it is common for generals to advocate pet programs that never get significant support and then die when they leave their position or retire.  SUSTAIN is one of these.  It was also advocated by the National Security Space Office (NSSO) in the Pentagon.  But the NSSO is a powerless office that lacks clout or money and cannot start programs or tell other military organizations to fund them.  And when SUSTAIN was initiated, its advocates talked about how it was something that the Marine Corps might field in three decades.  That indicates that it is not a serious program--sometimes it takes three decades for an idea to become real, but nobody plans for something to take three decades.*

The concept behind SUSTAIN is to launch a small number of combat troops a very long distance and put them down deep inside enemy lines.  The physics of this are really tough.  Unless you are traveling more than a few thousand miles, you essentially need a vehicle capable of reaching orbit.  Think of the size rocket that is necessary simply to place three people into Earth orbit.  Now try and imagine how big a rocket would be necessary to launch, say, five times as many people, plus their gear.  The physics of the equation quickly lead you to a rocket nearly as big as a Saturn V to do this.

Now imagine that big fat HOT reentry vehicle coming down over "enemy territory."  Does the enemy have SAMs? 

Okay, now assume that you have landed your troops deep inside of enemy territory.  Suppose their objective is to attack an enemy position.  Do you land right next to them so that they can start shooting at you before you exit your craft?  Or do you land several miles away?  If you land several miles away, how do you get the troops to their target?  Did you bring along a Humvee for transportation?  How much does that weigh?  And there is no way that you can do this stealthily--that big fat HOT reentry vehicle, remember?

But suppose you've done all of this--sent your troops halfway around the world, landed them stealthily, and had them stealthily sneak up to their target.  How do you resupply them?  How do you supply them artillery or air support?  How do you get them out of enemy territory when their mission is over?  (If the answer is "helicopters" then the new question is "why didn't you use helicopters to put them there in the first place?")  And then here's the big question:  how do you get their spacecraft out of enemy territory at the end of the mission? 

The more you ponder these questions, the more SUSTAIN starts to look like a one-way trip.

My own very uncharitable view is that some Marine general read "Starship Troopers" and got it into his head that this is the future of the Marine Corps.  If a general says "do it!" a bunch of people will run around looking like they are doing something until the general leaves, and then they will go back to smoking their cigarettes.


*(because what good is a long, rambling post without a footnote?)  It's worth noting that pretty much the exact same story applies whenever anybody mentions the solar power satellite study performed "by the military" several years ago.  That was also an NSSO production, and it also lacked any money.  Lots of people interpreted it to mean that the Pentagon was going to start building powersats.  But they didn't understand that a study conducted with no money by an office with no clout was ultimately going to have no effect.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 04/07/2010 03:06 am
5. Dirt cheap for what it does. A very smart mission if it works out.

At least $300-$400 million to put under 1000 pounds into orbit? 

Bloody expensive.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Warren Platts on 04/07/2010 03:07 am
Quote from: kevin-rf
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Art LeBrun on 04/07/2010 03:10 am
I don't think 500 pounds would even support one astronaut.....experts?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Art LeBrun on 04/07/2010 03:12 am
Didn't the US Army once study transporting troops by Redstone? Or was that only television recon?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: kevin-rf on 04/07/2010 03:27 am
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. 

From the NASA fact sheet... 7 feet long 4 foot Diameter.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/background/facts/x37facts2.html

Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: sdsds on 04/07/2010 03:36 am
I don't think 500 pounds would even support one astronaut.....experts?

Just right for those times when you really need to covertly place a single Navy SEAL on the exterior of ISS.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Garrett on 04/07/2010 10:19 am
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.
 ...
 ...

Thanks for that detailed reply. Most of it is beyond me, so I'll naively take your word for it all  :)

The Wikipedia article on this launch could probably do with an extra paragraph (or two). Any volunteers?  ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-37B_OTV-1
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 04/07/2010 11:02 am
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? 
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Downix on 04/07/2010 11:03 am
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? 
He forgot the gold plated wheel hubs and platinum heat-tiles....
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 04/07/2010 01:06 pm
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.

You have forgotten about the monkeys.  There are now highly trained, intelligent monkeys working for the space program.  You could easily fit a monkey in a spacesuit inside this thing and accomplish the mission that you say.  So you're probably right, except it's monkeys.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Art LeBrun on 04/07/2010 01:13 pm
I think chimps are better candidates for training............
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 04/07/2010 02:31 pm
Did I write monkeys?  I meant to write chimps.  Yes, definitely chimps.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 04/07/2010 02:33 pm
Thanks for that detailed reply. Most of it is beyond me, so I'll naively take your word for it all  :)

Well, SUSTAIN is one of those things that is hard to understand unless you know how the military bureaucracy works.  The simple answer is that it's some general's fantasy idea that has no funding for development and will never happen.  But it helps to understand that generals advocate a lot of crazy weapons ideas that never get funded, and that the military has access to a lot of smart engineers at various organizations that can examine these things and determine if they are sensible.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 04/07/2010 02:43 pm
Did I write monkeys?  I meant to write chimps.  Yes, definitely chimps.

Ah! According to the sages at The Simpsons, the current real Chief Administrator of NASA.  ;D

Back on topic, I'm pretty sure that the person above who suggested that X-37 is the beginning of a program to develop a USV version of the shuttle might be right.  The USAF has wanted capability like that since the 1950s, IIRC.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 04/07/2010 03:09 pm
The USAF has wanted capability like that since the 1950s, IIRC.

No they haven't.

As I was trying to point out, when you say "The USAF wants" something, you have to be careful.  "WHO" in the USAF wants something?  The USAF is not just some chunk of granite that has existed for decades and is unchanging.  The Air Force consists of tens of thousands of people, and a leadership that changes constantly.  It also consists of both military and civilian sides.  So a general might have wanted this capability back in 1961, but he retired.  Then maybe another general came along in 1970 who also wanted it, but he retired too.  In between those periods, there were probably a lot of generals who not only wanted different things, but specifically did NOT want this thing.

Don't assume that there is a continuity here, when there is no evidence of that.  The Air Force is not a point entity.  And it is not unchanging.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 04/07/2010 05:58 pm
Blackstar, Irrelevant - stick to topic.

X-37 is a well-documented project in plain view. One could regard it as a recoverable satellite.

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.

When it becomes accepted usefully then we cross a threshold.

Many doubted Global Hawk and Predator drones - even years after they were fielded.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 04/07/2010 06:03 pm
The X-37 did not have the sensors for rendezvous.  If it does not, then some of the payload mass and volume will have been decreased.  Nor were there any requirement for the propulsion system wrt to rendezvous, meaning 3 axis translation.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 04/07/2010 06:13 pm
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.

FWIW, in the opinion of the professionals out there, what would be required on an 'X-37C' operational vehicle, depending on its designed mission?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 04/07/2010 06:16 pm
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.


This refers to now and what the this specific launch is about.   Not about the future.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 04/07/2010 06:18 pm

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?

Yes and it is not a prototype for an operational system.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 04/07/2010 06:23 pm
USV

You mean spacecraft, space vehicle, satellite, etc which have been flying autonomously for decades.   They are all unmanned and that is the accepted practice.  A descriptor had to be added when you are talking about crewed vehicles.  Manned spacecraft, manned space vehicle, etc.

The military term is space vehicle which goes back to the Corona/Discoverer days when the Agena was both an upperstage and spacecraft bus.   Payload was the reconn package with the camera, film and recovery vehicle, all which were dependent on the Agena.   Agena and payload were called a space vehicle.

USV is not a term.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 04/07/2010 06:53 pm
USV

You mean spacecraft, space vehicle, satellite, etc which have been flying autonomously for decades.

No I don't.  Comparing what X-37 potentially could be to a satellite is a bit like comparing a Predator to a kite.

Quote
USV is not a term.

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.  It might not be the one I suggest.  I used USV because it is similar to UAV (Unmanned Air Vehicle), implying my belief that as a drone is to crewed combat aircraft, the descendants of X-37 will be to the shuttle.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 04/07/2010 06:59 pm

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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: dad2059 on 04/07/2010 07:18 pm

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.

So we're just studying reuse of equipment that could be done cheaper with expendables?

Waste of my hard earned money.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: JosephB on 04/07/2010 09:32 pm
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.
(i.e. capsule vs. winged OSP)
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/38/1

While the 37B is just a small tech demonstrator (and a sexy one at that) it gives winged vehicle fans something to daydream about.

Maybe NASA's seeming lack of direction is due to too many cooks in the kitchen.
My specialty? HL-42ish vehicle over a capsule for LEO.

Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Patchouli on 04/07/2010 09:52 pm
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 that can be easily transported I 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.

Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 04/07/2010 09:58 pm
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.
(i.e. capsule vs. winged OSP)
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/38/1
My favorite part of that link:
Quote
"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, ...
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/07/2010 10:11 pm
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.


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.

With a one-time pad, even a quantum computer could never decrypt the encrypted message.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: jcm on 04/07/2010 11:16 pm

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?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: yinzer on 04/07/2010 11:17 pm

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.

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.

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.

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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 04/07/2010 11:35 pm

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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: vt_hokie on 04/07/2010 11:59 pm

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.

That's what AlliedSignal was working on for X-33 when I was hired to work there out of college.  I always thought it was a shame that all of the work they did there on the flight software was for nothing.  Wonder who provided the s/w for X-37...
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: bfowler on 04/08/2010 12:04 am

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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: kevin-rf on 04/08/2010 02:10 am

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.

Yinzer, do you know of any cost data for the agena. Since it was used in such large numbers I had always assumed it has cost a reasonable amount. But thinking about it, it was a very very advanced capable platform, more capable than a run of the mill upper stage. No reason it should have been cheap. Astronautics list the early versions as being $5-$8 million, when at the same time an Atlas cost ~$2 million...
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 04/08/2010 03:01 am
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 04/08/2010 03:04 am
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.

1-You're misunderstanding ORS.  ORS advocates don't want high flight rates per se.  They want cheap vehicles that can be launched on demand.  So if it is not needed, it is not launched.

2-Who believes in a "future of fully reusable spacecraft"?  Although that idea was discussed a lot in the 1980s and more in the 1990s, it has not been a part of US space policy for a long time.  There's no active development program with that as an end goal.  It just is not current US policy.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 04/08/2010 03:17 am
ORS critical issue is the lead time (and integration) of the payload itself.
Different problem.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 04/09/2010 12:52 am
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: yg1968 on 04/09/2010 03:05 am
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.

The article is in Popular Mechanics (May issue). I just bought it.

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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: WHAP on 04/09/2010 04:25 am
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.

Which should not be a surprise to anyone who looks through the launch schedule thread.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=8184.msg554704#msg554704

By the way, launch has moved to the 20th.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 04/09/2010 10:39 am
Semi-OT but related.

Watching the X-37B being rolled out to SLC-41 inside its PLF made me think of the way Soyuz is launched inside a PLF with abort motors attached.  Now, I know that there are no plans of this nature at present but, hypothetically, if you scaled the PLF up to 8.4m (for a D-SDLV in-line or even Buzz Aldrin's preferred side-mounted configuration), how much bigger could you get a vehicle with a similar configuration to X-37? Would it be sufficient to carry a crew and, if so, how many and for how long?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: yinzer on 04/10/2010 02:03 am
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.

Well, it was no doubt cheaper than Transtage and Centaur, but those were both much bigger.  But I would bet it cost a lot more than the various solid upper stages and the early Delta upper stages, which didn't have the pump fed engine or the long-duration capability.

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.

Back to the X-37B, if the problem with the Agena was that a highly capable combination upper stage and satellite bus is useful but costs too much, maybe being able to reuse the upper stage could save you money.  If not right away, maybe down the road once you started taking advantage of the new capability.  The conventional wisdom says that this is wrong and you'd be better off just doing things the normal way.

The conventional wisdom may be correct, but in the absence of an obvious explanation you have to start looking for less plausible ones.

Assuming of course that it's not just pork for 46th Congressional district of California.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 04/10/2010 03:02 am
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: yinzer on 04/10/2010 08:40 am
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.

Evidence would be nice, for sure.  I reading some Agena history where the program manager told his workers that each stage cost more than the Mark Hopkins Hotel up the road in San Francisco, but I don't remember what the actual number was or how that compared to anything else.

There's another dynamic involving the limitations of Agena that has played out a few other times in space history.  The main customer for Agena was the NRO who had a huge amount of money and bought hundreds for their photorecon satellites.  If you were someone else that could make use of the capability developed and maintained by the NRO, you could get a pretty good deal.  But if you wanted something different than the NRO, you'd have to pay for it yourself.  And when the NRO stopped buying loads of Agenas, they suddenly wouldn't be such a good deal.  Pretty much the same thing happened with the USAF, Delta II, and GPS.

Quote
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-
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 04/10/2010 01:41 pm
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: shuttlefan on 04/10/2010 01:49 pm
Has the spacecraft indeed been mated to the Atlas 5, after we saw it moved out to the pad Thurs.?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 04/10/2010 02:07 pm
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: shuttlefan on 04/10/2010 02:16 pm
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.

WOW...........OK....Thanks Jim!!
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Art LeBrun on 04/10/2010 02:55 pm
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 04/10/2010 09:30 pm
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.

Well, that's certainly part of the issue--Agena had a lot of things that might not have been needed for most spacecraft.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 04/10/2010 09:31 pm
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: yinzer on 04/10/2010 11:25 pm
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.

I'd be surprised. The X-37B is way bigger than any plausible warhead, and from what I recall most maneuvering warheads had comparatively small control surfaces instead of large wings, for fairly fundamental aerodynamic reasons.

Not a completely ridiculous idea, though.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 04/11/2010 12:40 am
Yeah, I know it's a poor fit.  But X-37B is the only thing we have that can maneuver during reentry.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Downix on 04/12/2010 12:43 pm
Yeah, I know it's a poor fit.  But X-37B is the only thing we have that can maneuver during reentry.
Wanna bet?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuverable_reentry_vehicle
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Skyrocket on 04/12/2010 01:09 pm
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
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: HIPAR on 04/12/2010 02:30 pm
Perhaps it's a solution awaiting its problem.

---  CHAS
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 04/12/2010 04:43 pm
There's no good evidence that the US pursued this to actual development.  The Russians have put more emphasis on it.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Patchouli on 04/12/2010 05:08 pm

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.


That's interesting I always assumed Buran had a more advanced guidance system then the US Shuttles simply because it was a later project.

The AP101 was already dated by 1981 even for space systems use.
It had core memory which fell out of use elsewhere during the mid 70s.
But then the flight computers were chosen very early in the design in 1972.
The voyager probes for example had semiconductor memory.


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

I had a discussion like this over how useless most capsule shapes such as the Apollo OML would be for an MRV.
A warhead normally does something a crew vehicle never would attempt and that is enter the lower layers of the atmosphere while still travelling at a high velocity.

Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: yg1968 on 04/13/2010 02:47 am
Another article on the X-37B:

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/air-force-x-37b-spaceplane-speculation-100412.html
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: savuporo on 04/13/2010 06:57 am
Until recently, I was under the impression that the flight Buran orbiter landed completely autonomously, until somebody set me straight.

... they used various means to find the closest matching scenario, and then instructed the orbiter to fly it.
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 04/13/2010 02:47 pm
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: robertross on 04/13/2010 03:17 pm
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.

So how long does it take to build and launch a boilerplate spy sat?

If they had a suite of instruments ready as a 'package' to place in the PLB, then they could launch it as a confined area drone high up, or as a stop-gap measure if they lost a bird for some technical (or clandestine) reason.

From what I've been reading from your postings and articles, the timeline to get a spy sat from the drawing board to orbit is on the order of years. 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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 04/13/2010 03:43 pm
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.

Instruments take just as long as spacecraft and new instruments can fly on the replacement spacecraft.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 04/13/2010 03:47 pm
I address this to anyone who might know: A military OTV would only be useful if it could be launched fairly quickly, which means a pre-flight comparable to a modern aircraft or even ICBM.  With that in mind, could X-37 (as the only example of the type) be launched by something like a Minotaur-IV/-V or an Athena-2? If so, what could their response time be like?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/13/2010 03:52 pm
I wonder if anyone plans something like this to be integrated into the flyback booster plans the Air Force has (see this thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12755.0 ). It has significant integrated propellant tanks. If it had more delta-v, eventually it could be its own upper stage.

In other words, this isn't anything like an operational capability, but just a continual experimental evolution of Shuttle-like systems until you have both a lower stage and an upper stage which can be reused fully. Not the worst platform for testing out different TPS systems.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 04/13/2010 06:19 pm
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 04/13/2010 06:48 pm
I just heard that some more information on X-37B may be released this week.  Details are sketchy--dunno what kind of information--but it may happen in Colorado Springs at the space symposium conference there.

There's a certain logic to this.  The launch is next week, and maybe they decided to hold off on releasing some more info until just before the launch and to coincide with the big conference.  But we'll just have to wait and see.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: yinzer on 04/13/2010 07:32 pm
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.

Or a smaller one, for that matter.  The X-37B wasn't supposed to require an expensive Atlas V to launch it.  The plan to fly it on the Space Shuttle also shows the accounting benefits experimental projects get from having a reusable spacecraft looking for a reason to fly - a bunch of the support costs get moved elsewhere.

It'll be interesting to see what new information comes out at Colorado Springs, if any.

Someone should write a book about misguided and pointless military technology development projects to set sort of a baseline for what is plausible.  Are Air Force generals really that eager to believe in a spacecraft that looks like a jet fighter that they'll overlook all sorts of flaws and spend tons of money and a valuable Atlas V launch slot on it?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: robertross on 04/13/2010 08:47 pm
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.


Okay, so with that in mind, and to include Jim's response in here as well, could there be an infant (or general) mortality rate that compromise your system?

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.

You can also tailor the sensor pack in a more unitized way, picking and choosing the sensors you want.

This has the potential for lowest 'time to market' (using that analogy), and lowest risk.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 04/13/2010 09:05 pm
[
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.


More than often it is not the sensor that fails but the spacecraft bus.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: robertross on 04/14/2010 02:21 am
Thanks Jim.

So there can be a case that, in a similar way to reviving a defunct satellite with propellent, we can simply exchange a faulty spacecraft but feeding the sensor module or instrument pack, and re-fly the X-37 to continue its mission. You can also determine root cause and fix the problem before flying it again, or placing it on a satellite for long duration missions.

So the question becomes: how many flights does this start to become a cost-saving measure, comparing an average increase in launch vehicles (and thereby reducing launch costs), and X-37 refurb costs, compared to a new satellite every time one has failed (based on historical averages).

No real need to reply, but it's an interesting exercise.

As an aside, I'm stirred by the announcement that Obama won't be able to see the X-37 due to time constraints. Will all there is to do, I have to wonder if he is planning on pushing the Atlas launch vehicle for Orion. That would help in launch costs...
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Art LeBrun on 04/14/2010 03:09 am
Presidents don't have time constraints; they have no interest.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: WHAP on 04/14/2010 05:10 pm
Launch moved to the 21st.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 04/14/2010 10:54 pm
I'm thinking about writing an article comparing PRIME to the X-37B, and I need more time.  So I'm hoping that they slip it into the following week.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: savuporo on 04/15/2010 12:24 am
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.
If this is part of what they tell people in Aerospace 101 classes, i can see why the hiring pool is drying up.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 04/15/2010 01:50 am
If this is part of what they tell people in Aerospace 101 classes, i can see why the hiring pool is drying up.

How long do you think it takes to design and build a new warship?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: savuporo on 04/15/2010 04:09 am
Not to get too far off topic, but i didnt say theres anything inherently wrong with that length of  development cycle. But it also explains why the field is sort of stagnant, when compared to something like consumer electonics, robotics or a few other engineering fields.
Obviously the character of a graduate that is willing to commit to work through maybe 5 or product iterations throughout his career is different and a bit more hard to come by than the one that expects to iterate and innovate once a year.

If i understand history books correctly, it seems that space tech development cycle hasnt always been that slow, either.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 04/15/2010 12:46 pm
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: vt_hokie on 04/15/2010 03:33 pm
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.

Or devote their heart and soul to something that can be canceled anytime at the whim of a politician.

Quote
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.

This is due to a failure in our resolve and our resulting policies in this country.  The only place where cutting edge stuff is still being done in aerospace seems to be in the black world, and even there, who knows how much...
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: savuporo on 04/15/2010 03:36 pm
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: stealthyplains on 04/16/2010 11:57 pm
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.  (ISS is a great start for long-term ECLSS research and its value there seems far more practical than its value as a zero-g platform for unrelated science.  so many headaches with ISS as a general science platform: at best one investigator on site, extremely limited lab space, you can't get primers FedExed to LEO...)  technologies of the next stage of colonization (Martian ISRU + permanent ECLSS) are completely paper and require significant development in other R&D sectors

unfortunately, the world of chemical rocketry seems too consumed with political infighting and holy wars (in the standards sense) to ever settle on an architecture and get onto the interesting questions of payload

there's just nothing i want to work on in space right now because biotech is irrelevant to getting to LEO.  thinking beyond LEO is just castles in the air until some kind of coaling architecture is built.  then we can start asking the interesting questions about permanent bases, closed-loop life support, and terraforming

i'm a launch system fan and i love to follow all the rockets and engines but really the most relevant thing to me in the long term is, like, mold buildup in the ISS
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: vt_hokie on 04/17/2010 03:08 am

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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jorge on 04/17/2010 05:27 am

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.

SCRAMjets are mostly useful for cruise applications, not acceleration applications. They have their uses but space launch is not one of them, despite the periodic contrary claims of snake-oil salesmen. They didn't get the nickname "scamjet" for nothing.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 04/18/2010 03:21 am
There's supposed to be another X-37B article coming out in a day or so with a few more details.  It will be on Space.com
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: neilh on 04/18/2010 05:42 am
According to spaceflightnow it seems that there's a 40% chance of clouds delaying the launch scheduled for Wednesday evening (April 21):

http://spaceflightnow.com/atlas/av012/status.html
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: JimO on 04/18/2010 05:36 pm
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.
   Maybe it's as innocent as just getting an available launch vehicle at a reasonable discount.
   But maybe it's because the mission intends to use that apparently 'surplus' performance.
   I don't think it means to go a lot higher than expected -- there are radiation issues and entry heating issues. But it would make tracking and comm somewhat easier.
   But how about going to a higher inclination? The Centaur can do restarts -- it could burn again from a 57 deg parking orbit, at next equator crossing, and probably put the vehicle into a near-polar orbit.
   Doing a dogleg out of the Cape on ascent doesn't strike me as helpful -- going south downrange, to avoid Miami and Cuba, would give an inclination no steeper than a straight launch to the NE. And doing a dogleg north from a NE ascent puts you over NYC pretty soon.
   But how about using it to perform a long-theoretical maneuver much beloved by 'Space Command' space cadets of the 1990s and earlier?
   I'm referring to an atmospheric turn for plane change. Proof of concept.
   Go to the NE, and do orbit insertion nominally. Now you have several thousand mph additional performance available. Continue burning, but lower flight path angle into the atmosphere. Drop the Centaur. It enters almost immediately, leaving no clue.
   Now the X-37B does a left roll and enters the upper atmosphere at a velocity well in excess of circular orbital velocity. It pulls G's making the turn to the right, as its velocity drops. Before it has dropped to circular velocity, it rolls to heads up and uses lift to rise to a trajectory passing out of the atmosphere. Then it does a small circularization burn.
   Doing this maneuver was always an idle daydream if you STARTED from circular orbit, because you had to partially deorbit and then somehow make up the drag losses to get back into orbit. There was no practical way for the spacecraft, no matter how high its L/D, to get back into stable orbit with any sort of significant plane change.
   But now we have a totally new initial condition. We're passing through a state vector that delivers a circular, stable orbit, with a whole s-tload of extra delta-V strapped to our ass. Don't throw it away -- throw the X-37B back into the upper atmosphere with a velocity high enough you can AFFORD the drag losses and still get back into space after a plane change of 20-30 degrees.
   And we have the new heat shield technology to endure the thermal loads.
   And all the amateur satellite watchers -- and the Russians too -- will be looking in the wrong direction for days.
   This wasn't the original intent of the X-37B, no question. but seems to me, if the current sponsors had only the original mission objectives, the flight would never be occurring.
   Well, it's a crazy idea. but is it crazy enough to be valid?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Danderman on 04/18/2010 11:15 pm
   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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: JimO on 04/19/2010 12:24 am
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.

No argument. But we already know how to do those things.

On the other hand...

This is an X plane. We fly them to learn to do NEW things.

Just suggesting.

Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 04/19/2010 01:09 am
The new Space.com article is up:

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/secret-x-37b-details-revealed-100417.html

"The X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle (OTV) is capable of supporting a flexible range of experiments, Blair said. "The first mission will emphasize proving technologies necessary for long duration reusable space vehicles with autonomous reentry and landing capabilities."

"It's a developmental effort," Blair said, and it's standard practice with many Department of Defense development efforts, "specific details of the OTV capabilities, limitations and vulnerabilities" are classified."
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: yinzer on 04/19/2010 04:35 am
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.

There's more to than weight to launch vehicle performance - the previous plan was to fly it unfaired on a Delta II but supposedly that ran into aerodynamic problems.  If you want to put a 4.5m wingspan inside a payload fairing, the choices are the Atlas V and Delta IV.  The Delta IV with the 5m fairing needs SRBs for an appreciable payload, which makes the Atlas V 501 the obvious choice.

Not convincing?

The aerodynamic plane change thing would be interesting to see.  And you probably would be able to see it from the ground, right?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: kevin-rf on 04/19/2010 01:07 pm

Maybe in the Azores ;)

Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/19/2010 01:23 pm
ULA send a note out saying that because Discovery's landing is delayed, the launch of the ULA Atlas V with the Orbital Test Vehicle mission has been delayed one day as well.

It will now take place Thursday, April 22, with a launch window of 7:52-8:01 p.m. EDT. 

The ULA launch broadcast will begin at 7:32 p.m. EDT.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/19/2010 01:32 pm
I'll also note this thread is huuuuuge. So we'll start a new thread for the live launch updates.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: AnalogMan on 04/19/2010 01:34 pm
I'll also note this thread is huuuuuge. So we'll start a new thread for the live launch updates.

Thought we had this one?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21122.msg568726#msg568726
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/19/2010 01:42 pm
So we do! I'm going blind in my old age ;D
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: agman25 on 04/21/2010 12:55 pm

Experimental X-37B Robot Space Plane to Launch Thursday

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/x-37b-robot-space-plane-launch-100420.html
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: kevin-rf on 04/21/2010 01:24 pm
Quote
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/x-37b-robot-space-plane-launch-100420.html

Second unit on order? So the 2011 launch will not reuse the same vehicle?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Skyrocket on 04/21/2010 02:08 pm
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/x-37b-robot-space-plane-launch-100420.html

Very interesting also: Planned turnaround times of 10-15 days. But this is not really feasible with an Atlas launched vehicle. For these turnaround times they would need a quick-response launch vehicle, which could be kept in stock as needed.

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

(http://www.skyrocket.de/space/img_lau/airlaunch__1.jpg)
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Kim Keller on 04/21/2010 02:33 pm
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: joema on 04/21/2010 06:54 pm
...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.

Various plausible missions could require hypersonic manuvering. Either intelligence or dropping non-nuclear kinetic strike munitions would benefit from this.

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.

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.

By contrast an X37B or successor could remain "on call" in orbit for long periods and at a moment's notice, overfly a target and deploy kinetic munitions. The different trajectory would seem to avoid the confusion with an ICBM launch.

This is just speculation but it seems plausible.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: DiggyCoxwell on 04/21/2010 07:25 pm
...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.

Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: MP99 on 04/21/2010 07:45 pm

Experimental X-37B Robot Space Plane to Launch Thursday

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/x-37b-robot-space-plane-launch-100420.html

Quote
"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.

Obviously never read the DragonLab datasheet, then!

http://www.spacex.com/downloads/dragonlab-datasheet.pdf (http://www.spacex.com/downloads/dragonlab-datasheet.pdf):-

Dragon Spacecraft System
* Fully recoverable capsule
* Trunk jettisoned prior to reentry
* 6000 kg total combined up-mass capability
* Up to 3000 kg down mass
* Mission Duration: 1 week to 2 years



* Pressure Vessel Interior (pressurized, recoverable)
  * 10 m3 payload volume



* Sensor Bay (unpressurized, recoverable)
  * Approx 0.1 m3 (4cu ft) volume

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: MP99 on 04/21/2010 07:56 pm
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/secret-x-37b-details-revealed-100417.html


Quote
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.

OK, left-field suggestion...

If additional fuel was loaded into the payload bay, could X-37 re-enter over a surveillance target, take surprise pictures, then fly itself to friendly territory for recovery?

Obviously, irrelevant if existing UAV's can expect substantial element of surprise.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: kch on 04/21/2010 07:57 pm
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.

Noticed the article referred to the payload as an SMV ... IIRC, that would be an X-40 (same shape as an X-37, but smaller and lighter).
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: sdsds on 04/21/2010 08:06 pm
Has ULA released any details regarding the Centaur for this mission?  Is it completely "stock" or does it include mission-specific hardware?  Does the (apparent) extra propulsive capability of the launch stack allow Centaur to perform additional in-space activities, e.g. test boil-off mitigation systems for long-duration missions?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 04/21/2010 08:23 pm
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.

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?

2-What good is the "hypersonic maneuvering" when you actually have to open the doors to deploy a payload?  In other words, if the X-37B is performing hypersonic maneuvering, it's not going to deploy kinetic weapons or sensors or anything until it gets back up into cold space.  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?

2A-There are already alternatives.  The US has stealth satellites.  Besides, how much payload could this carry?  Could it carry a useful intelligence payload in its tiny payload bay?

2B-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.


There are several things that make this technology (accepting that X-37B is only a prototype) so hard to understand.  One is that the reusability aspect doesn't seem to be all that great. It cannot carry much payload, and why would you need to bring that payload back?  Keep in mind that you could simply get rid of the X-37B entirely and put your payload directly into orbit and get all the extra mass and capability that you are wasting on the wings and other stuff with the X-37B.  (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.)

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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: mikegi on 04/21/2010 08:55 pm
... 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:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aerospacedaily&id=news/asd/2010/04/12/10.xml&headline=U.S.A.F%20Plans%20Reusable%20Booster%20Demonstrators

I wonder if the plans in that article are the root cause for all the seeming confusion in NASA's future.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: joema on 04/22/2010 03:39 am
...
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?
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.

The stated endurance of 270 days could be understated, or this could be a prototype for one with much longer endurance.

It's true you pay launch costs, but likewise with recon sats, etc.

...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...

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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 04/22/2010 11:56 am

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.

Your concept is not viable.

1.  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 package

2.   It is not a prototype.  It is an X-37.  This vehicle was first designed for NASA.

3.  Yes, we do.
A.  the doors have to be open to allow the solar array to be deployed. 
B.  the doors have to be open to allow the payload to be exposed
c.  There is no production version

4.  It is not a strike platform and it is useless as one.

5.  Not stealth spacecraft

6.  It is not prototype.  It can only carry 500lbs.  Reconn from 60kft is different than 100 miles. 

7.  ICBM's perform that role and not orbital platforms.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: kevin-rf on 04/22/2010 12:34 pm
c.  There is no production version

Other than one of the articles mentioned the 2011 launch will be a NEW vehicle!?! not a reuse of this vehicle.

Quote
6.  It is not prototype.  It can only carry 500lbs.  Reconn from 60kft is different than 100 miles. 

You know the 10000 lbs they keep listing the vehicle weight makes a very heavy payload shroud for a 500lbs payload. Does it really have to be that heavy? Have they ever released the "dry" mass? How much of that mass is propellant? That might explain why it "seems" so heavy.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/22/2010 01:18 pm
Note to all, we'll be moving to the live thread in a few hours ahead of the webcast and live coverage.

A lot of interest in this launch - site is already busy - which is good to see.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: joema on 04/22/2010 03:53 pm
...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 package
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.

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 spacecraft
They 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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 04/22/2010 04:10 pm

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.

1.  There wouldn't be enough on orbit nor would they have enough crossrange to be a global strike within the timeframes that are required.

2.  That is not the end all source and it is only talking about one program.

3.  A shuttle is not a relevant guide.  The shuttle was a launch vehicle, this is a spacecraft only.   Also, I do know it is 500 lbs.

4.  It would be just as constrained. 
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/22/2010 05:20 pm
Live update thread for tonight's launch:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21122.0
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 04/22/2010 06:07 pm
   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.

Huh?  Your ire seems to be slightly misdirected.  Note that I was commenting about statements made by various people in a news article.  I was pointing out that these statements didn't make much sense.

Note also that I was not arguing against the idea of classification.  Certainly sensitive national security information must be classified and must be kept from our nation's enemies.

But please also note that we have a thing called the First Amendment.  And also consider that sometimes classification is applied incorrectly.  Sometimes it is even applied to cover up government mistakes or impropriety.  So it's not an either/or situation.  I don't know if that's what is happening in the case of the X-37B--if classification is covering something up.  But there have been a lot of people speculating about this project, in the news media and on this thread, so why did you suddenly decide to go after me? 
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: edkyle99 on 04/22/2010 09:51 pm
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?

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 04/22/2010 09:55 pm
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 04/23/2010 01:03 am
Payton interview. 

http://www.dodlive.mil/index.php/tag/gary-payton/

You can also download the transcript.

http://www.defense.gov/Blog_files/Blog_assets/PaytonX-37.pdf

Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: neilh on 04/23/2010 05:55 am
Payton interview.  You can also download the transcript.

http://www.dodlive.mil/index.php/tag/gary-payton/

Very interesting:
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/23/2010 09:05 am
A reminder this is a PRE launch thread. Edited to remove launch photos and placed in the correct event thread.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21122.180 (and the next page)
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: edkyle99 on 04/23/2010 01:32 pm
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.

I have not seen any description of the actual engine or engines (or photo for that matter - note that all of the released images carefully avoid showing the engine).  A model number, for example, or info on thrust and ISP, etc..  Payton seemed to hint that it was an existing engine.  Any good candidates?

BTW, if it isn't something used by commercial satellites, it could be a "classified" engine used by DoD satellites, which would explain why we haven't seen photos of it.  Or maybe it is something like this:  http://pdf.aiaa.org/downloads/1987/1987_1937.pdf?CFID=3239740&CFTOKEN=21796544&jsessionid=8c30618db9d5502d7672TR

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: kevin-rf on 04/23/2010 03:43 pm
Has anyone mentioned what the propellant mass on the X-37 is? Big tanks, or just enough to make it out of orbit and head home?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Stephan on 04/23/2010 03:56 pm
2 km/s is the DeltaV I've read.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: edkyle99 on 04/23/2010 04:09 pm
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
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Downix on 04/23/2010 04:31 pm
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/23/2010 04:46 pm
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
Sounds about right. The back half of the vehicle is basically propellant tanks.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 04/23/2010 05:00 pm
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
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 04/23/2010 05:01 pm
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.

Payton said it has poor hypersonic L/D
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: edkyle99 on 04/23/2010 05:35 pm
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
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 04/23/2010 05:38 pm
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
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: edkyle99 on 04/23/2010 06:15 pm
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

O.K.  0.4/5 = ~8% for X-37B while both OMS together provide probably 6% thrust relative to orbiter mass.  Even one RCS is sufficient.  One at a time for time-rating reasons probably?

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 04/23/2010 06:48 pm
  One at a time for time-rating reasons probably?


2nd one was for backup.  If it not used, mission turnaround is easier.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: edkyle99 on 04/23/2010 09:36 pm
  One at a time for time-rating reasons probably?


2nd one was for backup.  If it not used, mission turnaround is easier.

Interesting.  Really attempting to design for turnaround. 

If it did keep the RCS thrusters, can we call it "Shuttle-Derived"?  ;)

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: joema on 04/24/2010 01:20 pm
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?
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 04/24/2010 01:43 pm
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?

You are not looking at it correctly.  It is not separable section, it just the aft fuselage.  Those aren't wings, they are the ruddervators.

It lands like this

http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/100330-O-1234S-001.jpg

Here is a 3 view

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5232.msg91374.html#msg91374
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 04/24/2010 01:59 pm


Could this imply reboost after hypersonic upper-atmospheric maneuvering?

It is not that type of vehicle.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 04/24/2010 02:40 pm


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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 04/24/2010 02:46 pm


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
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: simonbp on 04/25/2010 05:11 pm
wrong shape, it is has bad hypersonic L/D

Well, not bad, just no better than STS orbiter. So, eyeballing it, maybe a L/D of 0.4, which would make it better than Apollo (~0.2-0.3), but worse than a lifting body (up to 0.8 ).

Granted, they don't need much cross-range (and thus hypersonic L/D), as the landing sites are pretty close to each other...
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: edkyle99 on 04/25/2010 06:53 pm
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

Returning to this question, if X-37B uses something like the STS Marquardt R-40A N2O4/MMH primary RCS thrusters as its main maneuvering engines (T = 394.6 kfg, ISP = 289 sec), augmented by vernier thrusters burning the same propellant, and if the total delta-v is 2,500 ft/sec (762.2 meters/sec), then the propellant load would only be about 1,180 kg, or less than one-quarter of gross vehicle weight.  The propellant would be divided in a 1.65:1 mass ratio (N2O4:MMH).

762 meters/sec is still a healthy delta-v allotment.  STS only has 300+-ish meters/sec delta-v.  It still seems to me that propellant could be traded for upload mass - and quite a bit of upload mass - if desired.  (I wonder, could this thing have an ability to transfer propellant to on-orbit satellites?)

R-40A thrusters, by the way, are rated for 50,000 starts and up to 20,000 seconds of cumulative firing.  A full load of X-37B propellant would only use up 860 seconds of an R-40A life if it were burned through just one thruster.  The bird obviously has numerous vernier thrusters as well, so an R-40A would never use all of the propellant.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 04/25/2010 07:07 pm
I think the thruster is like the 100 lb apogee thrusters on many comsats.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: JimO on 04/25/2010 11:16 pm
So where IS it?

Does anybody know of anybody who's seen it? 

Why not?

Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 04/26/2010 04:01 am
The amateurs were looking, but they all had poor viewing conditions.  Most of them are in Europe, which can be cloudy.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 04/26/2010 09:43 am
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Mike_1179 on 04/26/2010 11:43 am
Low visibility solar arrays?  That would be a neat trick
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: kevin-rf on 04/26/2010 12:40 pm
Low visibility solar arrays?  That would be a neat trick

Why? Idealy they are pointed at the sun, if built right everything behind them is in shadow, in LEO near sunrise/sunset tilt them so that nothing glints off them towards ground. Takes some design work, but not unsolvable.

Wasn't on of the rumor's about Misty that it had some sort of sunshade which keeps the payload in shadow making it dificult for ground observers to track. Thought there was a patent about the sun shade that could be used on it floating around the US patent servers.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 04/26/2010 03:14 pm
Before getting all exotic with the explanations as to why it has not yet been spotted, perhaps one should use the simpler default position that it has not been spotted because of cloudy weather.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: joema on 04/26/2010 11:37 pm
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.

Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Jim on 04/26/2010 11:59 pm
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.

There is no difference, they are the same
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: iamlucky13 on 04/27/2010 12:03 am
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.

Perhaps, but that makes thermal control more difficult. I'm going with the weather explanation combined with a limited number of eyes looking for an object in an unknown orbit.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Blackstar on 04/27/2010 12:59 am
As someone explained to me, the observation problem gets harder over time.  In other words, if the amateurs don't spot it immediately and get an orbit track, it is harder for them to spot it later.  Not impossible, just harder.  So there's probably a curve to this, where it's easy to spot within a few days, and if not spotted by then, it could take quite awhile.  Thus, bad weather in the observing areas soon after launch hurts.
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: edkyle99 on 04/27/2010 03:53 am
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.

It looks about the same size to me.  Even the X-40A seemed to have approximately the same shape (see image below).  The differences seem to be due to viewing angle, and the available photos provide limited viewing angles.  I've also added a couple of side-view comparisons of X-37A and B.

IMO

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: edkyle99 on 04/27/2010 04:31 am
I think the thruster is like the 100 lb apogee thrusters on many comsats.

If so, I would expect more than just one firing at a time.  The thrust-to-weight ratio of Soyuz is 0.088, of Shenzhou 0.13, and of Shuttle 0.05.  If X-37B weighs 5,000 kg, it needs at least 250 kgf (551 lbf) thrust to equate with Shuttle's OMS.  I suspect that a deorbit burn requires more thrust for a given mass than a GTO apogee burn, since the apogee burns are usually broken up over a series of orbits.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Pre-Launch History: Atlas V - OTV X-37B - April 22, 10
Post by: Danderman on 11/23/2012 02:02 am
I can't find whether this document has already been uploaded (it is over 10 years old), but it is of interest to X-37 fans.

Independent Assessment of
X-37 Safety & Mission Assurance
Processes and Design Features