|
kevin-rf
|
|
« Reply #510 on: 06/08/2012 06:04 PM » |
|
Just checked Heavens-Above and don't have any predicted visible passes for the next week. I wonder if the usual SeeSat suspects will be able to spot, or not spot it over the next few days.
|
|
|
|
edkyle99
|
|
« Reply #511 on: 06/08/2012 08:09 PM » |
|
X-37B is over the Pacific right now, on a track that passes not far from VAFB. It will see similar daylight morning (Pacific Time) passes during coming days, but no passes at night. The last landing was at night, as I recall.
- Ed Kyle
I do hope that means a daylight landing. Would love to see footage of the approach and touchdown (the last landing was at night, as you noted, Ed, so we only got to see the rollout after touchdown.)
Yes, but that's because the Air Force didn't want to show anything else. It clearly would have had infrared tracking video of the entire approach and landing, but none of that has been released. - Ed Kyle
|
|
|
|
Moe Grills
|
|
« Reply #512 on: 06/09/2012 09:47 PM » |
|
Be grateful they won't try to land that thing at Groom Lake.
The guards around that max-security perimeter are authorized
to use "deadly force" against any intruder/lurker.
|
|
|
|
Prober
|
|
« Reply #513 on: 06/10/2012 08:13 PM » |
|
Just checked Heavens-Above and don't have any predicted visible passes for the next week. I wonder if the usual SeeSat suspects will be able to spot, or not spot it over the next few days.
June 14th forward looks possible after the 18th even better.
|
|
|
|
Danderman
|
|
« Reply #514 on: 06/11/2012 10:04 PM » |
|
I don't want to set up a new thread for this, but it occurs to me that X-37 would be a marvelous Mars orbiter; although its relatively lightweight, it could carry a 500 pound science package; perform aerobraking repeatedly, and in the event that ISRU is ever developed at Mars, maybe could be refueled from a surface lander, or from Phobos or Deimos, for return to Earth.
How X-37 would be powered for a long mission is a mystery to me, though.
|
|
|
|
Skyrocket
|
|
« Reply #515 on: 06/11/2012 10:21 PM » |
|
I don't want to set up a new thread for this, but it occurs to me that X-37 would be a marvelous Mars orbiter; although its relatively lightweight, it could carry a 500 pound science package; perform aerobraking repeatedly, and in the event that ISRU is ever developed at Mars, maybe could be refueled from a surface lander, or from Phobos or Deimos, for return to Earth.
How X-37 would be powered for a long mission is a mystery to me, though.
Much too heavy - for aerobraking one does not need wings or an heatshield for complete reentry or even a landing gear. Such an aerobreaking shield should be lightwight and should have a simple geometry.
|
|
|
|
Alpha Control
|
|
« Reply #516 on: 06/11/2012 10:44 PM » |
|
X-37B is over the Pacific right now, on a track that passes not far from VAFB. It will see similar daylight morning (Pacific Time) passes during coming days, but no passes at night. The last landing was at night, as I recall.
- Ed Kyle
I do hope that means a daylight landing. Would love to see footage of the approach and touchdown (the last landing was at night, as you noted, Ed, so we only got to see the rollout after touchdown.)
Yes, but that's because the Air Force didn't want to show anything else. It clearly would have had infrared tracking video of the entire approach and landing, but none of that has been released.
- Ed Kyle
And that puzzles me. For a vehicle that started out as a NASA project, I wouldn't think the aerodynamic qualities of the vehicle would be a secret.
|
|
|
|
Prober
|
|
« Reply #517 on: 06/11/2012 11:04 PM » |
|
X-37B is over the Pacific right now, on a track that passes not far from VAFB. It will see similar daylight morning (Pacific Time) passes during coming days, but no passes at night. The last landing was at night, as I recall.
- Ed Kyle
I do hope that means a daylight landing. Would love to see footage of the approach and touchdown (the last landing was at night, as you noted, Ed, so we only got to see the rollout after touchdown.)
Yes, but that's because the Air Force didn't want to show anything else. It clearly would have had infrared tracking video of the entire approach and landing, but none of that has been released.
- Ed Kyle
And that puzzles me. For a vehicle that started out as a NASA project, I wouldn't think the aerodynamic qualities of the vehicle would be a secret.
If say a payload door would swing open during landing it might show the cargo.
|
|
|
|
Prober
|
|
« Reply #518 on: 06/11/2012 11:07 PM » |
|
I don't want to set up a new thread for this, but it occurs to me that X-37 would be a marvelous Mars orbiter; although its relatively lightweight, it could carry a 500 pound science package; perform aerobraking repeatedly, and in the event that ISRU is ever developed at Mars, maybe could be refueled from a surface lander, or from Phobos or Deimos, for return to Earth.
How X-37 would be powered for a long mission is a mystery to me, though.
You mean like a Red Dragon? Don't let the SpaceX users hear this idea. Boeing does manufacture Sats. Never know.
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #519 on: 06/12/2012 12:19 AM » |
|
I don't want to set up a new thread for this, but it occurs to me that X-37 would be a marvelous Mars orbiter; although its relatively lightweight, it could carry a 500 pound science package; perform aerobraking repeatedly, and in the event that ISRU is ever developed at Mars, maybe could be refueled from a surface lander, or from Phobos or Deimos, for return to Earth.
How X-37 would be powered for a long mission is a mystery to me, though.
Not really A. it doesn't generate enough power. b. its body shape and thermal properties are wrong for deep space. c. it has the wrong body shape for aerobraking, it creates lift where as drag is needed. d. it has limited field of views for a proper science package e. the 500lb includes mounting structure which is much like ASE in a shuttle. f. it has poor payload to total mass ratio. (it isn't lightweight)
|
|
|
|
Alpha Control
|
|
« Reply #520 on: 06/12/2012 01:04 AM » |
|
X-37B is over the Pacific right now, on a track that passes not far from VAFB. It will see similar daylight morning (Pacific Time) passes during coming days, but no passes at night. The last landing was at night, as I recall.
- Ed Kyle
I do hope that means a daylight landing. Would love to see footage of the approach and touchdown (the last landing was at night, as you noted, Ed, so we only got to see the rollout after touchdown.)
Yes, but that's because the Air Force didn't want to show anything else. It clearly would have had infrared tracking video of the entire approach and landing, but none of that has been released.
- Ed Kyle
And that puzzles me. For a vehicle that started out as a NASA project, I wouldn't think the aerodynamic qualities of the vehicle would be a secret.
If say a payload door would swing open during landing it might show the cargo.
I'm hard-pressed to imagine how that could happen. If the payload bay door is secure enough to endure the forces encountered during a successful re-entry, I don't know what would cause it 'pop open' at the last minute during approach and landing.
|
|
|
|
Ben the Space Brit
|
|
« Reply #521 on: 06/12/2012 09:26 AM » |
|
At the risk of sounding like a cynic, my personal favoured theory is that the spacecraft has suffered some kind of malfunction or anomaly that makes a controlled and survivable re-entry impossible. They've thus extended the mission to wring every drop of useful data out of the flight before they lose the vehicle.
|
|
|
|
marshal
|
|
« Reply #522 on: 06/12/2012 11:59 AM » |
|
At the risk of sounding like a cynic, my personal favoured theory is that the spacecraft has suffered some kind of malfunction or anomaly that makes a controlled and survivable re-entry impossible. They've thus extended the mission to wring every drop of useful data out of the flight before they lose the vehicle.
Air Force officials have said the window for landing extends to June 18
|
|
|
|
rdale
|
|
« Reply #523 on: 06/12/2012 12:57 PM » |
|
They've thus extended the mission to wring every drop of useful data out of the flight before they lose the vehicle.
Why would they give landing info out then? And wouldn't it make sense to let people know ahead of time? If they say it's going to burn up on reentry beforehand, it looks MUCH better than saying afterwards "We knew it was going to." Sometimes the need to find a conspiracy overrides the better choice 
|
|
|
|
Prober
|
|
« Reply #524 on: 06/12/2012 02:12 PM » |
|
X-37B is over the Pacific right now, on a track that passes not far from VAFB. It will see similar daylight morning (Pacific Time) passes during coming days, but no passes at night. The last landing was at night, as I recall.
- Ed Kyle
I do hope that means a daylight landing. Would love to see footage of the approach and touchdown (the last landing was at night, as you noted, Ed, so we only got to see the rollout after touchdown.)
Yes, but that's because the Air Force didn't want to show anything else. It clearly would have had infrared tracking video of the entire approach and landing, but none of that has been released.
- Ed Kyle
And that puzzles me. For a vehicle that started out as a NASA project, I wouldn't think the aerodynamic qualities of the vehicle would be a secret.
If say a payload door would swing open during landing it might show the cargo.
I'm hard-pressed to imagine how that could happen. If the payload bay door is secure enough to endure the forces encountered during a successful re-entry, I don't know what would cause it 'pop open' at the last minute during approach and landing.
my poor example.....Keep in mind OTV-2 is a “test” spacecraft.
|
|
|
|
