NASASpaceFlight.com Forum
Commercial and US Government Launch Vehicles => ULA - Delta, Atlas, Vulcan => Topic started by: Chris Bergin on 04/05/2010 11:30 pm
-
Specific launch thread for the Atlas V launch of the "baby orbiter".
Launch Preview - By William Graham:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/04/live-atlas-v-launch-x-37b-otv/
ULA Mission Booklet:
-
Apparently they are transferring the X-37B in the shroud from Titusville to the pad this morning. One of our NASA guys coming in this morning noticed quite a bit of commotion at the visitors center and noted that the spacecraft and shroud were stopped in the road near the visitors center. There were numerous fire trucks and firemen in the area. He later learned that the transporter system had a hydraulic failure which was not hardware threatening but we usually carry things to extremes out here so it turned into a big circus. Also because of the sensitivity of this payload security is very tight and breaking down in the road really upsets those guys too. I am glad I don't come in from that direction. When I came through HQ area I noticed they had two security vehicles blocking the exit from out of KSC towards Titusville.
-
-
-
It is passing by the OSB on the way to Pad 41 at the moment. In fact I just looked out the window and it was turning the corner onto the road pass the VAB towards Pad 39A. I guess it was a better route then crossing the KSC\Cape bridge. I remember back in 1975 when they brought the Viking spacecraft out on the same route on the way to the Titan pads. They were on the opposite side of SR3 near the VAB and they made us pull the car off the road and turn off the engine as the transporter passed by.
-
-
-
-
I guess it was a better route then crossing the KSC\Cape bridge.
It can't handle the weight. All payloads going from Astrotech to SLC-41 or SLC-37 go by LC-39.
-
Movement of the X-37 in this manner just has that surreal Fritz Lang SciFi feel...
-
Apparently they are transferring the X-37B in the shroud from Titusville to the pad this morning. One of our NASA guys coming in this morning noticed quite a bit of commotion at the visitors center and noted that the spacecraft and shroud were stopped in the road near the visitors center. There were numerous fire trucks and firemen in the area. He later learned that the transporter system had a hydraulic failure which was not hardware threatening but we usually carry things to extremes out here so it turned into a big circus. ...
The plan was likely to accomplish this transfer during the pre-dawn hours. Some officials not happy with the extra attention this morning I suspect.
- Ed Kyle
-
May not be appropriate for this thread..if not, Mods please delete....
I'm going to be in Florida on the 19th...short drive for me to the Cape area....just wondering if there is "best" place to watch this launch ???...Visitors Center ??...other location ???
-
May not be appropriate for this thread..if not, Mods please delete....
I'm going to be in Florida on the 19th...short drive for me to the Cape area....just wondering if there is "best" place to watch this launch ???...Visitors Center ??...other location ???
Although this thread is for the shuttle, a lot of the information applies, unless you have access to the Cape.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=2667.0
-
Apparently they are transferring the X-37B in the shroud from Titusville to the pad this morning. One of our NASA guys coming in this morning noticed quite a bit of commotion at the visitors center and noted that the spacecraft and shroud were stopped in the road near the visitors center. There were numerous fire trucks and firemen in the area. He later learned that the transporter system had a hydraulic failure which was not hardware threatening but we usually carry things to extremes out here so it turned into a big circus. ...
The plan was likely to accomplish this transfer during the pre-dawn hours. Some officials not happy with the extra attention this morning I suspect.
- Ed Kyle
Payload transfer wasn't a secret. There are a lot of people that see this happen regularly.
-
Apparently they are transferring the X-37B in the shroud from Titusville to the pad this morning. One of our NASA guys coming in this morning noticed quite a bit of commotion at the visitors center and noted that the spacecraft and shroud were stopped in the road near the visitors center. There were numerous fire trucks and firemen in the area. He later learned that the transporter system had a hydraulic failure which was not hardware threatening but we usually carry things to extremes out here so it turned into a big circus. ...
The plan was likely to accomplish this transfer during the pre-dawn hours. Some officials not happy with the extra attention this morning I suspect.
- Ed Kyle
Payload transfer wasn't a secret. There are a lot of people that see this happen regularly.
Not a secret, but traditionally done at night to help with spacecraft thermal management and to avoid traffic tie-ups. A third consideration, for this and other classified missions, would be to minimize the public profile, so to speak.
- Ed Kyle
-
Launch has moved to the 20th.
-
Launch has moved to the 20th.
Any particular reason given (and declassified ;) )?
-
Shuttle landing
-
Launch has moved to the 21st. I'll let Jim describe the reasons.
-
Does anyone know the duration the X-37B will stay in orbit for this test flight? I do see its set to fly again next year, so pardon me on this, Not up to speed much on this new orbiter, but will this only fly military hardware to orbit? Thats pretty much all I was able to find on this. I know it will not be a NASA system, but I assume it is re usable like the shuttle?
-
Does anyone know the duration the X-37B will stay in orbit for this test flight?
They could tell you, but then they'd have to shoot you.
Launch has moved to the 21st. I'll let Jim describe the reasons.
If the shuttle mission is extended again, could the Atlas V launch be returned to the 20th?
-
If the shuttle mission is extended again, could the Atlas V launch be returned to the 20th?
It could happen, but that's not likely, in my experience. I'd like to be made a liar.
-
Atlas launch is on a day-for-day slip now with the orbiter landing. Orbiter landing on Tuesday will push Atlas to Thursday.
-
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21045.msg579930#msg579930
Mission patch
-
Atlas launch is on a day-for-day slip now with the orbiter landing. Orbiter landing on Tuesday will push Atlas to Thursday.
All good now in ShuttleLand, so the 22nd.
-
Cape Canaveral AFS, Fla. (April 21, 2010) - A United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket with the Air Force’s Orbital Test Vehicle (OTV) rolls out to its Space Launch Complex-41 launch pad arriving at 11 a.m. EDT today. The launch of the OTV mission is set for Thursday with a launch window of 7:52-8:01 p.m. EDT. The OTV, also known as the X-37B, supports space experimentation, risk reduction, and concept of operations development for long duration and reusable space vehicle technologies. Photos by Pat Corkery, United Launch Alliance.
-
The 'fat top' 5m PLF makes the Atlas-V-5xx look like a completely different vehicle to the -4xx. It occurs to me that this is very broadly what the -502 would look like if it were to be used to launch a Boeing-Bigelow Orion-Lite.
Looking forward to the future... :)
-
Will there be any live feeds coming up?
-
http://ulalaunch.com/site/default.shtml
"The live broadcast of the Atlas V OTV launch on April 22 will begin at 7:32 p.m. EDT on the ULA Web site."
-
The 'fat top' 5m PLF makes the Atlas-V-5xx look like a completely different vehicle to the -4xx. It occurs to me that this is very broadly what the -502 would look like if it were to be used to launch a Boeing-Bigelow Orion-Lite.
Looking forward to the future... :)
The boeing/ bigelow capsule will look alot like a 4m PLF. It sits directly on the unshrouded Centaur. So the stack looks much more like a 4xx vehicle.
-
From the ratio of width to length, the fairing can be determined to be in the "short" configuration. I'm surprised they can fit the X-37 and Centaur in there.
-
From the ratio of width to length, the fairing can be determined to be in the "short" configuration. I'm surprised they can fit the X-37 and Centaur in there.
Of course, we would never know if they haven't fit a Centaur in there but are testing some top-secret super-duper USAF-only upper stage as well as the X-37. ;)
-
From the ratio of width to length, the fairing can be determined to be in the "short" configuration. I'm surprised they can fit the X-37 and Centaur in there.
Looks like the fairing only covers the X-37, not the Centaur:
http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/100413-f-0000x-101.jpg
Isn't that unusual for the 501? I've seen pics of the 401 with the fairing on top of an exposed Centaur, but not 501.
-
There is a portion of the fairing that covers the Centaur. It's installed separately, and was present for the tanking test.
-
What time is the launch scheduled?
-
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/pages/Multimedia_Webcast.shtml
Date/Launch Time/Site: April 22 from Space Launch Complex-41 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Fla. The launch window for April 22 is 7:52-8:01 p.m. EDT. If the launch scrubs, a second attempt is set for April 23.
Viewing the Launch Online: A live simulcast of the TV broadcast will be available here on the ULA Web site, at 7:32 p.m. EDT on launch day.
-
Looks like the fairing only covers the X-37, not the Centaur:
http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/100413-f-0000x-101.jpg
Wow, surprised the Air Force released that picture. Thanks for the link.
-
What's the stuff lining the interior of the PLF. Sound insulation?
-
http://www.af.mil/photos/media_search.asp?q=x-37&btnG.x=0&btnG.y=0
-
What's the stuff lining the interior of the PLF. Sound insulation?
The silver material with donuts is FAP (fairing acoustic protection)
-
Wow, surprised the Air Force released that picture. Thanks for the link.
The X-37 itself is not classified.
-
What's the stuff lining the interior of the PLF. Sound insulation?
The silver material with donuts is FAP (fairing acoustic protection)
Thanks. :)
-
Moved for live coverage
-
Launch Preview - By William Graham:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/04/live-atlas-v-launch-x-37b-otv/
-
No video, but the ELV portal is showing countdown events.
http://countdown.ksc.nasa.gov/elv/
-
ULa webcast will be available here:
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/pages/Multimedia_Webcast.shtml
-
http://www.af.mil/photos/media_search.asp?q=x-37&btnG.x=0&btnG.y=0
The caption is wrong for the photo of the vehicle on a runway. That looks like is the VAFB runway.
X-37B was in the Astrotech facility at VAFB before it went to CCAFS.
-
Nice pictures. Thanks for the link Jim.
-
What's the stuff lining the interior of the PLF. Sound insulation?
The silver material with donuts is FAP (fairing acoustic protection)
What is it made of? Aluminium?
-
Shot from the Shuttle Pad FSS
-
What's the stuff lining the interior of the PLF. Sound insulation?
The silver material with donuts is FAP (fairing acoustic protection)
What is it made of? Aluminium?
Per the rather wonderful Atlas V User's Guide page 6-22(http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/product_cards/guides/AtlasVUsersGuide2010.pdf) they are foil covered foam.
--Nick
-
Sorry for the offtopic post, but is there a ULA link for live coverage?
Orbiter
-
Yes. http://mfile.akamai.com/29730/live/reflector:58048.asx?bkup=58227 (http://mfile.akamai.com/29730/live/reflector:58048.asx?bkup=58227)
Thomas
-
ULA just sent this out as a main point of getting to the webcast assets:
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/pages/Multimedia_Webcast.shtml
-
Cryo loading started.
-
T-100 minutes and counting, about two hours to launch.
-
First stage LOX loading underway.
-
Chilldown of the Centaur LH2 lines should now be underway.
-
As Jim noted earlier in this thread, the X-37 itself is not classified. With that said, does anyone know if we will have some live Rocketcam views during the launch? Such as PLF separation, or Centaur separation?
-
T-60 minutes and counting, about 80 minutes until launch.
-
As Jim noted earlier in this thread, the X-37 itself is not classified. With that said, does anyone know if we will have some live Rocketcam views during the launch? Such as PLF separation, or Centaur separation?
No, because there isn't a RocketCam on this mission.
-
T-40 minutes, now one hour away from launch. Flight Termination System tests should now be in progress.
-
Really have been looking forward to the launch of "the flying twinkie :o "
:D GO ATLAS GO CENTAUR!
-
Amazing to think that the white area on the first stage is all ice!
-
ULa webcast will be available here:
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/pages/Multimedia_Webcast.shtml
At what time, does the webcast start?
P.S. For those trying to record it, here is the direct link to the video stream:
http://mfile.akamai.com/29730/live/reflector:58048.asx?bkup=58227
-
Amazing to think that the white area on the first stage is all ice!
more like frost
-
-
-
-
T-12m
-
That live link is not working for me. Any other links?
-
-
9 minutes to the start of webcast
-
-
T-4 minutes and holding. 20 minute built in hold, 24 minutes until launch.
The Minotaur has finally launched, lets see if Atlas can make it 2/2. Go Atlas, Go Centaur, Go X-37B OTV-1.
-
That live link is not working for me. Any other links?
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/pages/Webcast.shtml
http://mfile.akamai.com/29730/live/reflector:58048.asx?bkup=58227
-
-
-
Chris is good to go!
-
-
webcast begins
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ULA taking timelapse tips from Ron there!
-
-
15 minutes of the hold remaining.
-
-
-
-
Team is not working any issues at this time. Launch remains set for 7:52 p.m. eastern time.
-
-
Launch team polling shortly.
-
-
-
Polling team
-
-
28 stations polled. GO to come out of the hold.
-
polling complete, all go
-
Internal power
-
Out of the hold!
-
T-4 minutes and counting
-
Coming out of the hold.
-
-
02 tanks to flight pressure
-
According to the ELV portal this is a direct ascent mission, with spacecraft separation occurring at T+ 20 minutes and 7 seconds.
-
-
internal power
-
Vehicle internal. Launch Sequencer start.
-
-
Launch enable. FTS armed.
-
-
T-60 seconds.
-
Stable at step 3.
-
Go atlas Centaur!
-
Go Atlas, Go Centaur!
-
LAUNCH!!
-
Vehicle Pitch Program.
-
-
-
Nominal booster engine performance.
-
MaxQ - Supersonic.
-
-
Mq
-
2136 mph.
-
-
2.5G throttling for fairing jettison.
-
-
Payload Fairing Jettison.
-
Throttling back up.
-
Figures they cut the live image just prior to fairing jettison :)
-
BECO!
-
I wish they had a rocket cam on this.
-
1-2 Sep.
Centaur ignition.
-
-
They killed the TV feed just before fairing sep... interesting
-
-
anyone notice the line that stuck on the fairing after liftoff?
-
anyone notice the line that stuck on the fairing after liftoff?
I think that's normal. Or at least it is on a 400-series, IIRC that question has been asked on at least two previous launches.
-
anyone notice the line that stuck on the fairing after liftoff?
Yeah, that clearly "stood out" from the second stage. Didn't result in any issues, though.
-
anyone notice the line that stuck on the fairing after liftoff?
I did notice that, wasn't sure what it was!
-
Awesome launch!
X-37B is now on it's way to spy on China, North Korea and Iran! Oops, I've said too much... ;)
-
They killed the TV feed just before fairing sep... interesting
Its a military spaceplane. Classified to an extent.
-
hopefully that isn't a centaur feed line leaking H2 or O2
-
I noticed it didn't seem to bother it much.
-
Any estimate from ground camera views of ascent what the launch azimuth was? More or less due east, or shuttle-ISS-like to the NE??
-
-
Launch time: 2352:00.242UTC
-
Any estimate from ground camera views of ascent what the launch azimuth was? More or less due east, or shuttle-ISS-like to the NE??
East. Looks like it'll end up in a 28.5 orbit. Geosynch, anyone?
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdCpuv9RCwE
-
Any estimate from ground camera views of ascent what the launch azimuth was? More or less due east, or shuttle-ISS-like to the NE??
East. Looks like it'll end up in a 28.5 orbit. Geosynch, anyone?
Double it, but I guess the answer is clear, bzz top secret :P
-
Any estimate from ground camera views of ascent what the launch azimuth was? More or less due east, or shuttle-ISS-like to the NE??
The LHA was East South East.
-
16,100 mph.
-
MECO-1
-
MECO1!
-
MECO
-
"At the request of our customer, we are ending our coverage".
-
Did not get it, but looks like the Centaur/OTV-1 were maneuvering attitude
-
ELV portal data suggests S/C sep in about a minute, followed by another Centaur burn about 25 minutes later, lasting about 2 minutes.
-
I assume they are going to swiftly note if the launch was successful - such as s/c sep and the OTV's performance?
-
From earlier:
-
East. Looks like it'll end up in a 28.5 orbit. Geosynch, anyone?
Thanks.
If I wanted to go out on a limb, I'd say the final orbit might be incl 20 degrees (with centaur restart at node), using the excess booster performance for plane change.
Fly a low orbit where few can observe it EVER. Do whatever you want with no witnesses.
Land at Hickam.
Oh, yeah, they lied about Vandenberg.
Just fantasizing. Doubt it will be anywhere near as sexy as that orbit.
-
hopefully that isn't a centaur feed line leaking H2 or O2
It's a centaur vent line intentionally leaking H2.
-
-
-
If the ELV portal data is correct, spacecraft separation has now occurred. The second Centaur burn (probably a disposal burn) is scheduled to last 2 minutes and 28 seconds.
Given the long first burn and relatively low payload mass, a direct ascent trajectory seems likely.
-
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKKgmqxjCM8
-
If the ELV portal data is correct, spacecraft separation has now occurred. The second Centaur burn (probably a disposal burn) is scheduled to last 2 minutes and 28 seconds.
Yeah, they said minimal hydrazine burn
-
With this release being sent out, it means s/c sep.
United Launch Alliance Atlas V Successfully Launches OTV Mission
Cape Canaveral AFS, Fla., (April 22, 2010) – A United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket successfully launched the Orbital Test Vehicle (OTV) for the Air Force’s Rapid Capabilities Office at 7:52 p.m. EDT today from Space Launch Complex- 41. The OTV, also known as the X-37B, supports space experimentation, risk reduction and concept of operations development for long duration and reusable space vehicle technologies. This launch marks the third mission for ULA in 2010 and second Atlas V mission.
“ULA is proud to have played a critical role in the success of this important test mission of the Orbital Test Vehicle,” said Mark Wilkins, ULA vice president of Atlas programs. “This was a tremendous launch campaign highlighted by close teamwork between the U.S. Air Force, the ULA launch team and our many mission partners that made today’s successful launch possible.”
This mission was launched aboard an Atlas V 501 5.4m fairing configuration. This entailed using a single common core booster powered by the RD-180 engine and a single RL-10A engine Centaur upper stage.
ULA's next launch, currently scheduled for May 20, is the Air Force’s first Block II-F navigation satellite for the Global Positioning System (GPS) aboard a Delta IV rocket from Space Launch Complex-37 here.
ULA program management, engineering, test and mission support functions are headquartered in Denver, Colo. Manufacturing, assembly and integration operations are located at Decatur, Ala., Harlingen, Texas, San Diego, Calif., and Denver, Colo. Launch operations are located at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Fla., and Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif.
For more information on the ULA joint venture, visit the ULA Web site at www.ulalaunch.com, or call the ULA Launch Hotline at 1-877-ULA-4321 (852-4321).
-
Spaceflight Now is reporting that separation has indeed occurred.
-
Looks like the live feed ended on spaceflight now?
-
Thanks.
If I wanted to go out on a limb, I'd say the final orbit might be incl 20 degrees (with centaur restart at node), using the excess booster performance for plane change.
Fly a low orbit where few can observe it EVER. Do whatever you want with no witnesses.
Land at Hickam.
Oh, yeah, they lied about Vandenberg.
Just fantasizing. Doubt it will be anywhere near as sexy as that orbit.
But imagine a GEO mission with a winged vehicle - do some tests of satellite inspection technology, then a looooong descent to landing.
-
Well, at least the United States will still have a sibling vehicle going up into space, one with a vertical launch and glider landing.
Congrats ULA. It was a pretty launch too. Good reliable Atlas.
-
Thanks.
If I wanted to go out on a limb, I'd say the final orbit might be incl 20 degrees (with centaur restart at node), using the excess booster performance for plane change.
Fly a low orbit where few can observe it EVER. Do whatever you want with no witnesses.
Land at Hickam.
Oh, yeah, they lied about Vandenberg.
Just fantasizing. Doubt it will be anywhere near as sexy as that orbit.
But imagine a GEO mission with a winged vehicle - do some tests of satellite inspection technology, then a looooong descent to landing.
I don't think the X37 shape can handle a reentry from GEO it would be close to a lunar return.
Now the HL20 probably could pull it off with an ablative such as PICA or Avcoat on the hottest parts.
-
From my vantage point, it looks like I saw the fairing seperate. There were three bright points of light flickering as they moved away from the central booster. Looked pretty cool. I will have to play with my photos to see what I really saw and post it.
-
hopefully that isn't a centaur feed line leaking H2 or O2
It's a centaur vent line intentionally leaking H2.
Really? I was under the impression it was just a quick disconnect that didn't pop off.
-
From my vantage point, it looks like I saw the fairing seperate. There were three bright points of light flickering as they moved away from the central booster. Looked pretty cool. I will have to play with my photos to see what I really saw and post it.
Should have been FOUR pieces if the animation was accurate.
-
From my vantage point, it looks like I saw the fairing seperate. There were three bright points of light flickering as they moved away from the central booster. Looked pretty cool. I will have to play with my photos to see what I really saw and post it.
Cool. Yes please!
-
Have to wonder whether HTV-2A and this launch were related.... or just a coincidence
-
Photo by Pat Corkery, United Launch Alliance.
-
hopefully that isn't a centaur feed line leaking H2 or O2
It's a centaur vent line intentionally leaking H2.
Really? I was under the impression it was just a quick disconnect that didn't pop off.
I've checked, and it is definitely normal.
It was much clearer on the LRO launch, if you look in the videos section or on Youtube.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKKgmqxjCM8
Beautiful time of evening for a launch. Atlas is a good looking vehicle, compared to Delta IVs.
-
Atlas and Delta both look better running 'clean' --without solids and their opaque exhaust.
-
Centaur should have just restarted for its second (disposal/depletion) burn.
-
T+47:37, MECO-2
-
Photo by Pat Corkery, United Launch Alliance.
Beauty. :)
-
Have to wonder whether HTV-2A and this launch were related.... or just a coincidence
HTV-2A was splashed in the water by the time of the X-37B launch.
-
OK, three shots, 1st one is just as it came from the camera, of course I zoomed in a lot. The second I adjusted the brightness, and the third fiddled with the blue.
It looks to me like there are definantly 2 shround sections, and maybe 4 that you can see in the more processed versions. I suppose the dimmer ones could be stars, but at 1/250th of a second, I don't think I would be seeing them in the light that we had.
-
OK, heres some more from ignition/liftoff to altitude. The 2nd to last could be the shroud coming off, while the last one shows the shroud seperated.
6 and 7 I think are very striking with the white of the payload shroud against the dark sky, lit up by the sun.
300mm Zoom Lens with a Nikon D80. Manual Focus, 1/650th of a second.
-
From my vantage point, it looks like I saw the fairing seperate. There were three bright points of light flickering as they moved away from the central booster. Looked pretty cool. I will have to play with my photos to see what I really saw and post it.
Yeah, fairing sep was very visible. The acoustic blankets occasionally caught the sun and flashed like a strobe light.
-
This is probably a stupid question, but I can't shake the feeling the video cutoff just before PLF sep was on purpose.
Is there some reason to prevent people from seeing the event- ITAR type stuff, maybe?
If not, why cut the feed? Could there have been another payload inside, or unannounced mods to the spacecraft that we aren't supposed to know about?
Thanks for your patience,
Jeff
-
Here my launch pics
-
-
-
There's mention on Spaceflight Now of a reinforcement member that supports the base of that bulbous shroud assembly also being jettisoned.
--- CHAS
-
OK, three shots, 1st one is just as it came from the camera, of course I zoomed in a lot. The second I adjusted the brightness, and the third fiddled with the blue.
It looks to me like there are definantly 2 shround sections, and maybe 4 that you can see in the more processed versions. I suppose the dimmer ones could be stars, but at 1/250th of a second, I don't think I would be seeing them in the light that we had.
two are the fairing and two are the CFLR deck. (centaur forward load reactor)
-
hopefully that isn't a centaur feed line leaking H2 or O2
It's a centaur vent line intentionally leaking H2.
Really? I was under the impression it was just a quick disconnect that didn't pop off.
It is the GH2 vent fin.
-
This is probably a stupid question, but I can't shake the feeling the video cutoff just before PLF sep was on purpose.
Is there some reason to prevent people from seeing the event- ITAR type stuff, maybe?
If not, why cut the feed? Could there have been another payload inside, or unannounced mods to the spacecraft that we aren't supposed to know about?
Thanks for your patience,
Jeff
Answers:
Yes, it was on purpose.
Unlikely that it's an ITAR reason.
Because they don't want you to see it.
Unlikely that there was another payload inside - you saw pictures of encapsulation - not much else would fit.
If there were mods to the spacecraft, how would you know?
-
This is probably a stupid question, but I can't shake the feeling the video cutoff just before PLF sep was on purpose.
Is there some reason to prevent people from seeing the event- ITAR type stuff, maybe?
If not, why cut the feed? Could there have been another payload inside, or unannounced mods to the spacecraft that we aren't supposed to know about?
Thanks for your patience,
Jeff
Answers:
Yes, it was on purpose.
Unlikely that it's an ITAR reason.
Because they don't want you to see it.
Unlikely that there was another payload inside - you saw pictures of encapsulation - not much else would fit.
If there were mods to the spacecraft, how would you know?
I don't really understand why they don't want us to see it... we've already seen it at encapsulation. I wonder if it is just part of a standard package of agreements between USAF and ULA, for a mission of secrecy category such-and-such you (1) cut off the video at PLF sep (2) don't release orbital elements (3) don't do this that and the other. They are being cagey about the orbital elements (for no very good reason perhaps but that's another argument) and so they categorized the mission that way, the video cutoff came as part of that package rather than being something they really cared about...
I don't insist on this interpretation, but just to bear in mind the way organizations work, sometimes stuff is done without there being a deeply thought through reason.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKKgmqxjCM8
Beautiful time of evening for a launch. Atlas is a good looking vehicle, compared to Delta IVs.
Kind of looks like Ares, dont it ? Delta IV heavy has a certain 'spacey' look to it, IMO. I like them all.
-
Very stately acceleration at lift-off without solids.. reminds me of Saturn V..
Especially compared to the way shuttle bolts off the pad with the solids lit.
-
so, nothing on space-track.org yet, any TLE's floating around ? ;)
-
Congratulations Shuttle Mini-Me!
;D
-
hopefully that isn't a centaur feed line leaking H2 or O2
It's a centaur vent line intentionally leaking H2.
Really? I was under the impression it was just a quick disconnect that didn't pop off.
It is the GH2 vent fin.
And this is the first time I've seen it venting visible from the ground in the launch footage, starting at about T+2 min 40 s.
-
Ben's are up :o
http://www.launchphotography.com/X-37_OTV.html
-
Ben's are up :o
http://www.launchphotography.com/X-37_OTV.html
whoa. must say, that first shot is rockin'. 8)
-
FWIW, I've never seen an Atlas-V launch where the ground tracking camera has continued to PLF jettison. I don't think that there is anything sinister about that.
The sudden cut-off of the coverage before the alleged s/c seperation is another matter. Hypothetically - would the USAF be allowed to instruct ULA to falsify data on the ELV portal as to the time of s/c seperation on the grounds of operational security? Frankly, that Centaur was an awfully powerful upper stage to throw a relatively small cargo into LEO. I can see a scenario where the USAF wouldn't want X-37's final inclination and insertion apogee known. China does have ASAT capability after all, and accidents can happen, especially because of excitable and easily-silenced junior officers who were acting without authorisation or the knowledge of their superiors.
Gee... I sound like a Tom Clancy novel, don't I? ;)
More seriously, I wonder if we will eventually get some redacted imagry of the later stages of the flight. If I were in the USAF testing team I'd want cameras on board, both to take stills of various systems in action and to allow live video to assist trouble-shooting if required. Once sansitive information is redacted, videos of the ascent and orbital operations might become available in a few years' time.
-
1. Hypothetically - would the USAF be allowed to instruct ULA to falsify data on the ELV portal as to the time of s/c seperation on the grounds of operational security?
2. More seriously, I wonder if we will eventually get some redacted imagry of the later stages of the flight. If I were in the USAF testing team I'd want cameras on board, both to take stills of various systems in action and to allow live video to assist trouble-shooting if required. Once sansitive information is redacted, videos of the ascent and orbital operations might become available in a few years' time.
The ELV portal is run by NASA. They would not falsify the info, they just would not release the info
2. Imagery from where? Onboard cameras? Hundreds of spacecraft are flown without cameras and they work fine without them. It is not worth the effort or bandwith.
-
Has anyone seen this amazing X-37 landing test video (sshh, it's Top Secret)! ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxJzPngPMo4
-
Ben's are up :o
http://www.launchphotography.com/X-37_OTV.html
whoa. must say, that first shot is rockin'. 8)
That is some seriously sweet composition. You have to be a good photog and know more than a little about rocket science.
-
FWIW, I've never seen an Atlas-V launch where the ground tracking camera has continued to PLF jettison. I don't think that there is anything sinister about that.
New Horizons launch showed it clearly. 5X1 launches jett the PLF during boost phase, not after Centaur MES. The rest of the 4X1 launches are just too far down range to see anything, they barely resolve the vehicle at BECO.
-
No, launches jettison the PLF based on the free molecular heating requirement. Get rid of it ASAP. Pluto could do it early because the payload was so light that it got to that FMH level faster and maybe, brain is fuzzy on this, because the FMH requirement was slightly high.
-
No, launches jettison the PLF based on the free molecular heating requirement. Get rid of it ASAP. Pluto could do it early because the payload was so light that it got to that FMH level faster and maybe, brain is fuzzy on this, because the FMH requirement was slightly high.
Weren't we over this once already? Isn't the very fact the Centaur is encapsulated in the 5m fairing a requirement to drop the PLF before MES? Hence the (more lofted?) trajectories to accomodate FMH constraints to enable that early enough?
-
Considering the X-37 has a TPS, is there a FMH constraint? or do you just drop the shroud as soon as aero load constraints allow one to?
-
Aero loads for reentry wouldn't be the same as when going uphill. It would orient itself properly to expose the strong TPS into the stream, while this would not be the case on the booster.
-
Guesstimated orbital elements, anybody??
32 inc, 450 km circ?
-
Weren't we over this once already? Isn't the very fact the Centaur is encapsulated in the 5m fairing a requirement to drop the PLF before MES? Hence the (more lofted?) trajectories to accomodate FMH constraints to enable that early enough?
With a 4 minute + burn by the main engine, I don't really see the point of a lofted trajectory, there is no way to burn the engine for over 3 minutes and not be out of the atmosphere, unless you fly close to horizontal in the atmosphere for much of the time.
-
I've been wondering about the nine-minute launch window for this launch.
Shuttle trips to ISS have 10-minute windows because they have to sync up with the space station's orbital plane. So... why a nine-minute window for the X-37B, unless they're planning for it to hook up with something else that's already in orbit? I'll bet there are some smart folks here who could look and see what -- if anything -- was flying overhead at KSC at launch time.
-
Guesstimated orbital elements, anybody??
32 inc, 450 km circ?
Ted Molczan's pre-launch guess was 33.5 inc (no reason given.) and 310 km. He published elements for a range of inclinations:
http://satobs.org/seesat/Apr-2010/0213.html
Should be visible on the descending node over the next few days in southern US.
-
Time for a new non-live thread?
-
Time for a new non-live thread?
All the live event threads continue through post launch.
-
I've been wondering about the nine-minute launch window for this launch.
Shuttle trips to ISS have 10-minute windows because they have to sync up with the space station's orbital plane. So... why a nine-minute window for the X-37B, unless they're planning for it to hook up with something else that's already in orbit? I'll bet there are some smart folks here who could look and see what -- if anything -- was flying overhead at KSC at launch time.
Bad logic.
That is only applicable for ISS inclinations. HST launch windows are longer.
Also, look at some west coast launch windows, they are short too
Also we don't know if that was the whole window. It could have had other later windows.
-
I've been wondering about the nine-minute launch window for this launch.
Shuttle trips to ISS have 10-minute windows because they have to sync up with the space station's orbital plane. So... why a nine-minute window for the X-37B, unless they're planning for it to hook up with something else that's already in orbit? I'll bet there are some smart folks here who could look and see what -- if anything -- was flying overhead at KSC at launch time.
Bad logic.
That is only applicable for ISS inclinations. HST launch windows are longer.
Also, look at some west coast launch windows, they are short too
Also we don't know if that was the whole window. It could have had other later windows.
The nine-minute window was the only one specifically mentioned for launch on this particular date. I'm simply curious: what inferences might be made, if any, based on the fact that a mission that could last up to 270 days was targeted for such a narrow launch window?
-
A beautiful launch!
ULA sure make it *look* easy... Nice work.
-
I've been wondering about the nine-minute launch window for this launch.
Shuttle trips to ISS have 10-minute windows because they have to sync up with the space station's orbital plane. So... why a nine-minute window for the X-37B, unless they're planning for it to hook up with something else that's already in orbit? I'll bet there are some smart folks here who could look and see what -- if anything -- was flying overhead at KSC at launch time.
Bad logic.
That is only applicable for ISS inclinations. HST launch windows are longer.
Also, look at some west coast launch windows, they are short too
Also we don't know if that was the whole window. It could have had other later windows.
The nine-minute window was the only one specifically mentioned for launch on this particular date. I'm simply curious: what inferences might be made, if any, based on the fact that a mission that could last up to 270 days was targeted for such a narrow launch window?
Sun angles are one possibility. They might want certain conditions for opening the payload bay and deploying the solar panel - presumably shortly after reaching orbit.
IMO
- Ed Kyle
-
Thank you, Ed. That makes perfect sense. :)
-
so, nothing on space-track.org yet, any TLE's floating around ? ;)
Space-Track now has the objects in the catalog, but no associated TLEs (clearly they are classified):
36514 OTV 1 (USA 212) 2010-15A
36515 Atlas Centaur R/B 2010-15B
-
Does anyone know how to get a hold of hi-res versions of Stephen Clark's photos of the launch over at SpaceflightNow. I make these images for a living and these area absolutely stunning I could never manufacture this, amazing! Would love to have one for the desktop.
-
Does anyone know how to get a hold of hi-res versions of Stephen Clark's photos of the launch over at SpaceflightNow. I make these images for a living and these area absolutely stunning I could never manufacture this, amazing! Would love to have one for the desktop.
Silly thought, but since he writes/photographs for SpaceflightNow have you tried contacting them? Otherwise you might try to get in touch with him directly via twitter at http://twitter.com/StephenClark1
-
Saw rumor on twitter feed that AF had lost contact with the OTV. Any real news?
-
so, nothing on space-track.org yet, any TLE's floating around ? ;)
Space-Track now has the objects in the catalog, but no associated TLEs (clearly they are classified):
36514 OTV 1 (USA 212) 2010-15A
36515 Atlas Centaur R/B 2010-15B
yeah i saw those, thanks
http://twitter.com/TSKelso
maybe the satsee guys will catch it....
-
Saw rumor on twitter feed that AF had lost contact with the OTV. Any real news?
Contact was lost with the suborbital HTV-2a vehicle launched the same day on a Minotaur IV Lite from Vandenberg AFB. Someone might have crossed stories there.
To my knowledge, no usually sharp-eyed amateurs have spotted X-37B in orbit to date. If contact has been lost, these folks, if they can find it, will be able to tell if it is tumbling, etc..
- Ed Kyle
-
Does anyone know how to get a hold of hi-res versions of Stephen Clark's photos of the launch over at SpaceflightNow. I make these images for a living and these area absolutely stunning I could never manufacture this, amazing! Would love to have one for the desktop.
Those Stephen's shots are indeed absolutely amazing. Most of them are desktop background material, some even poster-worthy material. I wouldn't mind getting my hands on higher resolution versions, either. This was definitely one of the coolest Atlas launches so far.
-
Saw rumor on twitter feed that AF had lost contact with the OTV. Any real news?
Contact was lost with the suborbital HTV-2a vehicle launched the same day on a Minotaur IV Lite from Vandenberg AFB. Someone might have crossed stories there.
To my knowledge, no usually sharp-eyed amateurs have spotted X-37B in orbit to date. If contact has been lost, these folks, if they can find it, will be able to tell if it is tumbling, etc..
- Ed Kyle
I thought it was the OTV that was lost as well. This was because Spaceflightnow described the HTV as a "hypersonic glider testbed" in a status update yesterday. Mentioning that this glider launched on the same day as the X-37B didn't help either.
-
Saw rumor on twitter feed that AF had lost contact with the OTV. Any real news?
Contact was lost with the suborbital HTV-2a vehicle launched the same day on a Minotaur IV Lite from Vandenberg AFB. Someone might have crossed stories there.
To my knowledge, no usually sharp-eyed amateurs have spotted X-37B in orbit to date. If contact has been lost, these folks, if they can find it, will be able to tell if it is tumbling, etc..
Unless its hull coating is low-albedo to avoid ground observation whilst in orbit.
-
Well, most of the X-37 is covered in gray or black TPS material, and it is small, I don't imagine it would be as visible as shuttle or ISS.
When the time comes for X-37 to land at Vandenberg, would that necessarily be released to the public? I suppose, based on where Vandenberg is, its reentry path would be over the ocean and not necessarily observed by anyone, for all we know it could be safely back in its hangar or scattered in a million pieces on the ocean floor. Or it could be doing its thing in orbit somewhere.
-
From Boeing :
Boeing-built Orbital Test Vehicle X-37B Begins 1st Flight
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1180
-
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1180
Avast gives me a warning informing me the page is infected. Probably a false alarm.
-
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1180
Avast gives me a warning informing me the page is infected. Probably a false alarm.
You must use another anti-virus software .
-
From Boeing :
Boeing-built Orbital Test Vehicle X-37B Begins 1st Flight
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1180
I doubt that this has even come close to being decided yet. However, I wonder if this particular vehicle will be reused or whether the USAF will completely disassemble it to assess the effect of the flight on the vehicle and all its components?
-
Well, most of the X-37 is covered in gray or black TPS material, and it is small, I don't imagine it would be as visible as shuttle or ISS.
It has a solar array which, if it deployed correctly, should increase visibility. Part of the problem for ground observers is its likely low-inclination. It probably doesn't fly over Europe, for example.
If the solar array didn't deploy correctly, an early abort reentry was probably planned. I doubt it could reenter and land at Vandenberg without someone noticing! And what about the Centaur for this mission? Hard to believe no one has spotted it yet either.
- Ed Kyle
-
And what about the Centaur for this mission? Hard to believe no one has spotted it yet either.
It did perform a burn after separation. Although it was assumed that it raised its orbit, it could have been a deorbit burn.
-
From Boeing :
Boeing-built Orbital Test Vehicle X-37B Begins 1st Flight
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1180
Great shots on the link BUT...
Looks like only Press members can get the Hi-res versions.
Any members of the press care to post these Hi-res photos on this thread? There is one in particular that shows the belly quite nicely.
-
And what about the Centaur for this mission? Hard to believe no one has spotted it yet either.
It did perform a burn after separation. Although it was assumed that it raised its orbit, it could have been a deorbit burn.
A source has informed me that the Centaur is still in orbit.
-
Escape velocity firing was heard on the broadcast during launch.
-
I have uploaded the entire 40 minutes ULA webcast of the X-37b launch on Megaupload:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=T1REZTXM
P.S. For those that are not familiar with Megaupload, you must first enter the code that is shown on the page, wait for the countdown to reach zero and you then click "regular download".
See also here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21359.0
-
Escape velocity firing was heard on the broadcast during launch.
Are you suggesting that the Centaur went into an escape trajectory? Is that possible? Why not deorbit the stage instead?
???
-
Escape velocity firing was heard on the broadcast during launch.
Are you suggesting that the Centaur went into an escape trajectory? Is that possible? Why not deorbit the stage instead?
???
If sent on escape trajectory (or any other) would this be the first stage without a payload in a similar path?
-
If [the Centaur was] sent on escape trajectory (or any other) would this be the first stage without a payload in a similar path?
No; see AV-017 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19147.msg491534#msg491534) last October, as well as Apollo 9's S-IVB. There may have been others.
-
Also MRO (AV-007) & PNH (AV-010)
-
Maybe they want the Centaur hanging around so that they can play tag or hide-and-seek with it?
-
Escape velocity firing was heard on the broadcast during launch.
really? Very interesting... I thought the commentary stopped at Centaur MECO-1... when did they talk about the escape vel. firing?
-
Escape velocity firing was heard on the broadcast during launch.
That's weird. Could it be a deep-space tracking test with low-power transmissions - trying to keep a lock on the Centaur's telemetry transmissions for as long as possible?
It wouldn't necessarily be a hazard if its orbit re-intersects with Earth in time.
-
Wasn't it discussed during AV-017 that from a safety/paperwork stand point that if the stage can go to escape it is easier and safer to do than make sure it re-enters in a safe manner.
Besides, on a "supper duper hush hush" mission like this you don't have to issue a NOTAM's for where the upper stage came down. That helps keep the cards a "little" closer.
-
really? Very interesting... I thought the commentary stopped at Centaur MECO-1... when did they talk about the escape vel. firing?
There were at least two web feeds and while the ones I saw cut off images at the same time, sound went on for a bit longer on one of them. I heard them say something about a disposal burn to escape for the Centaur.
-
Maybe they want the Centaur hanging around so that they can play tag or hide-and-seek with it?
That would be tag or hide-and-seek with a dead Centaur, wouldn't it?
-
Wasn't it discussed during AV-017 that from a safety/paperwork stand point that if the stage can go to escape it is easier and safer to do than make sure it re-enters in a safe manner.
Besides, on a "supper duper hush hush" mission like this you don't have to issue a NOTAM's for where the upper stage came down. That helps keep the cards a "little" closer.
On the other hand, we may pick it up in an asteroid survey... will be interesting to see.
-
really? Very interesting... I thought the commentary stopped at Centaur MECO-1... when did they talk about the escape vel. firing?
There were at least two web feeds and while the ones I saw cut off images at the same time, sound went on for a bit longer on one of them. I heard them say something about a disposal burn to escape for the Centaur.
There was the ULA webcast and the Spaceflight now webcast. The ULA webcast stopped at Centaur Meco-1. I will check the Spaceflight now webcast tonight.
-
Maybe they want the Centaur hanging around so that they can play tag or hide-and-seek with it?
That would be tag or hide-and-seek with a dead Centaur, wouldn't it?
Is it dead?
Thomas
-
It only lasts a couple of hours I think.
-
Escape velocity firing was heard on the broadcast during launch.
Are you suggesting that the Centaur went into an escape trajectory? Is that possible? Why not deorbit the stage instead?
???
If sent on escape trajectory (or any other) would this be the first stage without a payload in a similar path?
Just the empty Centaur, after the payload was separated.
-
It only lasts a couple of hours I think.
Unless somebody wants it to say alive longer. LCROSS's Centaur was lasted a few months.
-
It only lasts a couple of hours I think.
Unless somebody wants it to say alive longer. LCROSS's Centaur was lasted a few months.
No, LCROSS's Centaur did not last a few months. The Centaur was a dead mass attached to LCROSS
-
really? Very interesting... I thought the commentary stopped at Centaur MECO-1... when did they talk about the escape vel. firing?
There were at least two web feeds and while the ones I saw cut off images at the same time, sound went on for a bit longer on one of them. I heard them say something about a disposal burn to escape for the Centaur.
There was the ULA webcast and the Spaceflight now webcast. The ULA webcast stopped at Centaur Meco-1. I will check the Spaceflight now webcast tonight.
Unfortunately, the audio of my recording of the Spaceflight now coverage was completely garbled after the launch. I couldn't make out what they were saying.
-
It only lasts a couple of hours I think.
Unless somebody wants it to say alive longer. LCROSS's Centaur was lasted a few months.
No, LCROSS's Centaur did not last a few months. The Centaur was a dead mass attached to LCROSS
What Jim said.
Folks at Atlas launch control remained for several hours after LRO's launch to vent whatever remaining propellant was inside Centaur, and make it inert for the rest of LCROSS' flight to the Moon
-
From Boeing :
Boeing-built Orbital Test Vehicle X-37B Begins 1st Flight
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1180
Great shots on the link BUT...
Looks like only Press members can get the Hi-res versions.
Any members of the press care to post these Hi-res photos on this thread? There is one in particular that shows the belly quite nicely.
Would anyone have Hi-res copies of of these photos?
Or know where to find them?
Thanks!
-
From Boeing :
Boeing-built Orbital Test Vehicle X-37B Begins 1st Flight
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1180
Great shots on the link BUT...
Looks like only Press members can get the Hi-res versions.
Any members of the press care to post these Hi-res photos on this thread? There is one in particular that shows the belly quite nicely.
Would anyone have Hi-res copies of of these photos?
Or know where to find them?
Thanks!
Here's one.
- Ed Kyle
-
Thanks so much for that picture Ed!
There are some very interesting looking tiles in the belly reading "Antenna". Any idea as to what they might refer to? Antennas located in that area under the tiles (did the original design support something like this), deployable, or something else entirely?
The wing elevons appear to be some kind of higher-heat-resistance material to my very amateur eye (RCC perhaps?), in contrast to the shuttle's.
-
Thanks so much for that picture Ed!
There are some very interesting looking tiles in the belly reading "Antenna". Any idea as to what they might refer to? Antennas located in that area under the tiles (did the original design support something like this), deployable, or something else entirely?
Probably just antenna under the TPS, like the shuttle. The label just provides a location for testing
-
If you knew exactly where to look, you should be able to see the X-37 in the night sky if it went over head. I don’t think Heavens-above has it listed. Is there any chance of getting the necessary info to see when it might go overhead and where to look?
-
No, it's classified and from what I can see even the amateur hunters haven't found it (yet).
-
It's been mentioned before that the X-37 vehicle itself is not classified.
With that said, does anyone know if the landing, whenever it occurs, will be televised? Or recorded and publicly released later? I would certainly like to watch how it flies on approach and landing.
-
Thanks so much for that picture Ed!
Here's a side view, which gives a good look at some of the RCS thrusters. A pair of something that look like trunnion attach points (for ground handling?) are also visible. The only exterior side of this thing that no released photos have shown is the aft end, which is interesting.
The closer I look, the more I see a Rockwell (now part of Boeing) mini-Shuttle. This may end up being the only "Shuttle-Derived" item that survives, at least for the next year or so.
- Ed Kyle
-
It's been mentioned before that the X-37 vehicle itself is not classified.
With that said, does anyone know if the landing, whenever it occurs, will be televised? Or recorded and publicly released later? I would certainly like to watch how it flies on approach and landing.
No, but the mission itself is classified...which means we'll probably find out about the landing and see video of it long after it has taken place.
-
Yes, thanks a bunch for the pictures Ed!
Those were the two I was hoping to get from that Boeing release.
I also enjoyed the "To the Moon, Slowly" article in SLR.
Hopefully we'll see more of your articles in the future.
-
No, it's classified and from what I can see even the amateur hunters haven't found it (yet).
They are looking with a guestimate elset currently, which means a wide range of view to check.
A start would be to tell them the exact launch time, the temp elset i've seen so far are based on a launch at the start of the window....
-
It's been mentioned before that the X-37 vehicle itself is not classified.
With that said, does anyone know if the landing, whenever it occurs, will be televised? Or recorded and publicly released later? I would certainly like to watch how it flies on approach and landing.
No, but the mission itself is classified...which means we'll probably find out about the landing and see video of it long after it has taken place.
I'm grateful for the glimpse they have given us, but of course I'm curious and would love to see the landing (even if after the fact)! But most of all, I just hope that the mission succeeds.
-
WE have all been speculating about the secret purpose of this flight is, but perhaps the flight itself is not the main objective. Sure the AF will get data on unmanned systems as well as new TPS, one of the reasons the craft is staying in orbit so long is to test thermal attitudes ala STS-3.
However one of the big issues with reusable spacecraft (particularly STS) has been turnaround time/labor. If the X-37B can be rapidly turned around for another mission then it is a quantum leap over shuttle, and that is important if one wants to realistically use reusable for military applications quick turnaround time is a necessity.
-
I'm surprised no one has seen the X-37 flyover yet.. its gotta be higher than the Hubble Space Telescope even.
Orbiter
-
Has the AF issued any kind of press release?? Is it possible it may never have reached orbit?? Some Sunday speculation..
-
Is it possible it may never have reached orbit??
No, it is not, there would be news if it didn't make orbit from the Atlas fleet point of view.
-
Kinda strange, but the ULA web site, as I see it this morning (5/2/10) appears to have been "scrubbed" all the way back to the end of February, 2010. The X-37B mission has "disappeared", etc.
http://www.unitedlaunchalliance.com/index.html
It is likely just a web site glitch, but if anyone saved the "before", it will interesting to compare it with the "after" once the site is restored.
- Ed Kyle
-
Kinda strange, but the ULA web site, as I see it this morning (5/2/10) appears to have been "scrubbed" all the way back to the end of February, 2010. The X-37B mission has "disappeared", etc.
http://www.unitedlaunchalliance.com/index.html
It is likely just a web site glitch, but if anyone saved the "before", it will interesting to compare it with the "after" once the site is restored.
- Ed Kyle
See: http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/default.shtml :)
-
Ed, I noticed that as well from my old bookmark.
After doing a ULA search I came accross the "new" address mentioned by astropl.
There is also a Facebook page as well.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/United-Launch-Alliance/131613310378
-
I'm surprised no one has seen the X-37 flyover yet.. its gotta be higher than the Hubble Space Telescope even.
Orbiter
I'm really wondering if there are low-obs aspects to the flight. As had been mentioned earlier. Even, actually, to the extent that there were things we weren't supposed to see even during launch, which would explain that the video was cut right before PLF sep.
A fantasy is that it incorporates some sort of active visual camo on top of low-obs solar arrays and perhaps even anti-radar measures. Has there ever been an acknowledged stealth satellite before?
Jeff
-
Has there ever been an acknowledged stealth satellite before?
It has never been acknowledged as being a stealth satellite, but nobody has ever seen USA-144. It is generally believed to be a "Misty" stealth reconnaissance satellite. An earlier Misty satellite, USA-53, was observed a few times, but I believe amateurs found it difficult to track.
-
However one of the big issues with reusable spacecraft (particularly STS) has been turnaround time/labor. If the X-37B can be rapidly turned around for another mission then it is a quantum leap over shuttle, and that is important if one wants to realistically use reusable for military applications quick turnaround time is a necessity.
I just don't buy it. The biggest problem with this theory is that the vehicle is still tied to a big slow turnaround booster. What good is rapid turnaround if you then have to hop on the next Atlas and then sit and wait and wait?
And what's so great about rapid turnaround anyway? It only makes sense if you are actively developing an entire launch system that can take advantage of it.
You'd really have to explain how and why this differs from the plans for Operationally Responsive Space (ORS). ORS is trying to achieve rapid launch of small payloads to respond to urgent needs. Those payloads are disposable and they're supposed to be cheap. However, ORS is running into some funding troubles lately.
-
It has never been acknowledged as being a stealth satellite, but nobody has ever seen USA-144. It is generally believed to be a "Misty" stealth reconnaissance satellite. An earlier Misty satellite, USA-53, was observed a few times, but I believe amateurs found it difficult to track.
There have been at least four, starting with one of the Lincoln Experimental Satellites back in the 1970s.
-
I'm really wondering if there are low-obs aspects to the flight. As had been mentioned earlier. Even, actually, to the extent that there were things we weren't supposed to see even during launch, which would explain that the video was cut right before PLF sep.
This is one of the few things that I could actually accept as a possible mission. Maybe there's some form of shield in the payload bay designed to deploy and reduce the signature of the vehicle. If nobody spots the X-37B in orbit, I'd give that theory more credence. But I suspect that it's going to be found.
-
There have been at least four, starting with one of the Lincoln Experimental Satellites back in the 1970s.
How do the Lincoln Experimental Satellites fit in this picture? These were experimental communication satellites, none of them appeared to be stealthy.
-
However one of the big issues with reusable spacecraft (particularly STS) has been turnaround time/labor. If the X-37B can be rapidly turned around for another mission then it is a quantum leap over shuttle, and that is important if one wants to realistically use reusable for military applications quick turnaround time is a necessity.
I just don't buy it. The biggest problem with this theory is that the vehicle is still tied to a big slow turnaround booster. What good is rapid turnaround if you then have to hop on the next Atlas and then sit and wait and wait?
And what's so great about rapid turnaround anyway? It only makes sense if you are actively developing an entire launch system that can take advantage of it.
You'd really have to explain how and why this differs from the plans for Operationally Responsive Space (ORS). ORS is trying to achieve rapid launch of small payloads to respond to urgent needs. Those payloads are disposable and they're supposed to be cheap. However, ORS is running into some funding troubles lately.
What would make sense to me is if this is tied to the USAF's boost-back reusable first stage program, with the OTV as the second stage instead of an expendable stack. The problem with this is that the boost-back stage still leaves almost 6km/s at staging that needs to be taken up by the rest of the vehicle in order to get to orbit and the OTV can only do 2km/s, very optimistically. Perhaps the OTV could be modifed with really high performance engines and lighter everything to get more like 3 or 4 km/s, but I really don't see it getting to almost 6km/s without a significantly different design.
There's about 2km/s of delta-v that needs to come from somewhere else to make this possible, so this probably isn't what OTV is all about. Then again, at a bigger scale, maybe this becomes possible.
-
There have been at least four, starting with one of the Lincoln Experimental Satellites back in the 1970s.
How do the Lincoln Experimental Satellites fit in this picture? These were experimental communication satellites, none of them appeared to be stealthy.
You'd think so. But one of them (LES 8 or 9? I forget) was a prototype.
-
However one of the big issues with reusable spacecraft (particularly STS) has been turnaround time/labor. If the X-37B can be rapidly turned around for another mission then it is a quantum leap over shuttle, and that is important if one wants to realistically use reusable for military applications quick turnaround time is a necessity.
I just don't buy it. The biggest problem with this theory is that the vehicle is still tied to a big slow turnaround booster. What good is rapid turnaround if you then have to hop on the next Atlas and then sit and wait and wait?
And what's so great about rapid turnaround anyway? It only makes sense if you are actively developing an entire launch system that can take advantage of it.
You'd really have to explain how and why this differs from the plans for Operationally Responsive Space (ORS). ORS is trying to achieve rapid launch of small payloads to respond to urgent needs. Those payloads are disposable and they're supposed to be cheap. However, ORS is running into some funding troubles lately.
Who ever said you had to launch it again? Simply test the concept by processing the payload to the point where it could launch again. X-37B does not have to be an operational prototype, it could be used for developing another program that does not use EELV class. Also while Atlas is not that fast turn about, with Delta IV (and possibly Falcon IX) one has multiple LV's to select.
-
Who ever said you had to launch it again? Simply test the concept by processing the payload to the point where it could launch again. X-37B does not have to be an operational prototype, it could be used for developing another program that does not use EELV class. Also while Atlas is not that fast turn about, with Delta IV (and possibly Falcon IX) one has multiple LV's to select.
And take it the next step and never launch it in the first place, or even build it.
The problem is that we don't _know_ of any other program in development. USAF has not indicated that this is an applied technology program leading to something else.
-
And what's so great about rapid turnaround anyway? It only makes sense if you are actively developing an entire launch system that can take advantage of it.
The other issue is activation time. For a lot of sensitive instruments, outgassing time and other calibration activities can take weeks, or longer, before useful functions are achieved.
-
... Maybe there's some form of shield in the payload bay designed to deploy and reduce the signature of the vehicle. If nobody spots the X-37B in orbit, I'd give that theory more credence. But I suspect that it's going to be found.
Can we think about that announced second burn of the Centaur? Since it got an identifier, it's in orbit -- somewhere, or at least it was for awhile after the burn.
If the announced time is accurate, doesn't that mean that the burn occurred near the first southbound equator crossing?
And isn't that the point where a plane change is most efficient in lowering orbital inclination?
Even a 25 deg inclination orbit would be magnificently unobservable from major unfriendly tracking facilities, not to mention Europe and NZ -based ground observers, n'est-ce pas??
-
... Maybe there's some form of shield in the payload bay designed to deploy and reduce the signature of the vehicle. If nobody spots the X-37B in orbit, I'd give that theory more credence. But I suspect that it's going to be found.
Can we think about that announced second burn of the Centaur? Since it got an identifier, it's in orbit -- somewhere, or at least it was for awhile after the burn.
If the announced time is accurate, doesn't that mean that the burn occurred near the first southbound equator crossing?
And isn't that the point where a plane change is most efficient in lowering orbital inclination?
Even a 25 deg inclination orbit would be magnificently unobservable from major unfriendly tracking facilities, not to mention Europe and NZ -based ground observers, n'est-ce pas??
A problem with that idea is that Vandenberg AFB, where X-37B is supposed to land, is at 34.772 deg North.
- Ed Kyle
-
That's why you like crossrange. Also, crossrange is needed for landing from polar orbit because a given ground track may be too far east or west of the airfield.
I don't think the bird is at 25, but I'm trying to keep our imaguinations warmed up.
-
That's why you like crossrange. Also, crossrange is needed for landing from polar orbit because a given ground track may be too far east or west of the airfield.
I don't think the bird is at 25, but I'm trying to keep our imaguinations warmed up.
I would expect a low-as-possible crossrange approach on an inaugural mission. Still, "maneuver" was part of the original name for this program, so plane and altitude change demonstrations seem likely. Did we get the flight azimuth for AV-012?
- Ed Kyle
-
The other issue is activation time. For a lot of sensitive instruments, outgassing time and other calibration activities can take weeks, or longer, before useful functions are achieved.
That's something I've never gotten a good description of. Just a few random bits of data:
-DMSP weather satellites take up to 30 days for full activation
-DSP satellites take up to 60 days for full activation
-some large military satellites reportedly take 60-120 days for full activation
-the Chandra X-ray telescope didn't open its cover for a month because of outgassing
But I've seen pictures returned from new commercial remote sensing satellites only a few days after launch.
Now, of course, there's probably a curve to all of this stuff--many of these satellites can probably start returning data only a few days after getting into orbit, but it may take weeks for them to be fully calibrated so that they can return their best data. And scientific satellites, which are much more sensitive, might take months to be calibrated. But "rapid response" has some limitations.
-
Now, of course, there's probably a curve to all of this stuff--many of these satellites can probably start returning data only a few days after getting into orbit, but it may take weeks for them to be fully calibrated so that they can return their best data. And scientific satellites, which are much more sensitive, might take months to be calibrated. But "rapid response" has some limitations.
If it's going to take you one month to call up a launch vehicle for your satellite already built and sitting in a clean room, it's not worth spending a lot of effort to bring the on-orbit activation time from a week to a day. That doesn't mean it's not possible.
Likewise, if it's going to take you four years to design and build your science payload, it's not worth spending the effort to get the instrument checkout and calibration time down below two weeks.
There are a bunch of chicken and egg issues surrounding rapid response, and without a pressing need no one wants to spend the money to solve them all. The best hope for progress is to chip away at the issues with technology demonstration missions, but then you have to deal with people asking "why are you trying to solve problem X when you still have problems W, Y, and Z?"
-
Very good points. It may be possible to design a sensor for more rapid availability. But this may also depend upon a lot of other things. For instance, how much does the spacecraft outgas and do you have to reduce that in order to make the sensor available sooner?
And of course, this is all going to affect cost. So it may be possible to design sensors to go into the payload bay of a rapid response spacecraft (assuming that X-37B is such), but that could end up costing a lot of money.
-
Very good points. It may be possible to design a sensor for more rapid availability. But this may also depend upon a lot of other things. For instance, how much does the spacecraft outgas and do you have to reduce that in order to make the sensor available sooner?
And of course, this is all going to affect cost. So it may be possible to design sensors to go into the payload bay of a rapid response spacecraft (assuming that X-37B is such), but that could end up costing a lot of money.
There's a ton of literature on the responsive space trade-space:
http://www.responsivespace.com/index.asp
-
Very good points. It may be possible to design a sensor for more rapid availability. But this may also depend upon a lot of other things. For instance, how much does the spacecraft outgas and do you have to reduce that in order to make the sensor available sooner?
And of course, this is all going to affect cost. So it may be possible to design sensors to go into the payload bay of a rapid response spacecraft (assuming that X-37B is such), but that could end up costing a lot of money.
Or it might not; it's hard to tell. Maybe you just have to bake your spacecraft in a vacuum chamber for a month then store it in a nitrogen-filled container as part of the manufacturing process.
A significant part of my job deals with automating complex tasks that have traditionally been performed by highly skilled workers. Doing the automation work is usually very difficult and time consuming, but once it's done the recurring effort to perform the tasks goes down to effectively zero.
The question becomes how complicated is the task you're trying to automate, how many times do you have to do it, and what kind of time pressure does it have to be done under.
Spacecraft operations is probably on the bad end of the spectrum for all of these attributes - complicated, done infrequently, and not typically under time pressure - but not impossibly so.
It's still a bit odd that no one has reported spotting the X-37B yet. Is anyone on SeeSat-L in Hawaii?
-
... Maybe there's some form of shield in the payload bay designed to deploy and reduce the signature of the vehicle. If nobody spots the X-37B in orbit, I'd give that theory more credence. But I suspect that it's going to be found.
Can we think about that announced second burn of the Centaur? Since it got an identifier, it's in orbit -- somewhere, or at least it was for awhile after the burn.
If the announced time is accurate, doesn't that mean that the burn occurred near the first southbound equator crossing?
And isn't that the point where a plane change is most efficient in lowering orbital inclination?
Even a 25 deg inclination orbit would be magnificently unobservable from major unfriendly tracking facilities, not to mention Europe and NZ -based ground observers, n'est-ce pas??
This doesn't really explain why no one has seen the Centaur. There must be someone looking for it who is farther south than 25 degrees.
A better explanation is that the Centaur was de-orbited, and the X-37 is testing to see if its blackened TPS makes it invisible.
-
Assuming a 28-32 degree orbit and between 400-500km has put it in the southern hemisphere at sunrise/sunset windows. Should start becoming visible pre-sunrise in the USA around May 15th hopefully mid elevation southern sky.
I'll be watching :)
-
Somewhere around reply #240, there was talk that the Centaur went escape. If so, no one's going to see it for several years.
-
One U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) concept for future applications depicts a reusable Concorde-sized hypersonic transport equipped with four X-51 type scramjet engines. Carried on its back in the concept is a USAF X-37 type unmanned spaceplane like that currently undergoing tests in space after launch from Cape Canaveral on an Atlas 5.
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1005/16waverider/
-
One U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) concept for future applications depicts a reusable Concorde-sized hypersonic transport equipped with four X-51 type scramjet engines. Carried on its back in the concept is a USAF X-37 type unmanned spaceplane like that currently undergoing tests in space after launch from Cape Canaveral on an Atlas 5.
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1005/16waverider/
That was what I was thinking of, as well, when I saw both the reusable flyback rocket booster concept and the x-37b. Doesn't mean it will work, but still interesting. The X-37B (or whatever the upper stage would be called) will probably need far more delta-v capability, though... Closer to 5km/s than the current 1.7 km/s (probably less than that, actually), so would likely be quite different indeed from the X-37b.
Would be nice to have a return to the Faget-style Shuttle concept which fell victim to too many requirements and not enough money.
-
That was what I was thinking of, as well, when I saw both the reusable flyback rocket booster concept and the x-37b.
Rocketback AF booster concept is more like a reusable Atlas V first stage.
Possible you might be able to cluster them.
Nothing like RASCAL which is implied by the article.
X-37 dV isn't meant for substituting for a second stage but for on-orbit maneuvering.
add:
Oh, and BTW if you are wondering about any observations of it on-orbit (http://www.heavens-above.com/satinfo.aspx?SatID=36514).
No such luck ;D
-
Oh, and BTW if you are wondering about any observations of it on-orbit (http://www.heavens-above.com/satinfo.aspx?SatID=36514).
No such luck ;D
At some point, do we start to assume it's due to some sort of low-obs techniques being used? Or are there just too few seasoned observers beneath a low-inclination orbit to allow for observations?
I really hope we get to learn how the story ends! It would be great to hear of a successful landing, even if the date/time are kept vague.
Jeff
-
Oh, and BTW if you are wondering about any observations of it on-orbit (http://www.heavens-above.com/satinfo.aspx?SatID=36514).
Kevin Fetter caught an interesting, as-yet unidentified, satellite pass over southern Ontario yesterday. http://satobs.org/seesat/May-2010/0127.html
- Ed Kyle
-
Oh, and BTW if you are wondering about any observations of it on-orbit (http://www.heavens-above.com/satinfo.aspx?SatID=36514).
Kevin Fetter caught an interesting, as-yet unidentified, satellite pass over southern Ontario yesterday. http://satobs.org/seesat/May-2010/0127.html
- Ed Kyle
Assuming that it was chasing a expended booster in this orbit (http://www.heavens-above.com/orbit.aspx?satid=25868&lat=0&lng=0&loc=Unspecified&alt=0&tz=CET) that would mean substantial plane change.
-
What's his latitude?
-
Another article on the X-37b:
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/x-37b-space-plane-orbital-spy-100519.html
-
What's his latitude?
He reports this observation to have been at:
44.6062 N
75.6910 W
- Ed Kyle
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/science/space/23secret.html?ref=us&pagewanted=all
-
Elements and story of the search on SeeSat :
http://satobs.org/seesat/May-2010/0190.html
And now added to Heavens Above by Chris Peat :
http://www.heavens-above.com/orbit.aspx?satid=36514
-
Video from kevin
-
Nice of the NYT to provide orbital info....I hope the Chinese ASAT system is down!!!!!!
-
I hope the Chinese ASAT system is down!!!!!!
That's a joke, right?
-
Nice of the NYT to provide orbital info....I hope the Chinese ASAT system is down!!!!!!
It is silly to assume, that if amateur satellite spotters can identify a satellite, that other countries like China have not these capabilities.
-
It is silly to assume, that if amateur satellite spotters can identify a satellite, that other countries like China have not these capabilities.
Many years ago a former US intelligence official noted the same thing. He added that such capabilities were available to even relatively poor and geographically small countries: all they really needed to do was to train some of their foreign embassy staff around the world to do this kind of stuff. You don't need expensive radars or equipment more sophisticated than binoculars. They could put observers in a number of geographically dispersed countries and gather up the data. That said, it's probably not sufficiently precise for targeting a weapon.
-
Nice of the NYT to provide orbital info....I hope the Chinese ASAT system is down!!!!!!
It is silly to assume, that if amateur satellite spotters can identify a satellite, that other countries like China have not these capabilities.
Who do you think is making that assumption? Just because other countries have the capability to find spacecraft in orbit doesn't mean the US government should hand out orbital information. A motivated country could probably find X-37 in less than a month, but that still requires expending resources, and potentially provides the vehicle the opportunity to accomplish some of its mission while no one is watching.
-
Who do you think is making that assumption? Just because other countries have the capability to find spacecraft in orbit doesn't mean the US government should hand out orbital information. A motivated country could probably find X-37 in less than a month, but that still requires expending resources, and potentially provides the vehicle the opportunity to accomplish some of its mission while no one is watching.
Any country able to represent a perceived threat to orbital assets is going to have some type of orbit tracking radar system. With that, it would not take a month to find a satellite and its orbit. It would take a few hours. Iran and North Korea, etc., knew where X-37B was a long time ago - long before the U.S. population who paid for the thing.
- Ed Kyle
-
Nice of the NYT to provide orbital info....I hope the Chinese ASAT system is down!!!!!!
It is silly to assume, that if amateur satellite spotters can identify a satellite, that other countries like China have not these capabilities.
Who do you think is making that assumption?
What I'm taking away from saturnsky's comment is that he thinks
1) China is unable to track satellites on their own and would need amateur observers to do so.
2) China would actually be willing to make an international incident by shooting another country's bird down.
Both of those are unrealistic assumptions IMO.
-
Who do you think is making that assumption? Just because other countries have the capability to find spacecraft in orbit doesn't mean the US government should hand out orbital information.
Let's be precise: "the US government" is not handing out orbital information. But that's not what is being discussed.
And as an aside, there actually is reason to "hand out" orbital information--to avoid collisions, for example.
-
Who do you think is making that assumption? Just because other countries have the capability to find spacecraft in orbit doesn't mean the US government should hand out orbital information.
Let's be precise: "the US government" is not handing out orbital information. But that's not what is being discussed.
My inference from a number of posts is that some folks here don't like the fact that orbital information wasn't provided. So I believe it is being discussed.
-
My inference from a number of posts is that some folks here don't like the fact that orbital information wasn't provided. So I believe it is being discussed.
Well, okay then. The US government does provide information on the orbits of numerous satellites, including NASA satellites and commercial ones. Do you believe that they should not do this? What is your basis for your conclusions?
-
I was only responding to the previous comments that I took to be related to X-37. If the US government decides not to release orbital information for a specific satellite, I'm OK with that.
-
But then they wouldn't know which way to point their tin foil hats to keep the SIGINT out.
-
Pieces of a big payload fairing washed ashore at Hilton Head.
http://www.wtoc.com/global/story.asp?s=12534303
Locals said it looked like an Ariane fairing, but I'm wondering if it isn't the fairing from the X-37B Atlas - which is also essentially an Ariane 5 fairing. The Ariane 5 fairing would have had to travel more than 4,000 km in three days.
- Ed Kyle
-
Edit: click on the video on that link. Definitively Ariane.
-
Space Weather News for May 25, 2010
http://spaceweather.com
X-37B SIGHTINGS: Amateur satellite watchers have spotted a US Air Force space plane similar in appearance to NASA's space shuttle circling Earth in a heretofore secret orbit. Known as the "X-37B," it can be seen in the night sky shining about as brightly as the stars of the Big Dipper. Flyby predictions and more information may be found at http://spaceweather.com .
Would you like to turn your iPhone into an X-37B tracker? There's an app for that: http://simpleflybys.com .
-
I got a good chuckle seeing the spaceweather.com (a NASA web site) alert in my email inbox this morning... Classic one hand of government not knowing what the other is doing ;)
-
Edit: click on the video on that link. Definitively Ariane.
Contraves makes both the 5.4 meter Atlas V and Ariane 5 fairings. They are essentially the same. The most recent Ariane launch took place only one day before this piece washed up on shore more than 4,200 km (2,269 nautical miles) from Kourou. Could it have traveled an average of more than 175 km per hour during that time? I'm having trouble believing it.
Here's a reminder of what the AV-012 fairing looked like.
- Ed Kyle
-
The Ariane 5 fairing would have had to travel more than 4,000 km in three days.
It's far more likely to have been from an earlier Ariane launch.
-
The Ariane 5 fairing would have had to travel more than 4,000 km in [Ed Kyle correction *only one day*] three days.
It's far more likely to have been from an earlier Ariane launch.
I agree, if it is from an Ariane. Nearly five months have passed since the prior Ariane 5 launch. The interesting thing about that December 18, 2009 launch is that it was to sun synchronous orbit, which means that it took a northbound track up the Atlantic seaboard. Much easier to get to Hilton Head that way!
- Ed Kyle
-
The label on the box at 1:34 says Ariane, made in France. Call it a hunch, but I don't think it's an Atlas fairing.
-
Who "owns" that fairing? I would like to have a piece of it.
-
Who "owns" that fairing? I would like to have a piece of it.
ESA, and believe they have asked for them back in the past...
-
Who "owns" that fairing? I would like to have a piece of it.
ESA, and believe they have asked for them back in the past...
But wouldn't shipping it to them violate ITAR?
-
I've heard islanders in the Bahamas have made tables and doors out of rocket structures that have washed up.
-
Who "owns" that fairing? I would like to have a piece of it.
ESA, and believe they have asked for them back in the past...
But wouldn't shipping it to them violate ITAR?
Doesn't ITAR only apply to components built in the US?
-
The label on the box at 1:34 says Ariane, made in France. Call it a hunch, but I don't think it's an Atlas fairing.
I sit corrected. I've been told it is an Atlas fairing.
-
Doesn't ITAR only apply to components built in the US?
No. As soon as it arrives in the US or is owned by a US entity, it is subject to ITAR.
-
View of the launch from an airliner. Looks like they caught it right at BECO.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Htj9epwwRPI
-
The label on the box at 1:34 says Ariane, made in France. Call it a hunch, but I don't think it's an Atlas fairing.
I sit corrected. I've been told it is an Atlas fairing.
Interesting. Is that "official"?
- Ed Kyle
-
View of the launch from an airliner. Looks like they caught it right at BECO.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Htj9epwwRPI
NEAT :D I had no idea an atlas/centaur looked like that during staging (or after). Wish I could have seen it :D People in the vid didn't seem to know however.
-
@ Ugordan,
Interesting video. I'm assuming that the hole blown in the vapour trail at the outset is the exhaust from the core being scattered by the invisible exhaust from the SEC. I also assume that the two 'stars' to either side of the vapour cloud are the PLF halves falling back to Earth.
-
I'm assuming that the hole blown in the vapour trail at the outset is the exhaust from the core being scattered by the invisible exhaust from the SEC.
I don't believe so. The exhaust itself moves at cca. 3 km/s away from the booster and the "hole" would just be the last bit of RD-180 exhaust blown away before shutdown. There is also at least 10-15 seconds between BECO and Centaur start.
I also assume that the two 'stars' to either side of the vapour cloud are the PLF halves falling back to Earth.
I don't see any additional "stars", the fuzzy bit at BECO might be the shutdown transient and residual venting from the RD-180.
The phenomenon that's interesting to me, and can be seen in a lot of these launches is how the exhaust plume is pretty constrained up until a certain altitude and then just rapidly "explodes", even though the vehicle might be moving mainly downrange and not gaining altitude fast.
-
I also assume that the two 'stars' to either side of the vapour cloud are the PLF halves falling back to Earth.
I don't see any additional "stars", the fuzzy bit at BECO might be the shutdown transient and residual venting from the RD-180.
One is directly above the vapour trail and the other is well to the right and slightly lower. However, they do seem to be moving downwards and fading (although the shaky hand-held cam makes it difficult to be sure) which could be them slowly fallling so that they are edge-on to the line-of-sight.
-
I think there's one vehicle, and one star (planet) in the picture. The star is a little to the right and above the vapor trail at the start. I think this is well before BECO, since the plume is continuing to grow "upward". Although there's a distinct point where the plume seems to start expanding, there's no "break, which I would expect between the Atlas plume and the Centaur plume. Long range cameras have a very difficult time picking up Centaur burn; a handheld camcorder isn't going to come close, even one flying at 35K feet.
-
@Ed
Yes its confirmed.
pic below is from the video link posted before, but lets get back on topic.....
-
Updated element set:
OTV-1 405 X 418 km
1 36514U 10015A 10147.12961170 .00000469 00000-0 73607-5 0 06
2 36514 39.9921 146.5125 0009492 239.0914 120.8964 15.52672295 04
Arc 20100521.36-0527.14 WRMS resid 0.039 totl 0.013 xtrk
source:
SeeSat-L
Tim Luton, Mike McCants, Jim Nix, Brad Young and Ted Molczan
-
I draw your attention to this report:
http://www.spaceweather.com/ // http://www.spaceweather.com/
X-37B FLARE: Last night, amateur astronomer Scott Ferguson witnessed an "X-37B flare." As the space plane glided across the night sky of Bradenton, Florida, "it brightened to be at least twice the brightness of Arcturus. I'd say it was about magnitude -0.8 at the peak of the flare," he reports. Sunlight must be occasionally glinting from a flat surface--perhaps the bottom or doors of the space plane's payload bay. Readers, turn your cell phone into a space plane tracker and be alert for flares.
Scott Ferguson
Image taken: May. 26, 2010
Bradenton, Florida, USA
The X-37B was too small to resolve as more than a dot with my 8" Meade LX200 at f/10, but it did produce an impressive flare in brightness for about two seconds as I was tracking it. I used Brent Boshart's Satellite Tracker program to follow it, which allowed me to take my hands off the controls long enough to focus on the spacecraft shortly after acquiring it and correct for mirror flop. The image is a stack of 6 video frames from the moment when it flared in brightness.
-
@ JimO,
Apparently X-37 has solar arrays. I assume that the flare is the sunlight catching the arrays at exactly the right angle (similar to what happens with Iridium comsats).
-
@Ed
Yes its confirmed.
pic below is from the video link posted before, but lets get back on topic.....
Sorry to belabor the point, but what is confirmed - that it was AV-012 or that it was last December's Ariane 5? I've heard more than one answer.
- Ed Kyle
-
@ JimO,
Apparently X-37 has solar arrays. I assume that the flare is the sunlight catching the arrays at exactly the right angle (similar to what happens with Iridium comsats).
Might it also be reflection of off a radiator, similar to the orbiter radiators inside the payload bay doors?
- Ed Kyle
-
@ JimO,
Apparently X-37 has solar arrays. I assume that the flare is the sunlight catching the arrays at exactly the right angle (similar to what happens with Iridium comsats).
Might it also be reflection of off a radiator, similar to the orbiter radiators inside the payload bay doors?
Or an antenna, which is what the Iridium flares are. Given the general matte nature of the X-37 and the presence of a few known specular surfaces, flares are likely.
-
Updated element set:
OTV-1 405 X 418 km
1 36514U 10015A 10147.12961170 .00000469 00000-0 73607-5 0 06
2 36514 39.9921 146.5125 0009492 239.0914 120.8964 15.52672295 04
Arc 20100521.36-0527.14 WRMS resid 0.039 totl 0.013 xtrk
source:
SeeSat-L
Tim Luton, Mike McCants, Jim Nix, Brad Young and Ted Molczan
New update:
OTV-1 400 X 423 km
1 36514U 10015A 10148.09435583 .00000000 00000-0 00000-0 0 00
2 36514 39.9849 140.6316 0016616 253.1765 106.7224 15.52662485 09
Arc 20100521.36-0528.1 WRMS resid 0.109 totl 0.026 xtrk
-
What are these numbers folks, sorry fir being the amateur.
Any news on landing?
-
These are Two Lines Elements, a way to describe satellites orbits.
See :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-line_element_set
-
Photo
http://www.universetoday.com/2010/05/28/amateur-astronomer-images-x37-b-space-plane-in-orbit/
-
I can't focus well enough to see the detail he says he sees, but it's still pretty neat that he got it.
His video of the launch (posted lower down on that page) is also impressive, although his titles are incorrect (he says the X-37B is firing, but it's actually Centaur). Tracking Centaur to the horizon from Orlando is quite a feat.
-
I caught the X-37B in a 20 sec exposure of the sky over my house last night just north of New York City.
It's posted at http://bkellysky.wordpress.com/
It was easy to see with the naked eye, since I was expecting it, but very faint. It barely shows up in the photo, which I took at the maximum sensitivity available on my Canon Rebel, ISO 1600.
bob
-
I looked out using Heavens Above's info and saw the X-37B myself last night. It was maybe about mag 2 or 3 and kind of amber colored, not bright white. It flew close to Saturn and was visible for a few minutes right at the appointed time.
-
I just saw it pass over New Jersey! Pretty neat...
-
I just saw it pass over New Jersey! Pretty neat...
Ditto from Chicago. It came right on time. Dim though, especially with the Moon rising.
- Ed Kyle
-
I just saw it pass over New Jersey! Pretty neat...
Ditto from Chicago. It came right on time. Dim though, especially with the Moon rising.
These observations all fit in with the suggestion that the X-37's colour scheme was deliberately chosen to be low-albedo.
-
I just saw it pass over New Jersey! Pretty neat...
Ditto from Chicago. It came right on time. Dim though, especially with the Moon rising.
These observations all fit in with the suggestion that the X-37's colour scheme was deliberately chosen to be low-albedo.
Doubtful, the black is there for thermal control during re-entry and the white is there for thermal control on orbit. It's the same color scheme as the space shuttle, which was not designed to be low albedo.
-
I just saw it pass over New Jersey! Pretty neat...
Ditto from Chicago. It came right on time. Dim though, especially with the Moon rising.
These observations all fit in with the suggestion that the X-37's colour scheme was deliberately chosen to be low-albedo.
Doubtful, the black is there for thermal control during re-entry and the white is there for thermal control on orbit. It's the same color scheme as the space shuttle, which was not designed to be low albedo.
Actually, the X-37 is grey and black. Quite dark grey at that. Look at the pictures of it being placed in its PLF for confirmation.
-
Trust me its not an "low observability" target. Saw it with a fairly nice flare, probably off the deployed panel.
Of course if you retracted the panel, closed the doors, and maneuvered to a low profile attitude ... it might be very hard to spot. So it could "hide".
-
That is one *crazy* difficult target! Dim, small, fast, far. I need a bigger scope! Taken with a little 5" Meade ETX-125PE with a Canon 1.4x TC and a Canon T2i.
-
OK, so it's grey, black, and white. The black is still necessary for reentry, and while I don't know what the gray thermal protection material is, I will note that the changes in color on the X-37 appear to line up pretty closely with the different temperatures expected during re-entry.
The X-37 is small and not covered in metallic foil; this is what makes it hard to see compared to the typical satellites viewed from the ground.
-
updated elements
OTV-1 401 X 422 km
1 36514U 10015A 10151.11718796 .00000981 00000-0 15344-4 0 06
2 36514 39.9851 122.0220 0015062 271.9297 87.9790 15.52676994 00
Arc 20100520.69-0531.13 WRMS resid 0.190 totl 0.023 xtrk
-
updated elements
(snip)
As an amateur without a hope of understanding those figures, could some one tell me if they are changing the orbit (altitude or even inclination) or are we just getting more and more refined data for the existing orbit?
-
New update:
OTV-1 400 X 423 km
1 36514U 10015A 10148.09435583 .00000000 00000-0 00000-0 0 00
2 36514 39.9849 140.6316 0016616 253.1765 106.7224 15.52662485 09
Arc 20100521.36-0528.1 WRMS resid 0.109 totl 0.026 xtrk
updated elements
OTV-1 401 X 422 km
1 36514U 10015A 10151.11718796 .00000981 00000-0 15344-4 0 06
2 36514 39.9851 122.0220 0015062 271.9297 87.9790 15.52676994 00
Arc 20100520.69-0531.13 WRMS resid 0.190 totl 0.023 xtrk
To my modestly-trained eye, I'd say that looks like a refinement in the estimation of the orbit, not a change in orbit. But I could be wrong.
-
From what I'm seeing posted by the SEESAT list observers, there have been some changes in the orbit but not as often as expected. The magnitude is right about where they predicted it pre-launch too...
-
Actually just saw a post that notes the lack of big changes in the orbit likely means that the object is making frequent maneuvers.
-
That is one *crazy* difficult target! Dim, small, fast, far. I need a bigger scope! Taken with a little 5" Meade ETX-125PE with a Canon 1.4x TC and a Canon T2i.
any idea what the orientation is there?
-
That is one *crazy* difficult target! Dim, small, fast, far. I need a bigger scope! Taken with a little 5" Meade ETX-125PE with a Canon 1.4x TC and a Canon T2i.
That's a cool shot! Thanks for sharing.
I'll have to try to check this out tomorrow night...hopefully the whether in NJ cooperates.
-
That is one *crazy* difficult target! Dim, small, fast, far. I need a bigger scope! Taken with a little 5" Meade ETX-125PE with a Canon 1.4x TC and a Canon T2i.
any idea what the orientation is there?
I can only guess from the limited detail in the shot that it's similar to this image:
http://www.foxnews.com/images/537652/0_61_airforce_320.jpg
-
does anyone have speculation yet on when they will attempt re entry and land?
-
does anyone have speculation yet on when they will attempt re entry and land?
I seem to remember seeing somewhere that part of the mission was to test space loiter. The OTV will be up there for several months, maybe half a year.
-
Is this still on orbit? Any word on when they will bring it back?
-
It's still up there, and news on return hasn't changed. (I.e. no news.)
-
Part of the fairing from the Atlas V that launched the X-37B washed up on a beach in South Carolina and is now in a museum! :)
Fallen space rocket debris goes on display in South Carolina.
www.paulfrasercollectibles.com/section.asp?catid=26&docid=3973
collectSPACE: "Coastal Discovery Museum: X-37B fairing".
www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum41/HTML/000351.html
-
What is the correct spelling?
Fairing or
Faring?
I've seen it spelled both ways.
-
Fairing
Never seen the other term used as for a shroud.
-
It was used in the top link from Pete & got me thinking I was using it incorrectly all this time. Thanks
-
I can imagine the conversation:
How is the payload faring?
It's doing well: it's inside its fairing.
-
Ferring was one of the goofier spellings I saw.
-
LOL That's good Antares.
-
+1 Antares {ROFL}
-
Any new updates?
-
I was hoping amateurs with spendy telescopes & cameras might post some pics.
Would the guys in dark suits and sunglasses come knocking on the door?
-
I've seen it pass over a few times, but it's very faint. I assume it's way too small for the amateurs to be able to get anything usable from.
-
Would love to have this guys gear.
Although getting through the owners manual would be interesting.
OK, page one..... uhhhhhhhhh
http://www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/article489476.ece/Grandpa-a-threat-to-US-security
-
Would love to have this guys gear.
Although getting through the owners manual would be interesting.
OK, page one..... uhhhhhhhhh
http://www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/article489476.ece/Grandpa-a-threat-to-US-security
Oh nice find. Quite the gear he has!
Well, when it comes to wondering what the payload could be: flying over hot spots seems to indicate recon work (most likely whatever latest-generation cameras they had available).
As to a threat to National security...maybe they need to develop cloaking devices. :)
-
After losing OTV-1 the past few weeks, Ted Molczan and Greg Roberts figured out where it's at. Apparently it made some adjustments to increase the orbital height by about 24km for whatever reason.
-
From SeeSat-L:
"Greg Roberts completed a successful planar search for X-37B OTV-1 on 2010 Aug 19.
The orbit was not optimally placed, but he managed so search for 89 min, which is nearly one full
revolution of the last known orbit, to there was a good probability of detecting the object. His
subsequent examination of the video revealed that it had indeed been captured, at about 17:53 UTC,
and he reduced 8 points, spanning 53 s:
http://satobs.org/seesat/Aug-2010/0249.html (http://satobs.org/seesat/Aug-2010/0249.html)
The following elements are the result of propagating my epoch 10210.093 elements to the revolution
of Greg's observation, and adjusting only RAAN, mean anomaly and mean motion. Greg's five points of
0.1 s time resolution were weighted 100 percent; his first and last point have only 1 s time
accuracy, but they extend the arc considerably, so were worth including, at a bit lower weight, 70
percent.
OTV-1 427 X 444 km
1 36514U 10015A 10231.69817710 .00000000 00000-0 00000-0 0 05
2 36514 39.9851 347.3161 0012533 164.0919 196.0285 15.44559742 02
Arc 20100819.75-0819.75 WRMS resid 0.042 totl 0.012 xtrk
Another night or two of observations are required to refine the elements, but based on this
preliminary result, it appears that a couple of manoeuvres were made on Aug 08, within a few hours
of 06 h UTC, which raised the orbit about 24 km. Their planes nearly coincide at that time, which
tends to support this conclusion.
Although Greg observed it ~5 min earlier than predicted by the previous orbit, it had in fact gone
higher, and been nearly lapped by the previous orbit. The ~0.5 min increase in period, results in
more than a 7 min per day divergence in the predicted time of passage, so despite the small size of
the manoeuvre, a planar search was required to recover it.
This small change of orbit may have been a test of OTV-1's manoeuvring system, or a requirement of
whatever payload may be aboard, or both. The new orbit appears to very nearly repeat every 6 days,
instead of the 4 days of the previous orbit, but I will wait for a more precise orbital solution
before attempting to draw conclusions (repeating ground tracks can occur unintentionally).
Nice work, Greg, and thank you to all who volunteered to assist in the hunt.
Ted Molczan"
-
I have a question-was there a report that this craft was lost upon launch-obviously an error. Did anyone else hear this report? I do not have a link...
-
never heard it
-
I have a question-was there a report that this craft was lost upon launch-obviously an error. Did anyone else hear this report? I do not have a link...
I think you're referring to the HTV-2 glider...which launched around the same time as the X-37 last April but was lost 9 minutes into the mission
-
thanks thefallen.
-
I've seen it pass over a few times, but it's very faint. I assume it's way too small for the amateurs to be able to get anything usable from.
Well, I posted the best I could do with a 5" scope above, and I think it's usable in that you can see the general outline of the craft. Ralf uses a 10" and so could do at least twice as good as I did, and I know of people using 14 inch scopes to get pictures of satellites. So I think it's doable.
-
I have a question-was there a report that this craft was lost upon launch-obviously an error. Did anyone else hear this report? I do not have a link...
I believe there was another launch that same day and that one was lost.
-
I have a question-was there a report that this craft was lost upon launch-obviously an error. Did anyone else hear this report? I do not have a link...
I believe there was another launch that same day and that one was lost.
That is my recollection. The first "Minotaur 4 Lite" was launched on a suborbital mission from Vandenberg AFB on the same day, carrying the HTV-2a hypersonic glider. Contact was lost with the glider 9 min after liftoff, shortly after the launch vehicle's boost phase was completed. Both X-37 and HTV-2a were winged and "secret", so it makes sense that the story would have been confused in the blogosphere, etc.
- Ed Kyle
-
Don't forget, it took some time for sat watchers to find it after launch. I'm sure that also added to the confusion.
-
There is a buzz going around that amateur astronomers can't locate the X-37B anymore. So either the spaceplane changed orbit and they haven't found it again yet, or it attempted landing.
Anybody here has a more recent scoop?
-
There is a buzz going around that amateur astronomers can't locate the X-37B anymore. So either the spaceplane changed orbit and they haven't found it again yet, or it attempted landing.
Anybody here has a more recent scoop?
It was spotted on October 12 (yesterday). It appears to have maneuvered yet again.
http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Oct-2010/0121.html
Gotta wonder if orbit lowering is a prelude to pending return.
- Ed Kyle
-
I thought it had returned months ago! :D
-
Anybody here has a more recent scoop?
Given the secrecy behind it and the "advanced technologies", clearly the only logical conclusion is it jumped into hyperspace and is currently enroute to Gliese 581 to see if there is really a planet in the "habitable zone" or not.
-
There is a buzz going around that amateur astronomers can't locate the X-37B anymore. So either the spaceplane changed orbit and they haven't found it again yet, or it attempted landing.
Anybody here has a more recent scoop?
It was spotted on October 12 (yesterday). It appears to have maneuvered yet again.
http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Oct-2010/0121.html
Gotta wonder if orbit lowering is a prelude to pending return.
- Ed Kyle
:o :o O_o Wow, its been up there for a LONG time. That thing is pretty crazy. Burns me up not knowing what its for lol.
-
Anybody here has a more recent scoop?
Given the secrecy behind it and the "advanced technologies", clearly the only logical conclusion is it jumped into hyperspace and is currently enroute to Gliese 581 to see if there is really a planet in the "habitable zone" or not.
;D Now I have to clean up my coffee.
-
;D Now I have to clean up my coffee.
And when done with cleaning up the mess how about having the Mod's that be move it all over to the X-37 thread http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21122.0 ;)
-
I thought it had returned months ago! :D
Well, "the X-37B has the requirement to be on-orbit up to 270 days," according to the Air Force. We might expect a full duration flight since this is a test, which would bring it back around 17 januari.
But as this is a test, the flight might also last a little longer or shorter.
-
I thought it had returned months ago! :D
Well, "the X-37B has the requirement to be on-orbit up to 270 days," according to the Air Force. We might expect a full duration flight since this is a test, which would bring it back around 17 januari.
But as this is a test, the flight might also last a little longer or shorter.
Interesting. I missed that. Where can I see this requirement?
-
I thought it had returned months ago! :D
Well, "the X-37B has the requirement to be on-orbit up to 270 days," according to the Air Force. We might expect a full duration flight since this is a test, which would bring it back around 17 januari.
But as this is a test, the flight might also last a little longer or shorter.
Interesting. I missed that. Where can I see this requirement?
One pre-launch reference to it is here:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/04/live-atlas-v-launch-x-37b-otv/
(from Chris Bergin's post back at the top of page 1 of this thread) ;)
-
Here is an article on CNN's website about the X-37. Nothing new to say though.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/04/23/space.plane/index.html?hpt=Sbin
-
Are they any updates on this one? Still on orbit or has it returned to earth yet?
-
Still in orbit.
-
Any new observation reports of it? Using the coords from heavens-above I went looking for it last night in badly light polluted sky's and missed it.
-
Any new observation reports of it? Using the coords from heavens-above I went looking for it last night in badly light polluted sky's and missed it.
Experienced observers on the SeeSat mailing list have also reported no-show passes for the X-37B as of 2 November 2010, indicating that the spacecraft may have maneuvered again (or, dare I say it, landed):
http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Nov-2010/index.html
-
Thanks, I was blaming my eyeballs...
Might have been recovered last night:
http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Nov-2010/0021.html
FYI -
At 8:34 ish PDT last night I may have seen OTV1 naked eye moving west to
east about 5 deg north of Deneb..
Might not be OTV, but it was something.. Around mag 3 - 3.5..
As soon as I saw whatever it was, I said to myself.. "Ah ha!.. There it
is!..
This is about an hour after the predicted 80 deg pass by Deneb that did not
happen..
Derek
-
Keep reading, it's still there... http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Nov-2010/0044.html
-
Per Ted Molczan's post on the SeeSat mailing list, it looks like X-37B maneuvered again:
http://satobs.org/seesat/Nov-2010/0189.html
-
Thomas Wehr ([email protected]) on
http://satobs.org/seesat/Nov-2010/index.html
just posted [Date: Sat Nov 20 2010 - 22:34:27 UTC]
Hi @all --
some days ago I noticed following NOTAMs:
M0428/10 - PERSONEL AND EQUIPMENT LOCATED: 500FT WEST OF RWY 30 CENTERLINE BETWEEN 12 DRM AND 11 DRM ADJACENT TO WILD LIFE FENCE. 20 OCT 21:54 2010 UNTIL 15 DEC 23:59 2010. CREATED: 20 OCT 21:55 2010
M0427/10 - PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT LOCATED AT EITHER RWY 12 OR 30 GLIDESLOPE. (THIS WILL DEPEND ON WHAT RUNWAY WILL BE LANDING. 20 OCT 21:51 2010 UNTIL 15 DEC 23:59 2010. CREATED: 20 OCT 21:54 2010
M0426/10 - USE EXTREME CAUTION FOR UNMANNED AIRCRAFT ACTIVITY IN THE VICINITY OF VANDENBERG AFB. 20 OCT 21:45 2010 UNTIL 15 DEC 23:59 2010. CREATED: 20 OCT 21:50 2010
They have been there for some days.
Checking them right now they are gone?
Did X-37B OTV-1 land on Friday? Since that day there were no video
streams except weather?
I like coincidences......
-
I wouldn't read into the ELV streams too much, for one thing the cameras were probably switched to support Delta ops at KSC, and the ELV portal page is not really kept in an organized manner these days (even have had shuttle feed on the pages)
-
They have been there for some days.
Checking them right now they are gone?
Did X-37B OTV-1 land on Friday? Since that day there were no video
streams except weather?
I like coincidences......
Appreciate the notes.
(wild speculation) Could also be preparations in case they had to land early, rather than on-time, due to off-nominal readings.
Regardless, if she lands safely, she's been doing a good performance run. Can't wait to see how she stood up, especially re-entry (if we get the chance to see pictures)
-
I wouldn't read into the ELV streams too much, for one thing the cameras were probably switched to support Delta ops at KSC, and the ELV portal page is not really kept in an organized manner these days (even have had shuttle feed on the pages)
The OTV X-37B will land in California, not at CCAFS. So camera moves for Delta IV H on 11/21/2010 would have nothing to do with OTV X-37B.
-
I just saw on spaceflightnow.com that the X37B maybe coming to an end. Anybody got any updates.
-
A lot of interesting info in that article.
I think they mean it's ending it's mission lifetime not "design lifetime"?
I have to believe it could be refurbed & relaunched?
-
Right, it is to be relaunched within a week of landing. But it's still happily orbiting, so no idea when that clock will start.
-
Right, it is to be relaunched within a week of landing. But it's still happily orbiting, so no idea when that clock will start.
There is no discussion of re-lauching it for now. The second flight of the X-37B will be a different spacecraft. After those two flights, we don't know what will happen.
-
Right, it is to be relaunched within a week of landing. But it's still happily orbiting, so no idea when that clock will start.
There is no discussion of re-lauching it for now. The second flight of the X-37B will be a different spacecraft. After those two flights, we don't know what will happen.
I fully expect that this vehicle will go back to the manufacturer (Phantom Works?). There it will be stripped down to the space frame so that every little bit of diagnostic and forensic data about how the vehicle performed and survived months in LEO can be determined.
The second vehicle, depending on the resulting analysis, may be re-launched to test the reusability of the design. However, I'll bet that decision will be only pencilled in until after the analysis of vehicle 1 is complete. If component or other redesign is needed, the third flight may not go ahead at all and the lessons simply applied to the next generation test (or even operational) design.
-
I just saw on spaceflightnow.com that the X37B maybe coming to an end. Anybody got any updates.
As the article states, no one can have any updates because the mission is classified. The article itself is based off of amateur observations; nothing more, nothing less. The article claims the mission is coming to end. In reality, the X-37B could stay in orbit until mid-January. So, basically, all the article is telling us is that the X-37B will be landing sometime in the next 60 days.
-
There is no discussion of re-lauching it for now.
The OTV-2 launch in March is a different spacecraft?
-
There is no discussion of re-lauching it for now.
The OTV-2 launch in March is a different spacecraft?
Yes, different vehicle.
-
So what are the odds that we get to see footage of the landing? (After the fact, of course...)
-
Experts say that publicly releasing the video has a 50 - 50 chance of happening, though there's only a 10 percent chance of that.
-
I just saw on spaceflightnow.com that the X37B maybe coming to an end. Anybody got any updates.
As the article states, no one can have any updates because the mission is classified. The article itself is based off of amateur observations; nothing more, nothing less. The article claims the mission is coming to end. In reality, the X-37B could stay in orbit until mid-January. So, basically, all the article is telling us is that the X-37B will be landing sometime in the next 60 days.
Layperson question if I may, the article also states:
40 degree inclination at 174 -182 mi. altitude and
a ground track that nearly repeats itself every few days.
This repeating ground track lends credence to an imagery collection mission.
Now, any classified spacecraft thread is by definition going to have speculation. I was just wondering how much one can read into the ground track characteristic and its implication on imagery collection. Is the frequency of “every few days” unusual for satellites in general?
Also, I would imagine data is sent down via TDRSS (something similar to Shuttle’s stowable dish?) in case the landing isn’t nominal.
Thanks in advance for any speculative commentary.
-
Is the frequency of “every few days” unusual for satellites in general?
Also, I would imagine data is sent down via TDRSS (something similar to Shuttle’s stowable dish?) in case the landing isn’t nominal.
Thanks in advance for any speculative commentary.
1. Repeating ground tracks is not uncommon. Shuttle did it for non imagery missions. It is for landing opportunities.
2. 40 degree inclination is basically useless for reconn. Doesn't go north enough
3. since it is not sun synchronous, lighting s would be an issue.
4. Imagery data would not be kept onboard.
5. The payload capability is only 500 lbs.
-
2. 40 degree inclination is basically useless for reconn. Doesn't go north enough
At greater inclination might be a some sort of problem with the shadowless orbits during a long flight.
no, it can use a sun synchronous which means it passes over points on earth as the same time each day
-
Jim, I'm referring to the possible restrictions on the beta angle (as for a large space shuttle) as an explanation for limiting the inclination. No connection with solar synchronous orbits.
Not applicable. Beta angle restrictions are mostly shuttle unique (another example of people applying the shuttle paradigm to other space systems). This only exists because the orbiter is docked to the ISS and therefore is constrained to ISS attitude and must accept the thermal environment associated with those attitudes and ones that aren't acceptable are avoided (beta angle restrictions). A free flying spacecraft can maneuver and to avoid attitudes that cause thermal problems.
Also, a "sun" synchronous orbit can be used to avoid the sun.
-
2. 40 degree inclination is basically useless for reconn. Doesn't go north enough
40 degrees covers all of Iraq and Afghanistan, where U.S. forces are active (and, of course, Iran, where things of interest are happening). It also covers most of the Korean Peninsula, where (God help us) they may soon be active. This raises the possibility of some type of tactical capability experiment. Like you, I am skeptical of a pure imaging mission, though there is a thing called "angle diversity" in that business that such an orbit could address.
- Ed Kyle
-
Didn't see the X-37 this morning, which was predicted by Heavens-Above to pass through Leo for my location near New York City. But I had the camera out, so I may have been distracted a bit.
Venus, Saturn and the Moon were nice, however.
-
Latest SeeSat post on it: http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Nov-2010/0332.html
Observations by Greg Roberts late on 2010 Nov 28 UTC, and Alberto Rango, early on Nov 29 UTC, reveal
an apparent small manoeuvre downward of about 1.2 km.
Given the short arc, the following should be considered preliminary.
X-37B OTV 1-1 284 X 287 km
1 36514U 10015A 10333.18496034 .00024512 00000-0 54109-4 0 01
2 36514 39.9919 75.6811 0002161 32.6011 327.4949 15.96957137 03
Arc 20101128.8-1129.2 WRMS resid 0.045 totl 0.022 xtrk
I considered the possibility that drag was responsible for the lower orbit, but an increase of about
ten-fold would have been required, which is not supported by the solar flux and geomagnetic
activity.
The change of orbit appears to have occurred on Nov 28, around 06 h UTC.
Ted Molczan
-
Preparations underway for first landing of X-37B (http://www.vandenberg.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123232786)
11/30/2010 - VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. -- Preparations for the first landing of the X-37B are underway at Vandenberg Air Force Base.
Space professionals from the 30th Space Wing will monitor the de-orbit and landing of the Air Force's first X-37B, called the Orbital Test Vehicle 1 (OTV-1). While the exact landing date and time will depend on technical and weather considerations, it is expected to occur between Friday, December 3, and Monday, December 6, 2010.
-
Hope we get to see video & pics (even if it's after the week of landing)!
-
Cool. I wonder what it looks like when an autonomous lifting body flares out of a dive for a runway landing at nearly 300mph!
-
Cool. I wonder what it looks like when an autonomous lifting body flares out of a dive for a runway landing at nearly 300mph!
See STS-1 through STS-132 landing videos.
-
anybody want to venture to guess if this is secret enough that it won't be covered?
-
anybody want to venture to guess if this is secret enough that it won't be covered?
It doesnt have to do with secrecy. The USAF doesn't always cover events like these
-
Cool. I wonder what it looks like when an autonomous lifting body flares out of a dive for a runway landing at nearly 300mph!
See STS-1 through STS-132 landing videos.
;D Boom. Right there, OV-106 with the win :)
-
Preparations underway for first landing of X-37B (http://www.vandenberg.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123232786)
11/30/2010 - VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. -- Preparations for the first landing of the X-37B are underway at Vandenberg Air Force Base.
Space professionals from the 30th Space Wing will monitor the de-orbit and landing of the Air Force's first X-37B, called the Orbital Test Vehicle 1 (OTV-1). While the exact landing date and time will depend on technical and weather considerations, it is expected to occur between Friday, December 3, and Monday, December 6, 2010.
Wicked. Thanks for the posting.
-
SFN has another article on this.
-
2. 40 degree inclination is basically useless for reconn. Doesn't go north enough
+/-40 degrees is 64.2% of the Earth's surface area, and all you need if you don't care about Europe/Russia...
-
Cool. I wonder what it looks like when an autonomous lifting body flares out of a dive for a runway landing at nearly 300mph!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7z37FXs3OCE
-
Cool. I wonder what it looks like when an autonomous lifting body flares out of a dive for a runway landing at nearly 300mph!
See STS-1 through STS-132 landing videos.
Better yet Buran it was autonomous.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7CDpa9Z4Os
-
SFN has another article on this.
Sounds like there will be a third mission (if I read that right).
Maybe the third flight is old news?
"Another X-37B spacecraft is under construction at Boeing Phantom Works for launch in the spring of 2011."
"This mission will continue after landing with a thorough check of how the space plane weathered more than 32 weeks in orbit. Engineers will then prepare the vehicle for a second mission."
-
Further, wouldn't a 4th flight be logical (with vehicle #2) to test how fast turnaround time could be?
Or at least some point in the program?
-
SFN has another article on this.
Sounds like there will be a third mission (if I read that right).
Maybe the third flight is old news?
"Another X-37B spacecraft is under construction at Boeing Phantom Works for launch in the spring of 2011."
"This mission will continue after landing with a thorough check of how the space plane weathered more than 32 weeks in orbit. Engineers will then prepare the vehicle for a second mission."
No, the next flight of an X-37 will be the second vehicle and the current manifest has only one OTV
-
Right, the second flight will be with the second vehicle
but they made it sound like vehicle #1 (current mission) will be prepared for a second mission (third flight of an X-37)?
I'm guessing you mean preparing vehicle #1 for a second flight is one thing, but having the launch vehicle for it is another.
-
I think what Jim means is only one more OTV, two total, but maybe I'm mistaken.
-
Right, the second flight will be with the second vehicle
but they made it sound like vehicle #1 (current mission) will be prepared for a second mission (third flight of an X-37)?
I'm guessing you mean preparing vehicle #1 for a second flight is one thing, but having the launch vehicle for it is another.
correct and "preparing" means refurb. It wouldn't be "prepared" for the next flight until it is shipped down to the launch site.
-
Hope we get to see video & pics (even if it's after the week of landing)!
Landing will probably be shortly after midnight local time.
NOTAMS confirms that, it seems.
-
Awww night landing, bummer. Not surprising though I guess.
I had visions of clear skys & sushine, X-37 banking for final etc.
Beggars can't be choosers...
-
Probably will look like ALTV
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vDiGHCx90I
-
Probably will look like ALTV
/youtube
Kind of nice how the White Knight's unusual shape provides a convenient perch for a camera to view the payload.
I've always thought, especially through the highly zoomed videos, that the space shuttle looks like it's diving pretty steep towards the ground before flaring in the last couple of seconds. With the smaller size of the X-37, the perception is even more dramatic.
-
I've always thought, especially through the highly zoomed videos, that the space shuttle looks like it's diving pretty steep towards the ground before flaring in the last couple of seconds.
Having seen a few landings in person, I can attest that the dive *is* steep, zoom lens or not!
- Ed Kyle
-
X-37 does have stubby horizontal wings, whereas Dream Chaser (HL-20) only has the delta V-tail, so how do their touchdown velocities compare? Would DC be faster than the "nearly 300 mph" quoted for X-37?
-
X-37 Questions:
1) If landing at Vandenberg AFB why not launch from SLC-3 at Vandenberg?
2) Why launch at CCAFS? Aren't polar orbits preferred for recon? Or is it that most mean people live within 60 degrees of the equator?
3) If launching at CCAFS why not land at the shuttle landing facility?
4) How do they haul X-37 across the continent? C-5?
5) What strategy is in place to support an urgent launch on need x-37 recon mission in the event of a national security contingency? Can another Atlas be utilized? Can a Delta IV be used?
6) Somewhat related, how fast can ULA manufacture an Atlas V?
Thanks
-
I know a lot of folks are going to roll their eyes when they read this but coming home from LEO on wings & wheels (ala HL-20, or preferably HL-42) has WAY more panache than a splash or a thud... unless it's from BEO. $0.02
-
X-37 Questions:
1) If landing at Vandenberg AFB why not launch from SLC-3 at Vandenberg?
2) Why launch at CCAFS? Aren't polar orbits preferred for recon? Or is it that most mean people live within 60 degrees of the equator?
X-37 is in a 40 deg inclination orbit, outside the range safety limits for a launch from Vandenberg.
3) If launching at CCAFS why not land at the shuttle landing facility?
X-37 is USAF, SLF is NASA.
-
X-37 Questions:
1) If landing at Vandenberg AFB why not launch from SLC-3 at Vandenberg?
2) Why launch at CCAFS? Aren't polar orbits preferred for recon? Or is it that most mean people live within 60 degrees of the equator?
3) If launching at CCAFS why not land at the shuttle landing facility?
4) How do they haul X-37 across the continent? C-5?
5) What strategy is in place to support an urgent launch on need x-37 recon mission in the event of a national security contingency? Can another Atlas be utilized? Can a Delta IV be used?
6) Somewhat related, how fast can ULA manufacture an Atlas V?
Thanks
1 SLC-41 has more launch slots
2. Who said this is a recon mission
3. There is no overflight of populated areas to land at VAFB
4. Yes
5. Again, who said it is recon much less thatvX-37 is a quick response spacecraft
6. Not needed, Atlas can swap boosters
-
Dumb thought, wasn't the X-37 manufactured in California, and will be refurb'd in California (assuming they actually refly the airframe) , so landing at Vandenberg puts it "closer" to home. It's only that pesky launch part of it's life cycle the requires the cross country jaunt. It is experimental, if it goes operational and really is a optical recon bird that operationally needs a polar orbit, nothing stops it from using Vandenberg. It's not like it used something exotic like the Space Shuttle or Atlas V Heavy.
-
Very interesting article is here (http://www.lompocrecord.com/news/local/military/vandenberg/article_125fe1a2-fde4-11df-84f8-001cc4c002e0.html).
"Weather could interfere with Friday’s landing plans; Boltz said a rain system
moving south is creating a 60 percent likelihood the landing attempt would have to be delayed.
Officials have said the landing attempt could occur between Friday and Monday, with one shot for Friday, but multiple tries other days".
-
I almost hesitate to ask this question as I know details of this mission are classified etc...but does anyone know which direction the X-37B will approach VAFB? It seems now looking at the online track (if its indeed accurate) that its on a descending node, but if it reentered that way wouldn't it have more land overflight? Seems to me an ascending node similar to the shuttle's track to Edwards would keep it over the pacific longer.
-
Would Jim or anyone care to speculate why so many resources would be spent on a technology demonstrator when the USAF has other problems: tanker woes, F-35, C-5 upgrade, spiraling personnel costs, and many others?
-
Would Jim or anyone care to speculate why so many resources would be spent on a technology demonstrator when the USAF has other problems: tanker woes, F-35, C-5 upgrade, spiraling personnel costs, and many others?
Intelligence is first line of defense
-
2. Who said this is a recon mission
5. Again, who said it is recon much less thatvX-37 is a quick response spacecraft
Intelligence is first line of defense
Hmmmmm...
-
2. Who said this is a recon mission
5. Again, who said it is recon much less thatvX-37 is a quick response spacecraft
Intelligence is first line of defense
Hmmmmm...
I did not contradict myself. X-37 is a technology demonstrator, not a reconsat
-
X-37B space plane has returned to Earth
The U.S. military's experimental X-37B space plane, the prototype for an unmanned reusable space shuttle, landed early this morning at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. Touchdown occurred at 1:16 a.m. local time (4:16 a.m. EST; 0916 GMT).
-
X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle lands at Vandenberg AFB
Posted 12/3/2010 Updated 12/3/2010 Email story Print story
30th Space Wing Public Affairs
12/3/2010 - VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. -- The U.S. Air Force's first unmanned re-entry spacecraft landed at Vandenberg Air Force Base at 1:16 a.m. today.
The X-37B, named Orbital Test Vehicle 1 (OTV-1), conducted on-orbit experiments for more than 220 days during its maiden voyage. It fired its orbital maneuver engine in low-earth orbit to perform an autonomous reentry before landing.
The X-37B is the newest and most advanced re-entry spacecraft. Managed by the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office (AFRCO), the X-37B program performs risk reduction, experimentation and concept of operations development for reusable space vehicle technologies.
"Today's landing culminates a successful mission based on close teamwork between the 30th Space Wing, Boeing and the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office," said Lt Col Troy Giese, X-37B program manager from the AFRCO. "We are very pleased that the program completed all the on-orbit objectives for the first mission."
OTV-1's de-orbit and landing mark the transition from the on-orbit demonstration phase to a refurbishment phase for the program.
The Air Force is preparing to launch the next X-37B, OTV-2, in Spring 2011 aboard an Atlas V booster.
http://www.vandenberg.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123233195
-
Excellent. Nice work!
-
Nice work X-37B and USAF :)
Nothing you don't really know, but used some of William's content and put together a landing article:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/12/x-37b-lands-successfully-following-220-days-in-space/
-
just added landing video on my youtube channel for easy viewing. ( ie8 give me an error when i try download video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqjHbq_XbNU
-
Nice work! Did you get any video from it in the air? How did you even get in the base?
-
Hope we get to see video & pics (even if it's after the week of landing)!
Landing will probably be shortly after midnight local time.
I had told my news media clients "1:30 AM PST".
[modestly clears throat]
-
Nice work! Did you get any video from it in the air? How did you even get in the base?
https://newafpims.afnews.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-101203-008.wmv
-
Intelligence is first line of defense
Which is another way of saying the space reconnaissance budget never gets questioned by Congress, and so they are able to get away with such luxuries as X-37B. Whether that's correct or not is a separate issue.
-
Hope we get to see video & pics (even if it's after the week of landing)!
Landing will probably be shortly after midnight local time.
I had told my news media clients "1:30 AM PST".
[modestly clears throat]
Got a chuckle on that. Jim shot a 3 pointer. All net.
Makes me wonder what else he knows!
BTW, I can’t believe there hasn’t been any speculation yet about something very obvious in the video.
-
BTW, I can’t believe there hasn’t been any speculation yet about something very obvious in the video.
Do you mean the thing sticking out of the top? Looks like the speed brake to me.
-
I think he's talking about the pickup truck driving up behind it.
-
For posterity since this is now posted in the public domain - here are a couple of snaps from the video for those who have not had a chance to watch it.
-
BTW, I can’t believe there hasn’t been any speculation yet about something very obvious in the video.
Do you mean the thing sticking out of the top? Looks like the speed brake to me.
It is
-
BTW, I can’t believe there hasn’t been any speculation yet about something very obvious in the video.
Do you mean the thing sticking out of the top? Looks like the speed brake to me.
It is
ok, makes sense. Imagination was getting whipped up for a sec there.
-
Sweet!
-
Photo of the X-37B post-landing.
This has got to be the coolest thing going. Wish it wasn't so secretive.
-
Photo of the X-37B post-landing.
This has got to be the coolest thing going. Wish it wasn't so secretive.
Agreed! Although it kind of makes it cooler, too. :)
-
I think he's talking about the pickup truck driving up behind it.
No, obviously a Dodge, 2500.
Hemi
-
Who wants hi-res photos?
Did I hear you say "No thanks"?
Okay then, I won't post them.
.....
Nah, these are just too cool - here they are (courtesy Boeing). ;D
-
Who wants hi-res photos?
Did I hear you say "No thanks"?
Okay then, I won't post them.
.....
Nah, these are just too cool - here they are (courtesy Boeing). ;D
Any thoughts as to what those "stains" on the top of spacecraft are ???...sun exposure ??...re-entry effects ??
-
Any thoughts as to what those "stains" on the top of spacecraft are ???...sun exposure ??...re-entry effects ??
Looks to me like coating has come off of composite structure...
-
More landing photos (Courtesy: USAF 30th Space Wing via Facebook).
-
More landing photos (Courtesy: USAF 30th Space Wing via Facebook).
-
Please forgive me if this was a stupid question but was the X-37 capable of reaching GSO and if not does anyone have any idea how high its orbit did get?
-
Please forgive me if this was a stupid question but was the X-37 capable of reaching GSO and if not does anyone have any idea how high its orbit did get?
I think it was around the 400km point.
-
Please forgive me if this was a stupid question but was the X-37 capable of reaching GSO and if not does anyone have any idea how high its orbit did get?
Given the WP mass around 5mT, not on the AV501 it launched on, and maybe not even on an AV551 (how much delta-V does X-37 have?) Either Heavy could drop it directly into GSO.
But them wings would be less useful out there.
-Alex
-
Thank you, Space Pete! Beautiful pictures. Without windows, it seems like it's some kind of blind fish. ;)
-
does anyone have any idea how high its orbit did get?
(per SeeSat mailing list and Heavens-Above)
-
Yeah, having a body flap on TOP threw me for a bit.
Go to the video and pop back and forth between the ten minute break from wheels stop to convoy arrival, do it twenty times or so, and look at what's cooling down and what's HEATING UP in that interval. Look at the wheels, the nose, the stabilizers, the topside surface...
BTW the video link from the Vandenberg home page is no longer working, so here's a toast to youtube!!
-
Video: X-37B Landing at Vandenberg AFB.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTxMbda-j4Q
-
The stains appear to be tile-specific so probably are discoloration of water-proofing chemicals applied during fabrication, or some such localized effect. They could be deliberate different treatments of specific tiles, for testing. Stains from hypergolic leaks (or APU exhaust -- which notice, there WASN'T any in the IR views) tend to streak. These stains don't appear to do that.
View 7 DOES appear to show stains downwind of the right nose RCS jet. But the NASA shuttle never used nose thrusters during aero entry since their affect on laminar flow could induce turbulance and thus actually increase drag on the nose and jerk the vehicle TOWARD rather than AWAY from the plume. Perhaps the stain reflects a thrust prop leak -- it would be interesting to see if the left nose thruster left a similar downwind plume.
SEF10-11611-003.X-37B.jpg shows a nose-on view, not sure what it's trying to tell me. Let me mull.
-
SO SO COOL!!!
Congrats to a job well done!
(And thanks to USAF for the images & videos, and those providing said images on here)
-
Do you think they have done away with gap fillers on X-37?
I'd think a future article on how TPS improvements fared (compared to Shuttle) wouldn't be classified info.
-
This thingy here is the most interesting part of the images to my eyes. First view I've seen of it - whatever "it" specifically is.
- Ed Kyle
-
This thingy here is the most interesting part of the images to my eyes. First view I've seen of it - whatever "it" specifically is.
You mean the connector on the tail ? I assumed that was something to do with purging/safing RCS prop ?
-
This thingy here is the most interesting part of the images to my eyes. First view I've seen of it - whatever "it" specifically is.
You mean the connector on the tail ? I assumed that was something to do with purging/safing RCS prop ?
No. I'm pointing to the engine.
- Ed Kyle
-
Yeah, I noticed it too, but just figured that's what it uses to de-orbit (and perhaps is used for some orbital maneuvers along with the other RCS thrusters).
-
SO SO COOL!!!
Congrats to a job well done!
(And thanks to USAF for the images & videos, and those providing said images on here)
Well said, my sentiments as well!
-
No. I'm pointing to the engine.
- Ed Kyle
Slightly better view in the first posted image (higher res, same angle)
-
Does the engine nozzle seem a little big for a spacecraft of this size?
-
Waterproofing on a vehicle that never is exposed to the elements since it is launched in a fairing?
-
I saw this on the news last night. After seven months in orbit it returned. Of course-Top Secret.
Though will similar vehicles be used someday by NASA?
-
BTW, I can’t believe there hasn’t been any speculation yet about something very obvious in the video.
Do you mean the thing sticking out of the top? Looks like the speed brake to me.
It is
The implication is that its a radiator, as well.
-
BTW, I can’t believe there hasn’t been any speculation yet about something very obvious in the video.
Do you mean the thing sticking out of the top? Looks like the speed brake to me.
It is
The implication is that its a radiator, as well.
The radiator deploys from the payload bay
-
BTW, I can’t believe there hasn’t been any speculation yet about something very obvious in the video.
Do you mean the thing sticking out of the top? Looks like the speed brake to me.
It is
The implication is that its a radiator, as well.
The radiator deploys from the payload bay
More like a speed brake, I think, similar to the F-15. The Shuttle rudder splits to act as a speed brake, but I don't they do on this vehicle.
-
No. I'm pointing to the engine.
- Ed Kyle
Slightly better view in the first posted image (higher res, same angle)
Thanks! This engine is a mystery to me. Who makes it, what it is named, what is its thrust and ISP, etc.? It looks like a high-ISP nozzle - and it looks like something that produces more thrust than I would have expected. A hot rod. Now why would X-37B need so much thrust? It must be in a hurry to "maneuver".
- Ed Kyle
-
No. I'm pointing to the engine.
- Ed Kyle
Slightly better view in the first posted image (higher res, same angle)
Thanks! This engine is a mystery to me. Who makes it, what it is named, what is its thrust and ISP, etc.? It looks like a high-ISP nozzle - and it looks like something that produces more thrust than I would have expected. A hot rod. Now why would X-37B need so much thrust? It must be in a hurry to "maneuver".
- Ed Kyle
Surely a high Isp engine would make efficient use of any propellant if multiple manoeuvres are required during an extended mission.
If there's any requirement to avoid attracting attention during manoeuvres, ISTM a high thrust / Isp engine would minimise the length of burn and attract the least notice?
cheers, Martin
-
No. I'm pointing to the engine.
- Ed Kyle
Slightly better view in the first posted image (higher res, same angle)
Thanks! This engine is a mystery to me. Who makes it, what it is named, what is its thrust and ISP, etc.? It looks like a high-ISP nozzle - and it looks like something that produces more thrust than I would have expected. A hot rod. Now why would X-37B need so much thrust? It must be in a hurry to "maneuver".
- Ed Kyle
Good catch.
Well it obviously shows signs of firing, and substantial discolouration due to very high temps.
And I doubt they would design around cryos for long-durations on-orbit for such a small vehicle.
So that leaves hypergols as the likely propellant.
-
So that leaves hypergols as the likely propellant.
That kind of would explain the hazmat suits...
-
From NTRS:
X-37 Storable Propulsion System Design and Operations (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20060004795_2006003679.pdf)
-
Wow - 2300fps delta-V through two 110 lbf thrusters.
So, if this thing is the SR-71 replacement, this is probably to make it hard to predict where and when it will fly over you. Lots of delta-V for lots of orbital maneuvers and for makeup thrust for atmospheric drag in low-altitude conditions.
-
Wow - 2300fps delta-V through two 110 lbf thrusters.
So, if this thing is the SR-71 replacement, this is probably to make it hard to predict where and when it will fly over you. Lots of delta-V for lots of orbital maneuvers and for makeup thrust for atmospheric drag in low-altitude conditions.
Again, who said this was a reconsat much less an SR-71 replacement.
Remember this was a NASA project before and it drove the design, not earth observation requirements.
There are better existing systems to get this data
-
Wow - 2300fps delta-V through two 110 lbf thrusters.
So, if this thing is the SR-71 replacement, this is probably to make it hard to predict where and when it will fly over you. Lots of delta-V for lots of orbital maneuvers and for makeup thrust for atmospheric drag in low-altitude conditions.
Again, who said this was a reconsat much less an SR-71 replacement.
Remember this was a NASA project before and it drove the design, not earth observation requirements.
There are better existing systems to get this data
It's classified, so this was nothing but a guess.
-
From NTRS:
I posted long ago that it was 100lbf thrusters and biprop
-
I posted long ago that it was 100lbf thrusters and biprop
I know, and that's when I first heard about it. There was some talk about X-37 using kerosene/peroxide and you said that was an old plan and that hypergols would be used instead. I don't recall if someone posted the link then or if I stumbled upon it later.
-
From NTRS:
I posted long ago that it was 100lbf thrusters and biprop
The paper (from 2002) mentions hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide.
Space.com has a graphic in several of their current articles that labels storage tanks for kerosene and H202
http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=X37b-spaceplane-100416-02.jpg
-
From NTRS:
I posted long ago that it was 100lbf thrusters and biprop
The paper (from 2002) mentions hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide.
Space.com has a graphic in several of their current articles that labels storage tanks for kerosene and H202
http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=X37b-spaceplane-100416-02.jpg
Consider the source. kerosene and H202 was dropped in 2002
-
From NTRS:
X-37 Storable Propulsion System Design and Operations (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20060004795_2006003679.pdf)
Thanks mmeijeri. Gotta like pg. 5.
That's been out there since 2002?
-
From NTRS:
X-37 Storable Propulsion System Design and Operations (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20060004795_2006003679.pdf)
Thanks mmeijeri. Gotta like pg. 5.
Ditto on the thanks.
re the page 5 Figure 4 System Configuration.
can anybody create and post a unified jpg? All i can
copy are thin strips.
-
re the page 5 Figure 4 System Configuration.
can anybody create and post a unified jpg? All i can
copy are thin strips.
Attached.
-
Video: X-37B Landing at Vandenberg AFB.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTxMbda-j4Q
Correct me if I'm wrong but this clip is the only (that I know of) image that shows the aft end. It looks like there is only one engine, right?
42-47 sec in clip
-
From NTRS:
X-37 Storable Propulsion System Design and Operations (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20060004795_2006003679.pdf)
110 lbs thrust MMH/N204. Sounds and looks an awfully lot like IHI's 500 N engine, used by JAXA's HTV.
http://www.ihi.co.jp/ia/en/product/satellite.html
says that "As of February 2010, ... 17 units of the 500 N engine have been flown, and .... 31 units of the 500 N engine have been exported."
IHI also supplied the apogee engine used by AEHF 1, the DoD satellite that failed to reach orbit as originally planned this summer. I believe that Orbital's Cygnus also uses IHI engines.
Could it be that the United States can no longer supply propulsion for even its secret spacecraft? Perhaps this is why there's been no mention of the specifics, only allusions to potential systems, etc.
- Ed Kyle
-
Good point. Although it's probably not an issue of can't, but rather why not.
Pre-existing, right sized & priced right.
Does the US have a known engine similar to this one?
-
Attached.
Thanks, Lee Jay. I'm an old 'PROP officer" from early STS days (on console for STS-1 ascent), so plumbing specs/schematics are a trip down memory lane.
-
Good point. Although it's probably not an issue of can't, but rather why not.
Pre-existing, right sized & priced right.
Does the US have a known engine similar to this one?
The X-37 Storable Propulsion System Design and Operations (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20060004795_2006003679.pdf) document mentiones the venerable Aerojet R4D as the propoesed OME for X-37B
-
Correct me if I'm wrong but this clip is the only (that I know of) image that shows the aft end. It looks like there is only one engine, right?
42-47 sec in clip
The aft end view at 1:10 clearly shows a single engine. Honestly, a single engine does simplify the design, improve reliability, reduce mass, and removes thrust imbalance issues that two could cause. Two says to me, "we no longer make the right sized engine".
-
Good point. Although it's probably not an issue of can't, but rather why not.
Pre-existing, right sized & priced right.
Does the US have a known engine similar to this one?
The X-37 Storable Propulsion System Design and Operations (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20060004795_2006003679.pdf) document mentiones the venerable Aerojet R4D as the propoesed OME for X-37B
There were words in that document?
I'll confess to getting hung up on the image. Guilty.
Thanks for pointing Aerojet out!
-
Correct me if I'm wrong but this clip is the only (that I know of) image that shows the aft end. It looks like there is only one engine, right?
42-47 sec in clip
The aft end view at 1:10 clearly shows a single engine. Honestly, a single engine does simplify the design, improve reliability, reduce mass, and removes thrust imbalance issues that two could cause. Two says to me, "we no longer make the right sized engine".
Most of the shots are from level at 90 degs, so hard to be sure. But this view looks like only one nozzle:
-
this view shows one,
-
this view shows one,
Classic perspective problem.
If you look at the above photo (previous), the placement of the through-hole for the engine mount is to the right of that center hole seen at the top of the rear bulkhead.
The chances they have only one engine off-axis is close to nil. We just aren't seeing the left engine: it has to be there.
-
Perhaps we need to go back to pre-launch photos like this one (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/X-37B_prelaunch.jpg).
I only see a single engine (but there's quite a bit of stuff in the way).
-
Perhaps we need to go back to pre-launch photos like this one (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/X-37B_prelaunch.jpg).
I only see a single engine (but there's quite a bit of stuff in the way).
Well the document, though preliminary, shows two, and I don't doubt it.
1) Redundancy
2) Necessary de-orbit thrust
3) more balanced thrust (yes, I realize gimballing could correct this, but needed more for 1-engine out ops)
-
Perhaps we need to go back to pre-launch photos like this one (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/X-37B_prelaunch.jpg).
I only see a single engine (but there's quite a bit of stuff in the way).
Going back to this post:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21122.msg580782#msg580782
If you zoom in on that image, you see one engine bell, BUT you also see the cutout in the rear bulkhead for the second engine.
2 engines.
-
Well, I'm only seeing one engine but it does look off center.
Maybe it preserves the option for another engine if needed? (OME1 per pg. 4 diagram).
-
Good point. Although it's probably not an issue of can't, but rather why not.
Pre-existing, right sized & priced right.
Does the US have a known engine similar to this one?
The X-37 Storable Propulsion System Design and Operations (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20060004795_2006003679.pdf) document mentiones the venerable Aerojet R4D as the propoesed OME for X-37B
This R4-D? If so, it doesn't look the same as the engine in the post-landing photos.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/4896792758/
- Ed Kyle
-
Good point. Although it's probably not an issue of can't, but rather why not.
Pre-existing, right sized & priced right.
Does the US have a known engine similar to this one?
The X-37 Storable Propulsion System Design and Operations (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20060004795_2006003679.pdf) document mentiones the venerable Aerojet R4D as the propoesed OME for X-37B
This R4-D? If so, it doesn't look the same as the engine in the post-landing photos.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/4896792758/
- Ed Kyle
Probably the more modern R-4D-11 variant
http://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/Orion/videos/CaptionedVideos/R4D.html
-
Probably the more modern R-4D-11 variant
http://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/Orion/videos/CaptionedVideos/R4D.html
I'll need to see a good image of R-4D-11 to be convinced. Meanwhile, here are side-by-sides of one of IHI's HTV engines and the X-37B engine.
- Ed Kyle
-
Probably the more modern R-4D-11 variant
http://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/Orion/videos/CaptionedVideos/R4D.html
I'll need to see a good image of R-4D-11 to be convinced. Meanwhile, here are side-by-sides of one of IHI's HTV engines and the X-37B engine.
- Ed Kyle
Looks like we have a winner!
Oh, and I believe the HTV uses a kind of R-4D.
-
I believe the HTV uses a kind of R-4D.
Interesting that both Aerojet and IHI claim to have powered
HTV....
http://www.aerojet.com/news2.php?action=fullnews&id=189
http://www.ihi.co.jp/ia/en/product/satellite.html
- Ed Kyle
-
Amazing to see what this machine has achieved, makes one wonder what other cancelled programs could have done.
Reading over the latest posts; I went back and looked at some of the pre-launch photos. Can anyone tell me what the multiple disc shapped objects on the inside walls of the fairing are?
Thanks,
Paul
-
Reading over the latest posts; I went back and looked at some of the pre-launch photos. Can anyone tell me what the multiple disc shapped objects on the inside walls of the fairing are?
I believe they're used for acoustic purposes...reduce the amount of noise within the fairing during launch.
-
I believe the HTV uses a kind of R-4D.
Interesting that both Aerojet and IHI claim to have powered
HTV....
HTV-1 used R4D-11 engines, while HTV-2 and later will use the IHI engines
-
I believe the HTV uses a kind of R-4D.
Interesting that both Aerojet and IHI claim to have powered
HTV....
HTV-1 used R4D-11 engines, while HTV-2 and later will use the IHI engines
Interesting info guys. IHI must be under license to manufacture with Aerojet?
-
I believe the HTV uses a kind of R-4D.
Interesting that both Aerojet and IHI claim to have powered
HTV....
HTV-1 used R4D-11 engines, while HTV-2 and later will use the IHI engines
Interesting info guys. IHI must be under license to manufacture with Aerojet?
No, why? These are different engines.
-
Amazing to see what this machine has achieved, makes one wonder what other cancelled programs could have done.
Reading over the latest posts; I went back and looked at some of the pre-launch photos. Can anyone tell me what the multiple disc shapped objects on the inside walls of the fairing are?
Thanks,
Paul
That is FAP. fairing Acoustic Panels. Tape covered foam with a thin aluminum horn in it.
-
There is only one engine nozzle and it is in the center.
-
There is only one engine nozzle and it is in the center.
Really??
Well that is certainly weird.
-
There is only one engine nozzle and it is in the center.
Confirmed by drawings of the vehicle
-
Article in DefenseNews : http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5176376&c=AME&s=TOP
Of interest was:
The only physical damage seen so far has been seven areas where space debris collided with the aircraft. It also blew out a tire upon landing. McKinney, meeting with reporters at the Pentagon on Monday, said he wasn't sure if that stemmed from a collision on the runway, a problem with the tire itself or something else.
Anyone have a link to a transcript of the news conference this came out of?
-
Did the X-37 set a record for longest duration spaceflight and return to Earth?
-
Did the X-37 set a record for longest duration spaceflight and return to Earth?
Japan's Hayabusa probe was in space for seven years before its sample capsule returned.
LDEF was in orbit for 5.7 years before being returned by Shuttle.
NASA's Genesis spent three years in space before, crash-landing on Earth.
The NRO's KH-9 "Big Bird" satellites were said to have operated for up to 275 days before returning their final film capsules.
Etc.
- Ed Kyle
-
Japan's Hayabusa probe was in space for seven years before its sample capsule returned.
Stardust had almost the same thing, a shade under 7 years.
-
Did the X-37 set a record for longest duration spaceflight and return to Earth?
Japan's Hayabusa probe was in space for seven years before its sample capsule returned.
LDEF was in orbit for 5.7 years before being returned by Shuttle.
NASA's Genesis spent three years in space before, crash-landing on Earth.
The NRO's KH-9 "Big Bird" satellites were said to have operated for up to 275 days before returning their final film capsules.
Etc.
- Ed Kyle
I meant an entire spacecraft not just the film or sample return part. Anyhoo, it's probably a pointless record.
-
I meant an entire spacecraft not just the film or sample return part. Anyhoo, it's probably a pointless record.
It's still Hayabusa then, unless you ask if the spacecraft returned to ground in one piece...
-
Did the X-37 set a record for longest duration spaceflight and return to Earth?
Japan's Hayabusa probe was in space for seven years before its sample capsule returned.
LDEF was in orbit for 5.7 years before being returned by Shuttle.
NASA's Genesis spent three years in space before, crash-landing on Earth.
The NRO's KH-9 "Big Bird" satellites were said to have operated for up to 275 days before returning their final film capsules.
Etc.
- Ed Kyle
I meant an entire spacecraft not just the film or sample return part. Anyhoo, it's probably a pointless record.
Its probably safe to say that this is the longest duration flight and return by a winged orbital spacecraft to a runway landing (that we know about ;) ).
- Ed Kyle
-
I believe the HTV uses a kind of R-4D.
Interesting that both Aerojet and IHI claim to have powered
HTV....
HTV-1 used R4D-11 engines, while HTV-2 and later will use the IHI engines
Interesting info guys. IHI must be under license to manufacture with Aerojet?
No, why? These are different engines.
Note the IHI co-authorship of this R-4D-11 paper.
http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyMJPC2004_946/PV2004_3694.pdf
IHI and Aerojet have worked together in the past, on the old N-series second stage engines for example. It would not surprise me in the least if R-4D-11 and IHI's 500N thruster had many common elements - perhaps even to the extent that they are virtually the same engine.
- Ed Kyle
-
X-37 Sonic Boom Report
"Brian Bartky was in Camarillo and reports hearing a sonic boom at about [1:16 a.m. PST]. 'It was a single boom unlike the double one the shuttle makes.'"
http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/launch-alert/2010-December/000637.html
-
Photos of X-37 being towed to the hangar.
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1012/12x37gallery/
Now it is clearly visible, that there is only one engine. And it appears to be slightly right of the center line.
-
Hi-res versions of these? Especially the one with the drop-test vehicle contrasting nicely with the flown OTV-1 in foreground.
Which also prompts a question: how many spaceworthy airframes have actually been completed?
-
Hi-res versions of these? Especially the one with the drop-test vehicle contrasting nicely with the flown OTV-1 in foreground.
Which also prompts a question: how many spaceworthy airframes have actually been completed?
Two - OTV-1 and OTV-2
-
Photos of X-37 being towed to the hangar.
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1012/12x37gallery/ (http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1012/12x37gallery/)
Now it is clearly visible, that there is only one engine. And it appears to be slightly right of the center line.
In those pictures, specially the 4th one, the stains on the thermal blankets certainly appear to originate in the thrusters. Some RCS leak?
-
I don't know if they're planning to re-fly OTV-1, but I hope we might get to see it one day in the Smithsonian!
-
Photos of X-37 being towed to the hangar.
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1012/12x37gallery/ (http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1012/12x37gallery/)
Now it is clearly visible, that there is only one engine. And it appears to be slightly right of the center line.
In those pictures, specially the 4th one, the stains on the thermal blankets certainly appear to originate in the thrusters. Some RCS leak?
Maybe an RCS propellant dump during reentry to shift CG for landing? (Similar as the Shuttle does)
(Just specualting. Don't know if it would make sense...)
-
Photos of X-37 being towed to the hangar.
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1012/12x37gallery/
Now it is clearly visible, that there is only one engine. And it appears to be slightly right of the center line.
It certainly does, thanks for the link.
Well I figured it was off-center, but never imagined there would be only one!
So for them to go with a single engine, would this be to reduce the plumbing volume to free up more space for propellant? (which allows more time on orbit). Allows for a larger single propellant tank. My first instinct is to question the thrust vector for an off-center engine & the control matrix for the maneuvering, but it obviously worked so that's fairly moot at this point.
-
Maybe a propellant dump during reentry to shift CG for landing? (Similar as the Shuttle does)
The propellant "dump" the shuttle does is nothing more than burning the propellants thru the thrusters.
-
It certainly does, thanks for the
So for them to go with a single engine, would this be to reduce the plumbing volume to free up more space for propellant? (which allows more time on orbit). Allows for a larger single propellant tank. My first instinct is to question the thrust vector for an off-center engine & the control matrix for the maneuvering, but it obviously worked so that's fairly moot at this point.
The OME doesn't use much internal space. The X-37 is a biprop. As for offset, there is such thing as gimbaling
-
It certainly does, thanks for the
So for them to go with a single engine, would this be to reduce the plumbing volume to free up more space for propellant? (which allows more time on orbit). Allows for a larger single propellant tank. My first instinct is to question the thrust vector for an off-center engine & the control matrix for the maneuvering, but it obviously worked so that's fairly moot at this point.
The OME doesn't use much internal space. The X-37 is a biprop. As for offset, there is such thing as gimbaling
Biprop...duh, I knew that...(kicks self)
So Jim, what would be the key reason, in your view, for eliminating the other engine? Obviously we are giving up fault tolerance (but that may not be a mission requirement), but that one engine has enough thrust to fit the bill, so why have two?
-
Surely each vehicle will be reflown multiple times. What's the point of it having reusable TPS if it won't? Having wings defeats the logic of employing a one-shot craft. A capsule would be cheaper and make at least some sense Unless this is *strictly* proof-of-concept and there are concrete plans to up-scale to a crewed(?) vehicle the whole program *definitely* falls into the 'what's it for?' category that everybody's been hammering on about. I would assume a series of craft will be built. If they blow up one on launch next year you could hardly call a one-vehicle program a 'fleet' - a bit like the shuttle, really: three barely counts, if four or five ever did.
-
Photos of X-37 being towed to the hangar.
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1012/12x37gallery/
Now it is clearly visible, that there is only one engine. And it appears to be slightly right of the center line.
What a great series of pictures.
Does anyone know what the two big blocks are for under the X-37?
-
I is just an experimental vehicle. There are two flightworthy vehicles (OTV-1 and OTV-2) and as far as the current launch plans are, there will be only one flight for each vehicle. No further flights are scheduled by now.
Surely each vehicle will be reflown multiple times. What's the point of it having reusable TPS if it won't? Having wings defeats the logic of employing a one-shot craft. A capsule would be cheaper and make at least some sense Unless this is *strictly* proof-of-concept and there are concrete plans to up-scale to a crewed(?) vehicle the whole program *definitely* falls into the 'what's it for?' category that everybody's been hammering on about. I would assume a series of craft will be built. If they blow up one on launch next year you could hardly call a one-vehicle program a 'fleet' - a bit like the shuttle, really: three barely counts, if four or five ever did.
-
I wouldn't be surprised if OTV-2 is dissimilar in some ways to OTV-1. USAF will want to correct any obvious problems or issues identified in this flight before the second to see how the fixes work.
I've said before that I suspect that OTV-1 will be stripped down to the space-frame to harvest every little bit of data from the flight. Depending on the objectives of the program, OTV-2 might fly again, if only to test total vehicle life-span from multiple flights.
-
How to Tow a Top Secret Military Space Plane with a Pickup Truck
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2010/12/how-to-tow-a-top-secret-military-space-plane.html
-
Photos of X-37 being towed to the hangar.
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1012/12x37gallery/
Now it is clearly visible, that there is only one engine. And it appears to be slightly right of the center line.
What a great series of pictures.
Does anyone know what the two big blocks are for under the X-37?
Maybe they are high density foam blocks as insurance in case there was landing gear damage? At least untill they could make an initial gear assessment? Just a WAG.
-
Photos of X-37 being towed to the hangar.
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1012/12x37gallery/
Now it is clearly visible, that there is only one engine. And it appears to be slightly right of the center line.
What a great series of pictures.
Does anyone know what the two big blocks are for under the X-37?
Maybe they are high density foam blocks as insurance in case there was landing gear damage? At least untill they could make an initial gear assessment? Just a WAG.
The left gear wheel blew, so perhaps these were related to that event.
- Ed Kyle
-
I don't actually know, but they look like they could hold the vehicle up while mechanics either compressed the landing gear struts or partially retracted the gear to replace the blown tires and/or do other servicing work. Pretty clever if so.
-
Here is an update on the second X-37b flight on March 4, 2011:
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1101/31otv2/
The article discusses the possibility of a third flight using the same spacecraft as the one that was used for OTV-1.
Giese said he anticipates a third X-37 flight some time in the future, but the Air Force has not decided when it would launch. The X-37 craft that just returned to Earth in December would be assigned to fly a third OTV mission, according to Giese.
"The refurbishment of that vehicle will play a major part of that decision," Giese said.
-
Here is an update on the second X-37b flight on March 4, 2011:
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1101/31otv2/
The article discusses the possibility of a third flight using the same spacecraft as the one that was used for OTV-1.
Giese said he anticipates a third X-37 flight some time in the future, but the Air Force has not decided when it would launch. The X-37 craft that just returned to Earth in December would be assigned to fly a third OTV mission, according to Giese.
"The refurbishment of that vehicle will play a major part of that decision," Giese said.
Hmmm...maybe I should look to extend my stay at KSC now until March 6?? ;)