X-37B crew launcher

[Jim]

Yes, I disapprove (not that that means anything, I know) of the DOD/NRO hiding their earlier efforts too.

Which is an opinion that is wrong for many reasons. There is nothing sacrosanct about space, it is just another medium which the military has legitimate to operate within.

[Kharkov]

Yes, but what is the X-37 for?

If it's not going to lead to a military weapon, then why did one Major Jameson say, "Its payload could also support Space Control (Defensive Counter-Space, Offensive Counter-Space), Force Enhancement and Force Application systems." according to wikipedia?

I don't see anything non-weapons-related that it could do that couldn't be done more cheaply, and in a simpler fashion, by NASA or some other civilian agency.

[Jim]

Yes, but what is the X-37 for?

If it's not going to lead to a military weapon, then why did one Major Jameson say, "Its payload could also support Space Control (Defensive Counter-Space, Offensive Counter-Space), Force Enhancement and Force Application systems." according to wikipedia?

I don't see anything non-weapons-related that it could do that couldn't be done more cheaply, and in a simpler fashion, by NASA or some other civilian agency.

The DOD has its own reasons to perform research in space and does.  Not all of its research is weapons related.  There is no reason for the DOD to have other agencies perform its research when it can do it on its own.  And having NASA or some other civilian agency do the research doesn't mean it would be cheaper or simpler.

And how do you know the research could be simpler than the current method?

[Prober]

Jim has been extra clear about the X-37B.  Reread the info if your looking for clues.

[parham55]

According to what i gathered of Jim's clues, it seems the X-37 is testing a non-weapons platform inside the payload bay.
I might be thinking too small, but I can only come up with some type of hardware test. Either observational or some type of signals intelligence.
This is all complete speculation and off topic from the title of this thread.

[Moe Grills]

 

Paint me most confused.

This topic webpage is supposed to be dedicated to?...
COMMERCIAL spaceflight?

 So how in blazes is X-37B supposed to be commercial if it is
a top-secret unmanned military spacecraft?
What? Is the Pentagon going to RENT out slots in its cargobay?   
Is the Pentagon going to slap advertising logos on its hull?
Let's get real, folks!


about

     

[Elmar Moelzer]

I think the idea is that Boeing might build a larger version of it, the X37C, that could be used for resupplying the ISS with cargo and crew. I think that the proposal has very little chance of realization though.

[Jim]

I think the idea is that Boeing might build a larger version of it, the X37C, that could be used for resupplying the ISS with cargo and crew. I think that the proposal has very little chance of realization though.

it has no chance

[HMXHMX]

I think the idea is that Boeing might build a larger version of it, the X37C, that could be used for resupplying the ISS with cargo and crew. I think that the proposal has very little chance of realization though.

Boeing won't go that route since it plans to sink or swim with CST-100.

[Prober]

Paint me most confused.

This topic webpage is supposed to be dedicated to?...
COMMERCIAL spaceflight?

 So how in blazes is X-37B supposed to be commercial if it is
a top-secret unmanned military spacecraft?
What? Is the Pentagon going to RENT out slots in its cargobay?   
Is the Pentagon going to slap advertising logos on its hull?
Let's get real, folks!


about

     

Key word is that much of the program is owned by "Boeing".   Keep in mind the X-37B is experimental.   

The X-37C was part of a research paper.

[Star One]

What happens to the X-37B vehicles when the USAF has finished with them?

Any chance they might get passed to NASA, be a shame if they were just scrapped if they were still viable to use?

[Rabidpanda]

What happens to the X-37B vehicles when the USAF has finished with them?

Any chance they might get passed to NASA, be a shame if they were just scrapped if they were still viable to use?

What would NASA use them for?

[Jim]

What happens to the X-37B vehicles when the USAF has finished with them?

Any chance they might get passed to NASA, be a shame if they were just scrapped if they were still viable to use?

Why?  And there might be a good reason for the USAF to be "finished" with them.

[Star One]

What happens to the X-37B vehicles when the USAF has finished with them?

Any chance they might get passed to NASA, be a shame if they were just scrapped if they were still viable to use?

What would NASA use them for?

Reusable multi-purpose science and engineering platform, surely something like that would be of use to NASA?

We hear about NASA's shortfall in areas such as Earth Sciences, couldn't it be configured for use in areas  such as this?

Or selling space on it to the commercial sector for payloads?

[Jim]

1.  Reusable multi-purpose science and engineering platform, surely something like that would be of use to NASA?

2.  We hear about NASA's shortfall in areas such as Earth Sciences, couldn't it be configured for use in areas  such as this?

3.  Or selling space on it to the commercial sector for payloads?

1.  not really, it is an expensive vehicle to fly and NASA has the ISS
2. smaller spacecraft buses are cheaper to launch and fly
3.  NASA can't do that, only Boeing.

[Prober]

1.  Reusable multi-purpose science and engineering platform, surely something like that would be of use to NASA?

2.  We hear about NASA's shortfall in areas such as Earth Sciences, couldn't it be configured for use in areas  such as this?

3.  Or selling space on it to the commercial sector for payloads?

1.  not really, it is an expensive vehicle to fly and NASA has the ISS

you saying from a launch cost expense?

[Star One]

1.  Reusable multi-purpose science and engineering platform, surely something like that would be of use to NASA?

2.  We hear about NASA's shortfall in areas such as Earth Sciences, couldn't it be configured for use in areas  such as this?

3.  Or selling space on it to the commercial sector for payloads?

1.  not really, it is an expensive vehicle to fly and NASA has the ISS
2. smaller spacecraft buses are cheaper to launch and fly
3.  NASA can't do that, only Boeing.

1.ISS is under utilised at the moment but that's not always going to be the case. Also isn't there some stuff it could do cheaper?

2.I would have thought it's the ULA launcher that makes it expensive rather than the craft itself and if that's the case that's going to be the same for any payload launched by them rather than exclusive to the X-37B.

3.What's to stop them selling services through Boeing, don't they use third party private contractors to sell space on the ISS?

[JohnFornaro]

Best of both worlds: Civilian, e.g. not protected (Why should NASA be something special, why the military?), and not risk averse. Is this too much to ask?

Huh?

I don't quite get what point you're making.

[Jim]

1.ISS is under utilised at the moment but that's not always going to be the case. Also isn't there some stuff it could do cheaper?

2.I would have thought it's the ULA launcher that makes it expensive rather than the craft itself and if that's the case that's going to be the same for any payload launched by them rather than exclusive to the X-37B.

3.What's to stop them selling services through Boeing, don't they use third party private contractors to sell space on the ISS?

1.  No, not really and it will be the case for the ISS
2.  No, an experiment could fly on a smaller launcher than what the X-37 uses.
3.  Then why does NASA have to be involved with Boeing there?  NASA "owns" the ISS, it doesn't own the X-37. Why should NASA deal with the X-37 just to resell the services?

[Star One]

1.ISS is under utilised at the moment but that's not always going to be the case. Also isn't there some stuff it could do cheaper?

2.I would have thought it's the ULA launcher that makes it expensive rather than the craft itself and if that's the case that's going to be the same for any payload launched by them rather than exclusive to the X-37B.

3.What's to stop them selling services through Boeing, don't they use third party private contractors to sell space on the ISS?

1.  No, not really and it will be the case for the ISS
2.  No, an experiment could fly on a smaller launcher than what the X-37 uses.
3.  Then why does NASA have to be involved with Boeing there?  NASA "owns" the ISS, it doesn't own the X-37. Why should NASA deal with the X-37 just to resell the services?

My original point was what was the USAF going to do with the vehicle once they had finished with and I suggested they could pass them to NASA, so I am not sure where Boeing come into this, I only suggested them as I thought you meant NASA needed a commercial company to sell space on it on their behalf.

Of course all of the above is predicated on my belief that the USAF owned it. So is it the case that it is not owed by the USAF?