-
#280
by
vt_hokie
on 28 Apr, 2010 17:20
-
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.
-
#281
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 02 May, 2010 15:01
-
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.
-
#282
by
Orbiter
on 02 May, 2010 15:18
-
I'm surprised no one has seen the X-37 flyover yet.. its gotta be higher than the Hubble Space Telescope even.
Orbiter
-
#283
by
saturnsky
on 02 May, 2010 15:23
-
Has the AF issued any kind of press release?? Is it possible it may never have reached orbit?? Some Sunday speculation..
-
#284
by
Jim
on 02 May, 2010 15:41
-
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.
-
#285
by
edkyle99
on 02 May, 2010 16:54
-
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.htmlIt 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
-
#286
by
astropl
on 02 May, 2010 17:01
-
-
#287
by
JosephB
on 02 May, 2010 17:45
-
-
#288
by
jgoldader
on 02 May, 2010 19:41
-
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
-
#289
by
William Graham
on 03 May, 2010 00:22
-
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.
-
#290
by
Blackstar
on 03 May, 2010 02:16
-
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.
-
#291
by
Blackstar
on 03 May, 2010 02:16
-
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.
-
#292
by
Blackstar
on 03 May, 2010 02:18
-
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.
-
#293
by
Skyrocket
on 03 May, 2010 05:50
-
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.
-
#294
by
Robotbeat
on 03 May, 2010 13:41
-
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.
-
#295
by
Blackstar
on 03 May, 2010 19:58
-
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.
-
#296
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 03 May, 2010 20:05
-
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.
-
#297
by
Blackstar
on 04 May, 2010 04:27
-
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.
-
#298
by
JimO
on 04 May, 2010 11:37
-
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.
-
#299
by
JimO
on 04 May, 2010 11:41
-
... 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??
