-
#580
by
ugordan
on 07 Dec, 2010 17:26
-
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.
-
#581
by
agman25
on 07 Dec, 2010 17:53
-
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.
-
#582
by
ugordan
on 07 Dec, 2010 18:10
-
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...
-
#583
by
edkyle99
on 07 Dec, 2010 20:52
-
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
-
#584
by
edkyle99
on 08 Dec, 2010 21:01
-
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.pdfIHI 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
-
#585
by
sdsds
on 10 Dec, 2010 04:19
-
-
#586
by
Skyrocket
on 13 Dec, 2010 08:31
-
-
#587
by
pargoo
on 13 Dec, 2010 08:36
-
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?
-
#588
by
Skyrocket
on 13 Dec, 2010 08:39
-
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
-
#589
by
eeergo
on 13 Dec, 2010 18:33
-
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.
In those pictures, specially the 4th one, the stains on the thermal blankets certainly appear to originate in the thrusters. Some RCS leak?
-
#590
by
vt_hokie
on 13 Dec, 2010 21:49
-
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!
-
#591
by
Zero-G
on 13 Dec, 2010 22:58
-
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.
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...)
-
#592
by
robertross
on 13 Dec, 2010 22:59
-
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.
-
#593
by
Jim
on 13 Dec, 2010 23:02
-
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.
-
#594
by
Jim
on 13 Dec, 2010 23:05
-
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
-
#595
by
robertross
on 13 Dec, 2010 23:15
-
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?
-
#596
by
pargoo
on 14 Dec, 2010 08:59
-
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.
-
#597
by
JosephB
on 14 Dec, 2010 09:01
-
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?
-
#598
by
Skyrocket
on 14 Dec, 2010 09:34
-
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.
-
#599
by
Ben the Space Brit
on 14 Dec, 2010 10:04
-
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.
).