What is needed to launch X-37B on Falcon 9?

[LouScheffer]

Jeesh, just because the X-37 changed launchers doesn't mean it can do more than before.

It can only carry 500lb of payload and that includes the attach hardware (remember the shuttle?)

A Pegasus could launch a spacecraft with the same payload mass.

Is that really the case?  The X-37 might provide a number of services to the payload that would take extra mass in a stand-alone vehicle.  Orbit maneuvering, attitude control and pointing, power, cooling, communication, and so on.

It's easy to imagine that a 500 lb payload for the X-37 might take quite a bit more mass as a spacecraft.   Look at planetary spacecraft as an extreme case of this - the actual payload (science) is only a small fraction of the total mass.  The bulk of the mass is to proved services that in this case might be provided by the X-37.

[Jim]

Is that really the case?  The X-37 might provide a number of services to the payload that would take extra mass in a stand-alone vehicle.  Orbit maneuvering, attitude control and pointing, power, cooling, communication, and so on.

Yes, specifically a  500 lb payload on a spacecraft that flies on a Pegasus with most of the same services (cooling is provided by neither).  It doesn't have to be a quite a bit more.

https://rsdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/catalog/BCP300_Spacecraft%20Data%20Package.pdf

The only advantages are the orbital maneuvering and return to earth

edited

[Jim]

Since we have no idea of the payloads, can this assertion be made with any confidence?

yes, the orbits define those

To clarify... is the assertion here that DOD payloads have never and will absolutely never go to LEO, even for testing?

No, the assertion that  GSO, MEO, Molniya,  SSO and some retrograde are the orbits that define front line DOD spacecraft.

But on that point, GEO comsats and others high altitude spacecraft  do not use LEO for testing.

[gosnold]

Since we have no idea of the payloads, can this assertion be made with any confidence?

yes, the orbits define those

To clarify... is the assertion here that DOD payloads have never and will absolutely never go to LEO, even for testing?

No, the assertion that  GSO, MEO, Molniya,  SSO and some retrograde are the orbits that define front line DOD spacecraft.

But on that point, GEO comsats and others high altitude spacecraft  do not use LEO for testing.

So NROL-76 is not a front line spacecraft ?

[Jim]

So NROL-76 is not a front line spacecraft ?

yes, just like NROL-66 wasn't.

[IainMcClatchie]

(Response to assertion that DOD doesn't fly LEO.)

Optical spysats are DOD payloads that go into low altitude polar orbits.  Although payload to this orbit will not be as large as an ISS-like orbit, it's more similar to that than a GTO orbit.

USA-224 is a KH-11 derivative, launched 2011, in a 290 km x 985 km orbit (98 degree inclination).
USA-245 is a KH-11 derivative, launched 2013, in a 260 km x 1007 km orbit (98 degree inclination).

Optical spysats would like to be highly manoeverable, and would benefit greatly from increasing their propellant load.  I imagine they'd turn any payload increase available into more propellant.

[Jim]

(Response to assertion that DOD doesn't fly LEO.)

Who made the comment that DOD didn't fly in LEO?. Of course, it does and there is no reason to point out the obvious KH-11, but you forgot the radar sats, weather sats, and ocean surveillance, that are also in LEO.
I think you read the thread wrong. 

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

One of things needed to fly the X-37B on an F9 is a contract.

An FFP contract that has unfunded options for flights but specifies and funds the work needed to validate the payload for flight on the F9. This contract could have been done years ago. Also it could have also included a study of what the minimum notice (on contract via contract mod [contract mods/options can be accomplished within a single day if need be]) time is between on contract and launch.

If the call up (contract mod) was recent, that then looks like a ~2-3 month span.

It is also possible that ULA has an exact duplicate of this kind of contract for X-37B as well. But their span that they identified is much longer (about 1 year).

[gongora]

One of things needed to fly the X-37B on an F9 is a contract.

An FFP contract that has unfunded options for flights but specifies and funds the work needed to validate the payload for flight on the F9. This contract could have been done years ago. Also it could have also included a study of what the minimum notice (on contract via contract mod [contract mods/options can be accomplished within a single day if need be]) time is between on contract and launch.

If the call up (contract mod) was recent, that then looks like a ~2-3 month span.

It is also possible that ULA has an exact duplicate of this kind of contract for X-37B as well. But their span that they identified is much longer (about 1 year).

There is absolutely nothing to indicate this contract was just signed or modified recently.  Having a national security contract announced long after the signing is just not that unusual.  When was the NROL-76 contract signed in relation to when it was announced?  We have no idea.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

One of things needed to fly the X-37B on an F9 is a contract.

An FFP contract that has unfunded options for flights but specifies and funds the work needed to validate the payload for flight on the F9. This contract could have been done years ago. Also it could have also included a study of what the minimum notice (on contract via contract mod [contract mods/options can be accomplished within a single day if need be]) time is between on contract and launch.

If the call up (contract mod) was recent, that then looks like a ~2-3 month span.

It is also possible that ULA has an exact duplicate of this kind of contract for X-37B as well. But their span that they identified is much longer (about 1 year).

There is absolutely nothing to indicate this contract was just signed or modified recently.  Having a national security contract announced long after the signing is just not that unusual.  When was the NROL-76 contract signed in relation to when it was announced?  We have no idea.

Yes, the contract mechanisms used in this case are speculation. But what I was showing from my experience in doing AF contracts on the AF side is that there are contracting methods that can be done to do many things almost instantly if set up beforehand.

[gongora]

One of things needed to fly the X-37B on an F9 is a contract.

An FFP contract that has unfunded options for flights but specifies and funds the work needed to validate the payload for flight on the F9. This contract could have been done years ago. Also it could have also included a study of what the minimum notice (on contract via contract mod [contract mods/options can be accomplished within a single day if need be]) time is between on contract and launch.

If the call up (contract mod) was recent, that then looks like a ~2-3 month span.

It is also possible that ULA has an exact duplicate of this kind of contract for X-37B as well. But their span that they identified is much longer (about 1 year).

There is absolutely nothing to indicate this contract was just signed or modified recently.  Having a national security contract announced long after the signing is just not that unusual.  When was the NROL-76 contract signed in relation to when it was announced?  We have no idea.

Yes, the contract mechanisms used in this case are speculation. But what I was showing from my experience in doing AF contracts on the AF side is that there are contracting methods that can be done to do many things almost instantly if set up beforehand.

I would agree that such contracts are possible, and the first part of your post is fine.  You then go on to seemingly infer minimum notice time periods for both SpaceX and ULA based on the timing between the public announcement of OTV-5 and the flight date.  I think that's going a bit far.

[Space Ghost 1962]

Having the ability to fly such payloads on multiple, different LSPs means operational flexibility. Was planned for with Atlas/Delta, but no incentive given Delta's issues to put this into practice.

There is an incentive present now for doing this with Falcon. Which is why it is being done.

Suggest AF will fly both in proportion of relative advantage as they see it serving their need, given application of incentive.

Now ask yourself specifics of what they are for each provider? Economic, reliability, capability? Other?

Kevin, the reusable fairing isn't a problem but an advantage for the AF to show off. They like to be on the cusp of using any advantage they can get their hands on, which is part of what makes them good at what they do.

[Proponent]

And part of the reason the Saturn IB's first stage was tons lighter than the Saturn I's was that the former was never envisioned as a launch vehicle for the winged Dyna-Soar.  I'll bet that whatever boosted BOR was built like a battleship.

Dyne-Soar had no influence on the  design of the Saturn I or IB.

Numerous Saturn documents in the 1959-1961 period mention Dyna-Soar as a payload, including the report of the Saturn Vehicle Committee  ("Silverstein Committee").  According to the attached history, in October 1960 the Air Force believed that Dyna-Soar's first orbital flight could be brought forward by 14 months to April 1963 by switching to the Saturn C-1 as a launch vehicle.  With a time frame that short, the C-1 one must have already been known to be compatible with Dyna-Soar, which is unlikely to have happened by accident.

[Jim]

With a time frame that short, the C-1 one must have already been known to be compatible with Dyna-Soar, which is unlikely to have happened by accident.

It was.  It could lift it, and that was the compatibility.