SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 7, 2017 : DISCUSSION

[cygnusx112]

Is this launch locked into 39A or is there a chance it could go from 40 if it's ready?

[gongora]

Is this launch locked into 39A or is there a chance it could go from 40 if it's ready?

We're about 3 weeks from the launch date.  SLC-40 is not ready.

[Kaputnik]

It's the @SpaceX fairing for X-37B!

https://twitter.com/scottishrobot/status/898939938917552128

Does this confirm vertical integration? And if it does, did we know this already?

[Jim]

Nothing new, still mated to the LV horizontally

[deruch]

From the Update Thread:

SpaceX Falcon 9 (OTV-5 (X-37B)) Static Fire at KSC 39A is NET September 1 (L2)

Static fire now August 31 per update.

With a static fire on September 1st August 31st, does that possibly indicate that the schedule will be sliding left from the previously discussed September 7th launch date?  Or is this just to allow extra time for mating given the unusual payload? 


EDIT: changed SF date per update from Chris.

[Brovane]

From the Update Thread:

SpaceX Falcon 9 (OTV-5 (X-37B)) Static Fire at KSC 39A is NET September 1 (L2)

With a static fire on September 1st, does that possibly indicate that the schedule will be sliding left from the previously discussed September 7th launch date?  Or is this just to allow extra time for mating given the unusual payload?

Considering Monday 9/4 is a Holiday in the US, I would expect that SpaceX wanted to get the static fire out of the way before the holiday weekend. 

[Brovane]

With the Static fire out of the way, hopefully, the SpaceX team can enjoy Labor Day weekend, unlike last year. 

[jpo234]

So why the switch to a Falcon 9?

Flexibility for the customer - USAF. Now the X-37B won't be tied to just one launch vehicle. It is possible (and even likely) that the next flight will be on an Atlas V again.

After the F9 is proven for the X-37B, shouldn't future launches be up for competition?

[Ben the Space Brit]

So why the switch to a Falcon 9?

Flexibility for the customer - USAF. Now the X-37B won't be tied to just one launch vehicle. It is possible (and even likely) that the next flight will be on an Atlas V again.

After the F9 is proven for the X-37B, shouldn't future launches be up for competition?

Theoretically, yes. I am sure that both ULA and SpaceX will have to answer the question: "How easily can you slot us into your schedule?" The USAF will want to launch their mission when they want it launched and won't be interested in hearing about anyone's backlog.

[Rebel44]

So why the switch to a Falcon 9?

Flexibility for the customer - USAF. Now the X-37B won't be tied to just one launch vehicle. It is possible (and even likely) that the next flight will be on an Atlas V again.

After the F9 is proven for the X-37B, shouldn't future launches be up for competition?

Theoretically, yes. I am sure that both ULA and SpaceX will have to answer the question: "How easily can you slot us into your schedule?" The USAF will want to launch their mission when they want it launched and won't be interested in hearing about anyone's backlog.

If things go well at SpaceX, backlog should be gone (or mostly gone) by the end of 2018, so it shoudnt be an issue after that

[SimonFD]

Air Force preparing to launch fifth Orbital Test Vehicle mission
By Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs / Published August 31, 2017
...
This will be the program’s first launch on a SpaceX Falcon 9 launch vehicle. The fifth OTV mission will also be launched into, and landed from, a higher inclination orbit than prior missions to further expand the X-37B’s orbital envelope.
...

Bold mine

Is this because they're using Falcon 9 or could/can Atlas allow this as well?

[matthewkantar]

I keep hearing there will be no video from inside the fairing, after fairing sep, or at payload.realease. Can anyone tell me what secret this would reveal that isn't revealed in pictures of the payload sitting on a runway?

Matthew

[Ben the Space Brit]

@matthewkantar,

We don't know what kind of secret it might reveal. Keeping it that way is the whole point of the 'no camera' rule!

[ZachS09]

https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/08/31/falcon-9-rocket-fired-up-for-launch-of-military-mini-shuttle/

This link says that several cubesats will be flown either in the X-37B's payload bay or on a special adapter on the second stage.

This makes me think that the mission should be given an AFSPC designation rather than keep the OTV-5 name.

[Ictogan]

Air Force preparing to launch fifth Orbital Test Vehicle mission
By Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs / Published August 31, 2017
...
This will be the program’s first launch on a SpaceX Falcon 9 launch vehicle. The fifth OTV mission will also be launched into, and landed from, a higher inclination orbit than prior missions to further expand the X-37B’s orbital envelope.
...

Bold mine

Is this because they're using Falcon 9 or could/can Atlas allow this as well?

Wikipedia puts the launch mass of X-37B at 5,400kg. Atlas V can do 8,123kg to LEO with 5m fairing even without any SRBs, so it has plenty of performance to spare for higher inclinations.

[AncientU]

So why the switch to a Falcon 9?

Flexibility for the customer - USAF. Now the X-37B won't be tied to just one launch vehicle. It is possible (and even likely) that the next flight will be on an Atlas V again.

After the F9 is proven for the X-37B, shouldn't future launches be up for competition?

Theoretically, yes. I am sure that both ULA and SpaceX will have to answer the question: "How easily can you slot us into your schedule?" The USAF will want to launch their mission when they want it launched and won't be interested in hearing about anyone's backlog.

This launch seems to have been arranged around when SpaceX had maximum backlog.

[john smith 19]

I've just seen this story and this mission is a real turning point for SX in so many ways.

Opening up X37b flights to SX, deciding if they are going to swap SLC's for final prep for the FH maiden flight, first flight of an actual reusable payload etc.

This is one of those real "choke points" in history where so much hard work pays off.

All launches have a lot riding on them from the customers PoV but I think it's been a while since SX have had quite so much riding on one going without any significant (IRL there's always a few small glitches) mishap.

What a tremendously exciting time to be following space flight. 

[john smith 19]

@matthewkantar,

We don't know what kind of secret it might reveal. Keeping it that way is the whole point of the 'no camera' rule!

Although technically what's probably really secret is inside the X37b's payload bay.

I doubt that will be open during separation, or for a good while after, although IIRC it also houses the PV panels for on orbit power, and the vehicle can't run on batteries too long.

[chipguy]

https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/08/31/falcon-9-rocket-fired-up-for-launch-of-military-mini-shuttle/

This link says that several cubesats will be flown either in the X-37B's paylod bay or in a special adapter on the second stage.

This makes me think that the mission should be given an AFSPC designation rather than keep the OTV-5 name.

The term cubesats may be a polite way to describe acquisition targets for evaluating a new sensor suite
carried by the X-37B. The deployment secrecy may be because the nature of these "cubesats" could
reveal too much about the sensors or the purpose of the system(s) they are being developed for. Or
the "cubesats" themselves may be test beds for new stealth technology to evade X-37B sensors.

[obi-wan]

@matthewkantar,

We don't know what kind of secret it might reveal. Keeping it that way is the whole point of the 'no camera' rule!

All of the shuttle military missions were secret because they didn't want people to know which ones were really secret. I'd be willing to bet, like all the NRO missions, flight coverage will end at fairing separation "at the user's request" and we get great coverage of first stage landing! (Has there been definitive word yet on whether this will be RTLS or ASDS?)