-
#200
by
DistantTemple
on 11 Nov, 2023 16:12
-
This is test launch on FH, with we (as argued variously up thread) guess a very large fule load. It seams they may be able to test various operations, as discussed up thread.
One type of real rapid response launch, for a real need, could be a launch on an F9, but obviously with somewhat less fuel, and less capeability to change orbits, however as long as itdidn't include GTO or other higher orbits it would still be very capeable. I guess if an X37B was standing by ready pretty much encapsulated etc, SX could launch it in a few days - just by bumping a Starlink mission!
The other type would be as mentioned above, an FH mission, loitering on orbit with masses of fuel. This second would be more secret, as changing launch perameters (F9) at very short notice would not be secret.
-
#201
by
lrk
on 11 Nov, 2023 21:07
-
Deep passes would face a heat soak problem that probably can't be addressed by the existing radiator, so you either are committing to landing somewhat soon after a deep pass (skipping stone reentry), or stuck with light passes.
Not even heat soak. Just operating for long periods without the radiators deployed will be an issue. Also, the service module isn't going to ride along for any dip in the atmosphere.
These are reasonable concerns, but only if you did deep dips without designing for it. Presumably, if they did this intentionally, they could close the doors just before the pass, and open them afterwards, so the radiators are only offline for a short time. And the service module would be designed for dips. It's quite strongly attached, and presumably could have at least some heat shielding on the exposed side - just enough for the dips, not re-entry level shielding.
I very much doubt they will try this, but if they if they did they would design for it, and I suspect could use much deeper dips than those used by unprotected spacecraft.
Why would the service module be needed during terminal aerobraking passes? My understanding is that its main purpose is propulsion, and minimal dV would be needed after that point anyway. Earlier missions flew without a service module entirely.
They could potentially deploy the radiators between passes. Or if that isn't feasible, they could have added an auxiliary cooling system such as a flash evaporator or ammonia boiler, like was used on Shuttle to help with cooling when the payload bay was closed.
-
#202
by
Asteroza
on 13 Nov, 2023 00:19
-
What about a dual payload and X-37 dropped off at a lower altitude.
In that case, fairing has to be expanded. Comparing with Falcon 9, if available mass is higher, volume isn't if fairing is the same.
This hypothesis requires the payloads to be stacked.
No, there is room for more
There is room alright. X-37B and its service module can be mounted at least another 1 meter higher up into the fairing compared to the time it flew on Falcon 9.
So something ESPA Grande tower shaped below the service module? Something like Sherpa LTC or SHEPRA LTE, a propulsive tug? That would fit with the unmodified X-37/service module narrative pretty easily. Same with NG's LDPE, which has flown on Falcon Heavy before as well.
-
#203
by
Jim
on 13 Nov, 2023 00:51
-
A major point of a military space plane (with large maneuvering capability) is rapid response.
Not when it is placed on a Falcon Heavy.
Not sure of this logic. If you want fast response, presumably you want an asset already in orbit with considerable maneuvering capability (and hence a huge fuel load). So you'd launch it on a big rocket (which is not fast response) so it's on orbit when you need it.
I always thought (but of course cannot confirm) that this is how imaging satellites work. They launch on a big (not rapid response) launcher so they can later get where they are needed, when they are needed.
No,they keep the same basic orbit. There is no "considerable maneuvering capability" i.e plane change in LEO
-
#204
by
LouScheffer
on 13 Nov, 2023 14:45
-
Not sure of this logic. If you want fast response, presumably you want an asset already in orbit with considerable maneuvering capability (and hence a huge fuel load). So you'd launch it on a big rocket (which is not fast response) so it's on orbit when you need it.
I always thought (but of course cannot confirm) that this is how imaging satellites work. They launch on a big (not rapid response) launcher so they can later get where they are needed, when they are needed.
No,they keep the same basic orbit. There is no "considerable maneuvering capability" i.e plane change in LEO
I too have never heard of a plane change. I have heard informal comments (obviously unconfirmed) that they could and did maneuver in-plane to change the time of overflights, and to allow quite low perigees for critical imaging, plus a subsequent reboost. All rumors, but seem plausible. The use of timing to avoid satellite overflights is
well known, and a low but unsustainable perigee could double or triple resolution.
-
#205
by
Jim
on 13 Nov, 2023 16:05
-
I too have never heard of a plane change. I have heard informal comments (obviously unconfirmed) that they could and did maneuver in-plane to change the time of overflights, and to allow quite low perigees for critical imaging, plus a subsequent reboost. All rumors, but seem plausible. The use of timing to avoid satellite overflights is well known, and a low but unsustainable perigee could double or triple resolution.
Current ones are in a 4 day repeating ground track.
Not since Gambit have low perigees been used.
-
#206
by
daveglo
on 13 Nov, 2023 17:28
-
What about a dual payload and X-37 dropped off at a lower altitude.
Jim, I get the idea of the opportunity on FH to do a dual-payload launch, but help me understand how that would align with the "expanding the envelope" and "new orbital regimes" comments in the press release.
Thanks for the insights!
-
#207
by
LouScheffer
on 14 Nov, 2023 13:19
-
What about a dual payload and X-37 dropped off at a lower altitude.
Jim, I get the idea of the opportunity on FH to do a dual-payload launch, but help me understand how that would align with the "expanding the envelope" and "new orbital regimes" comments in the press release.
Thanks for the insights!
I don't think there is any contradiction between "new orbital regimes" and a secondary payload. A fully fueled X-37 can be guessed at about 20 tonnes (5 tonnes bare + 3100 m/s maneuvering fuel). FH can put this into any practical orbit (it's rated at 26 tonnes to GTO) and still have payload mass to spare. And new orbital regimes could be quite a bit less drastic than GTO.
-
#208
by
GewoonLukas_
on 14 Nov, 2023 15:47
-
-
#209
by
Alexphysics
on 15 Nov, 2023 08:11
-
NextSpaceflight (Updated November 14th)
Launch NET 8 December 2023
https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/110
Does this mean we can assume launch December 7th local time and December 8th UTC?
Yep. Evening launch local time, will be on the 8th in UTC. It'll be more clear once the launch window is announced.
-
#210
by
SpaceCadet1983
on 18 Nov, 2023 05:11
-
Here is a first look at the USSF-52 X-37B OTV-7 mission patch.
-
#211
by
rocketenthusiast
on 18 Nov, 2023 05:24
-
Here is a first look at the USSF-52 X-37B OTV-7 mission patch.
do they have the wrong falcon heavy configuration on the patch? or is there some experimental landing or something?
-
#212
by
SpaceCadet1983
on 19 Nov, 2023 02:45
-
I wouldn't read too much into the depiction of the Falcon Heavy rendering on the patch.
-
#213
by
Kaputnik
on 19 Nov, 2023 10:23
-
Not sure of this logic. If you want fast response, presumably you want an asset already in orbit with considerable maneuvering capability (and hence a huge fuel load). So you'd launch it on a big rocket (which is not fast response) so it's on orbit when you need it.
I always thought (but of course cannot confirm) that this is how imaging satellites work. They launch on a big (not rapid response) launcher so they can later get where they are needed, when they are needed.
No,they keep the same basic orbit. There is no "considerable maneuvering capability" i.e plane change in LEO
I too have never heard of a plane change. I have heard informal comments (obviously unconfirmed) that they could and did maneuver in-plane to change the time of overflights, and to allow quite low perigees for critical imaging, plus a subsequent reboost. All rumors, but seem plausible. The use of timing to avoid satellite overflights is well known, and a low but unsustainable perigee could double or triple resolution.
Probably fanciful, but could they be exploring aerodynamic plane changes?
-
#214
by
GewoonLukas_
on 25 Nov, 2023 16:31
-
-
#215
by
zubenelgenubi
on 25 Nov, 2023 16:56
-
-
#216
by
Zed_Noir
on 26 Nov, 2023 02:54
-
<snip>
I wonder what happened.
Guess the X-37B is getting some new hardware installed and maybe some old hardware removed.
Don't think the Falcon Heavy is the cause of the launch date becoming uncertain. SpaceX already launch 4 of them this year.
-
#217
by
ZachS09
on 26 Nov, 2023 03:31
-
<snip>
I wonder what happened.
Guess the X-37B is getting some new hardware installed and maybe some old hardware removed.
Don't think the Falcon Heavy is the cause of the launch date becoming uncertain. SpaceX already launch 4 of them this year.
In layman's terms, it's "payload readiness issues". The two previous USSF Falcon Heavy flights were delayed because of that.
-
#218
by
zubenelgenubi
on 28 Nov, 2023 20:35
-
How late can USSF-52 slip before impingeing on the IM-1 launch campaign? Circa the week before Christmas? 🎄 Two/2.5 weeks to shift GSE/pad from Falcon Heavy to Falcon 9?
-
#219
by
DanClemmensen
on 28 Nov, 2023 20:50
-
How late can USSF-52 slip before impingeing on the IM-1 launch campaign? Circa the week before Christmas? 🎄 Two/2.5 weeks to shift GSE/pad from Falcon Heavy to Falcon 9?
Does IM-1 require LC-39A, or could it move to SLC-40? Apparently, SX-3 may launch from SLC-40 instead of LC-39A now that SLC-40 has its shiny new crew access arm. AX-3 appears to have a bit more scheduling flexibility than IM-1, but I have lost track of all the constraints fro each of these missions.
Does USSF-52 impose the "must have time to evaluate the prior launch" rule?