Quote from: Jim on 11/10/2023 01:04 pmQuote from: Asteroza on 11/10/2023 01:35 amDeep 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.
Quote from: Asteroza on 11/10/2023 01:35 amDeep 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.
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.
Quote from: Jim on 11/10/2023 02:46 pmQuote from: Bean Kenobi on 11/10/2023 02:29 pmQuote from: Jim on 11/10/2023 01:04 pmWhat 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 moreThere 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.
Quote from: Bean Kenobi on 11/10/2023 02:29 pmQuote from: Jim on 11/10/2023 01:04 pmWhat 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
Quote from: Jim on 11/10/2023 01:04 pmWhat 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.
What about a dual payload and X-37 dropped off at a lower altitude.
Quote from: Jim on 11/10/2023 01:00 pmQuote from: LouScheffer on 11/10/2023 12:31 pmA 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.
Quote from: LouScheffer on 11/10/2023 12:31 pmA major point of a military space plane (with large maneuvering capability) is rapid response.Not when it is placed on a Falcon Heavy.
A major point of a military space plane (with large maneuvering capability) is rapid response.
Quote from: LouScheffer on 11/11/2023 03:34 pmNot 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
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.
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.
Quote from: Jim on 11/10/2023 01:04 pmWhat 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!
NextSpaceflight (Updated November 14th)Launch NET 8 December 2023https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/110Does this mean we can assume launch December 7th local time and December 8th UTC?
Here is a first look at the USSF-52 X-37B OTV-7 mission patch.
Quote from: Jim on 11/13/2023 12:51 amQuote from: LouScheffer on 11/11/2023 03:34 pmNot 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 LEOI 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.
NextSpaceflight (Updated November 25th)Launch NET December 2023https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/110
Ben Cooper's Launch Photography Viewing Guide, updated November 24:https://www.launchphotography.com/Launch_Viewing_Guide.htmlQuoteThe next SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket will launch a Starlink batch from pad 40 on November 27 at 11:00 p.m. EST or later. Upcoming launches include more Starlink batches from pad 40. A Falcon Heavy will launch the seventh OTV X-37B spaceplane mission for the U.S. Space Force from pad 39A on December. The side boosters will land back at the Cape eight minutes after launch.
The next SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket will launch a Starlink batch from pad 40 on November 27 at 11:00 p.m. EST or later. Upcoming launches include more Starlink batches from pad 40. A Falcon Heavy will launch the seventh OTV X-37B spaceplane mission for the U.S. Space Force from pad 39A on December. The side boosters will land back at the Cape eight minutes after launch.
<snip>I wonder what happened.
Quote from: zubenelgenubi on 11/25/2023 04:56 pm<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.
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?
