The X-37B orbital mission in 2008

[space_dreamer]

On November 17, 2006 Space.com reported that "The U.S. Air Force announced today that it is developing an Orbital Test Vehicle (OTV), based on the design of a NASA X-37 craft. It is to be designated as the X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle." First flight is scheduled for fiscal year 2008, launching on an Atlas V launch vehicle from Cape Canaveral. <br /><br />The X-37B is the first X-plane to go into orbit space and points the way to the true second generation US space shuttle. <br /><br />Does anybody have any new info on this?<br />When is the launch?<br />Any new Pictures?<br />

 

[holmec]

Standby.......but don't hold your breath. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[docm]

After all the preliminary flight testing by Scaled (air launch using White Knight) and announcements from DARPA, NASA and AFRL going back years targeting 2008 you still think it's not likely? <br /><br />http://www.af.mil/news/story_print.asp?id=123032226<br /><br />EDIT: interesting article from the Pacific Coast Business Times;<br /><br />http://www.pacbiztimes.com/index.cfm?go2=articles/wk_011408d<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><b>Economy<br /><br />VAFB lifts North Santa Barbara Co.<br /><br />By Laura Ritter<br />Special to the Business Times<br />Jan. 14, 2008</b><br /><br />North Santa Barbara County businesspeople touched base with the base on Jan. 7, at an annual luncheon sponsored by Vandenberg Air Force Base and the Lompoc and Santa Maria chambers of commerce.<br /><br />“There is a lot of activity on this base, day in and day out,†said Col. Steve Tanous, who started his third Vandenberg tour by taking command of the 30th Space Wing and the Western Range in March 2007.<br /><br />“Our mission is to defend the United States through the exceptional launch, range, expeditionary and installation operations,†he said. The launch is the visually impressive part, but behind the scenes, each launch requires “the orchestration of hundreds of assets for months in advance to bring [them] to fruition,†he said.<br /><br />Last year, the base hosted eight launches, including the first two Italian space launches.<br /><br />There is potential for 15 to 17 launches this year, including the base’s first Atlas V, several Delta IIs and Minuteman IIIs, and another Italian satellite.<br /><br /><b><font color="yellow">That’s what goes up. Base officials are also excited about what comes down. With its first mission planned for 2008, the X-37B unmanned test vehicle is expected to lau</font></b></p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[holmec]

Well its (the next step) called the Orbital Test Vehicle now by USAF<br /><br />USAF article<br /><br />According to the link, you can call the Secretary and ask for an update. Go ahead, be my guest. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

good find docm <br /><br />The fact that they called it x-37b in that article, tells me that they are going off of the old anouncement last year and that the team on the project has not changed its eval on that. So maybe there will be a launch in 2008. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[space_dreamer]

Thank you for the links Holmec and Docm. So the launch will be from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station on an Atlas V. <br /><br />Do you think the X-37B Atlas V launch be announced in advance? Or kept secret?<br />

 

[grdja]

Latest Atlas and Delta are still immature and underutilized, NASA is dumping cash on Ares and USAF wants a reusable TSTO? Do you think something about confused priorities???

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Do you think the X-37B Atlas V launch be announced in advance? Or kept secret? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />So far they have been announced. So I expect the next one will too. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Do you think something about confused priorities???<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />No, just different priorities. I think it represents a split between USAF and NASA, where as they both utilized the STS, so USAF had a say in its development. But I don't think USAF has such a roll in the Constellation program. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[space_dreamer]

I think this is the right way to go. NASA just does not have the money to develop a new winged reusable space shuttle the USAF does.

 

[CalliArcale]

I do hope this pans out. Friends of mine had involvement with X-37, so I've got personal reasons to see it move to the next stage. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

But the USAF does not need a new winged reusable space shuttle any more than it needed the old one.<br /><br />jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[space_dreamer]

For America to have a proper reusable shuttle which massively brought down the cost of getting to orbit would be a big strategic advantage. The X-37B is one more step towards that.<br /><br />USAF jobs for 2nd generation shuttle - orbital supply, satellite rendezvous and inspection, reconnaissance, and research.<br />

 

[grdja]

Thankfully, this one has almost no wings, and if it gets to be top mounted on a EELV, nice.

 

[docm]

So, the bottom line is that the USAF is doing the same thing NewSpace companies do: take NASA's cast-off (read: de-budgeted) concepts and make them work. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vt_hokie]

I'll be rooting for X-37! Hoping for great success...

 

[lampblack]

<font color="yellow">So, the bottom line is that the USAF is doing the same thing NewSpace companies do: take NASA's cast-off (read: de-budgeted) concepts and make them work.</font><br /><br />Whatever gets the job done. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[richalex]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The X-37B is the first X-plane to go into orbit space and points the way to the true second generation US space shuttle.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>I don't know about all that. Its intended use appears to be as a long-duration orbiting test bed. That is, the X-37B would launch into orbit, hang out a test specimen, then wait a few months to see what happens. It is only supposed to be 1/4 the size of the space shuttle. The bottom line is, it won't get people into orbit, and not really very much equipment. I suppose it must have some other use than just materials testing, like maybe putting spy sattelites into orbit or taking out enemy satellites or whatever, but I don't see it doing too much to advance space exploration.

 

[vulture2]

The X-37 itself is not an operational spacecraft; it is a technology demonstrator, one of a series NASA abandoned. It will not produce flags or footprints, but it will yeild knowledge on how to build a safe and practical reusable shuttle,<br /><br />I hope it succeeds. I agree with Jon that DOD has no realistic mission for a shuttle (or a reusable booster for that matter) but it will benefit the world more than spending the money for more bombs. <br /><br />But this should have been a NASA mission. I am deeply disappointed that an agency once as proud as NASA has abandoned the development of every new technology of practical value.

 

[richalex]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I agree with Jon that DOD has no realistic mission for a shuttle (or a reusable booster for that matter) but it will benefit the world more than spending the money for more bombs.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>In all likelihood, the X-37B will be weaponized or used for weapons systems one way or another. That is the only justification that I see for the Air Force to work on it. The purpose of the military is to provide lethal force as needed, where needed. I don't recall any time that the Air Force has deviated from fulfilling that mission in its research projects.

 

[docm]

I agree with RichAlex. <br /><br />This would fall right into the last US Space Policy statement.<br /><br />http://www.ostp.gov/html/US%20National%20Space%20Policy.pdf<br /><br />and the Washington Post interpretation is this;<br /><br />http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/17/AR2006101701484_pf.html<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The administration said the policy revisions are not a prelude to introducing weapons systems into Earth orbit. "This policy is not about developing or deploying weapons in space. Period," said a senior administration official who was not authorized to speak on the record.<br /><br />Nevertheless, Michael Krepon, co-founder of the Henry L. Stimson Center, a nonpartisan think tank that follows the space-weaponry issue, said the policy changes will reinforce international suspicions that the United States may seek to develop, test and deploy space weapons. The concerns are amplified, he said, by the administration's refusal to enter negotiations or even less formal discussions on the subject.<br /><br />"The Clinton policy opened the door to developing space weapons, but that administration never did anything about it," Krepon said. "The Bush policy now goes further."<br /><br />Theresa Hitchens, director of the nonpartisan Center for Defense Information in Washington, said that the new policy "kicks the door a little more open to a space-war fighting strategy" and has a "very unilateral tone to it."<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>But the USAF does not need a new winged reusable space shuttle any more than it needed the old one. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Aww, Jon! What's the USAF without wings? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Its intended use appears to be as a long-duration orbiting test bed.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />And then there's the missions their not mentioning....black ops, potentially. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"What's the USAF without wings?"</font><br /><br />What is it without air?<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[wubblie]

Make the next version (X-37C?) larger, and it is the Kliper. I would like to see private space maneuver itself into a position so that the next time NASA fails (like with the Orion), instead of just firing the current administrator, it fires NASA instead- and lets someone else do the job. I am glad to see that the USAF as well as private space companies are moving closer to being viable alternatives to the Orion concept.