X-37 revived again?

[jschaef5]

"This isn't an X-37 revival. It's just the next step in a program that's actually been ticking along pretty well. They've been doing drop tests using Scaled's lovely White Knight."<br /><br />I would consider it a revival due to the fact that it had 1 drop test from the white knight and the breaks overheated and it went off the end of the runway. I believe they moved it down to Plant 42 for repairs and i haven't heard much since. Its sort of like they demonstrated it's stability and flight characteristics and then it sat around for like 8 months and now they say they are launching a version B on an atlas. I guess its just taking it to the next step but from the public eye it doesn't seem like its been ticking along... i thought it had died.<br /><br />On the subject about making it manned, isn't that similar to what the X-38 was. A crew return vehicle? I don't think it was ment to be put up on a rocket but its ment to re-enter and land under guided chute. (They look quite similar <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> ) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[propforce]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>"This isn't an X-37 revival. It's just the next step in a program that's actually been ticking along pretty well. They've been doing drop tests using Scaled's lovely White Knight." <br /><br />I would consider it a revival due to the fact that it had 1 drop test from the white knight and the breaks overheated and it went off the end of the runway. I believe they moved it down to Plant 42 for repairs and i haven't heard much since........ <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />It is not an X-37 revival because it's practically a completely DIFFERENT vehicle than the ALTV.<br /><br />This OTV (orbital test vehicle) will have <br /><br />1) Orbital manuvering propulsion system<br />2) Re-entry thermal protection system<br />3) On-orbit thermal control (solar panels & heat rejection) system<br />4) On-orbit guidance, navigation & control systems.<br />5) High temperature composite leading edges <br />etc..... <br /><br />You think they could design ALL THESE in 8 months? <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />.<br /><br />Some materials, such as the advanced TPS and composites, required long term material development. We are talking about years.<br /><br />So think about it <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"So think about it..."</font><br /><br />Cool! They've finally decided to break out the alien tech from area 51! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[jschaef5]

"It is not an X-37 revival because it's practically a completely DIFFERENT vehicle than the ALTV. "<br /><br />Umm duh its a new vehicle hence the X-37B... but its still the same project... The thing is that the project goals called for the next level of flight test but no one until just recently has ever actually mentioned it going that far. The first step is to fly it in the air and have it land, then put it up into space and bring it down. Its landing part is NOT going to be different than what the X-37 demonstrated.<br /><br />"You think they could design ALL THESE in 8 months? .<br />Some materials, such as the advanced TPS and composites, required long term material development. We are talking about years.<br />So think about it ...."<br /><br />I am not sure what you are trying to imply... tps and composites have been developed over decades but that timespan is completely unrelated to this project. Everything you listed has been under research for a long time and this system will incorporate them. And how does 8 months have anything to do with it. From what I have heard they haven't even started on the X-37B other than state that they are going to start work on it and plan to shoot one up in a a couple years. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

"There's no such bird as a manned X-37. It would be a fundamentally different vehicle then."<br /><br />I never thought otherwise. I was just answering a hypothetical question.

 

[gunsandrockets]

"SAT."<br /><br />??<br /><br />"I, obviously, mis read your post when I was in too much of a hurry."<br /><br />See that's the mystery. If you were in too much of a hurry to understand what you read, how did you have enough time to cut and paste the very same item?<br /><br />http://uplink.space.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=missions&Number=621330&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0<br /><br />"Too bad your personality forced you to make such a sarcastic reply. However I would not have expected anything more from you."<br /><br />Ah, now I get it. No wonder you misunderstood what I wrote. Looking down your nose is bound to impair your comprehension.

 

[holmec]

No, no. You are mistaken. The current X-37 was nothing more than a flight test bed. The Airforce is tacking the project to the next level by making the X-37B. A little bigger for orbital flight. Now the concept from the beginning is for this orbiter to be able to fit on a current rocket or be launched by the Shuttle itself. A lot of versatility was built in to this project.<br /><br />So in a way you are right and in a way your inferring to a problem that is not there.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

I wonder who is the guy that is keeping this project afloat.<br /><br />The project started in AF, went to NASA, then to DARPA, back to AF. And in the interim used Scaled Composites WhiteKnight for flight drop tests instead of the more expensive NASA's B-52. <br /><br />I think since the Shuttle, the AF had developed an appetite for orbital experiments and wants to continue this. It seems that AF may not be content with the Constellation system but really really wants a space plane to send up experiments and land them on a runway. Remember it was the AF that demanded wings on the Shuttle when the workings of the Shuttle orbiter was in the works in early 70's.<br /><br />AF motto "wings in space!" <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[bpfeifer]

"I think since the Shuttle, the AF had developed an appetite for orbital experiments and wants to continue this. It seems that AF may not be content with the Constellation system but really really wants a space plane to send up experiments and land them on a runway"<br /><br />Since the begining of the US human spacelfight program, the USAF as wanted a manned winged rocket vehicle. This is nothing new, but rather a continuation of a long standing desire. Before Kennedy announced the Apollo mission, McNamara and Webb sat down and worked out spheres of responibility for DoD and NASA, but the USAF has never been entirely happy with the arrangement. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Brian J. Pfeifer http://sabletower.wordpress.com<br /> The Dogsoldier Codex http://www.lulu.com/sabletower<br /> </div>

 

[publiusr]

Direct would be a perfect ride--unlike the Delta IV

 

[Testing]

There are alot of firsts on board this development X-37B bird. A completely new GNC system, advanced thermal control systems, autonomous return to the West coast and never before used electro-mechanical actuators. One year and a bit to launch.......... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

What's the story behind the choice of the airframe shape?

 

[Testing]

Sorry, beyond my expertise. <br /><br />I have two oh to common statements lately.<br />You want to do what!!!???<br />How did we ever get to the Moon? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jschaef5]

"The project started in AF, went to NASA, then to DARPA, back to AF. And in the interim used Scaled Composites White Knight for flight drop tests instead of the more expensive NASA's B-52."<br /><br />Actually Scaled said they could do it cheaper and in a shorter time period. However scaled went way past there scheduled date just like the government usually does. And I am not sure that it was done much cheaper either. And safety wise for the vehicle the B-52 would have been a better option because the engineering was already done to have it fitted and on the white knight there are only a few inches of clearance, or at least from what I've heard. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> What's the story behind the choice of the airframe shape?</i><br /><br />The X-37 airframe is optimized for reentry - it would be boosted to orbit under a fairing or in STS cargo bay. It is a high-crossrange design, currently classified by DARPA and owned by the Air Force. Derivatives of the X-37 could provide fast-response LEO sensors suites, actual spaceplanes and the dreaded "stand off" weapons that have the media in a tizzy of late. <br /><br />The moldline of the craft is fairly unique, along with it's X-40 precursor. It is similiar to the DC-X and perhaps AMARV on reentry, which probably explains why DoD classified a previously public design. It's hard to tell from the few pics, but it looks like it has a body-flap on the tail. If it's split flap it would have serious crossrange and maneuverability, but it's still going to fall like a brick.<br /><br />The military is doing more to create CATS than NASA, AFRL has done an incredible amount of research and sponsorship the last few years. They have a lot of incentive, with their interests in responsive lift and vehicles like SUSTAIN. <br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/craft/x37.htm<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-37<br /><br />Whatever gets us up there faster.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

<i>The military is doing more to create CATS than NASA,</i> <br /><br />They haven't achieved it yet. <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>

 

[j05h]

<i>>> The military is doing more to create CATS than NASA,<br /> /> They haven't achieved it yet.</i><br /><br />No, of course not. But the DoD has been fostering some very innovative space technology, much of it applicable to human spaceflight. Even though it's only a test article, X-37 could lead to passenger vehicles and other uses beyond fast spy-sat flights. It's designed to fly on existing rockets, which is a plus.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[holmec]

Still it worked. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Thew US military spends 20 billion a year on space, it would be nice to see something generally ueful come out of it. But I won't hold my breath.<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>

 

[nyarlathotep]

<i>They haven't achieved it yet.</i><br /><br />The would have made plenty of inroads with EELV, had there been a market.

 

[JonClarke]

At $13-14000 per kgNeither the Delta IV nor the Atlas V are competitive against Ariane V orProton 8K82K which can deliver roughly equivalent payloads to LEO at $6-7000 per kg.<br /><br />The USAF has not delivered CATS, nor should it be expected to. That's not its purpose.<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>

 

[propforce]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Thew US military spends 20 billion a year on space, it would be nice to see something generally ueful come out of it. But I won't hold my breath. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />You shouldn't 'cause you'd suffocate to death.<br /><br />If you live in today's world, then you owe your modern day convenience to the US military's spending on space & weapon technologies. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[propforce]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> What's the story behind the choice of the airframe shape? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Look at the forward wing shape carefully... then compare its shape with the Shuttle Orbiter wing shape <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

<i>If you live in today's world, then you owe your modern day convenience to the US military's spending on space & weapon technologies.</i><br /><br />The old spin off argument doesn't wash. Similar investment in civil R&D would have been more effective.<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>

 

[propforce]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The old spin off argument doesn't wash. Similar investment in civil R&D would have been more effective. <br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />1. Why doesn't the spin-off argument wash? <br /><br />2, Not just the spin-off, you're benefiting from the existing military space products everyday as we speak.<br /><br />3. "Civil" R&D? as in "civilian" R&D? as in "non-government funded" R&D? <br />A private industry has only a pure profit motive when it comes to anything they do, whereas the U.S. government funded R&D cares more than profit. Often, "profit" is in the lowest priority. <br /> <br />This argument for "Cheap" access to space is amusing. The word "cheap" implies inferior quality and abundant quantity. None of them applies to space access. When it comes to MY life, I certainly do not want to ride a "cheap" rocket to space. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>