X-37B/Atlas V Launch Apr 22

[MeteorWayne]

This is another speculation, since i don't remember where i read this - i guess in one of the above articles :
- they were talking about 270 day or something stay in the orbit - if this would mean an orbital launch .. ?

I admit I just don't know. If that is indeed true, I guess there is some steering capability so it doesn't come down in "enemy" territory

 

[Gravity_Ray]

Oh it has steering jets alright, and it’s very maneuverable (that’s one of the tests). It is a very precise platform. Just point and shoot.

 

[lampblack]

OK... here's a round-table interview with Gary Payton, the Air Force official who oversees the X-37B project.

Yes, it is an orbital project. There is a second vehicle under construction, due to fly in 2011. The vehicles use silica tile and 21st century avionics -- and are capable of staying in orbit up to 270 days. They take half-a-world to land, just like shuttle orbiters -- and fly back in much the same way. The major difference is that the entire process is done on auto-pilot, with nary a human anywhere in sight.

The link to Payton's press conference, held two or three days ago:

http://www.dodlive.mil/index.php/tag/gary-payton/

 

[MeteorWayne]

Gracias!!

 

[aphh]

Re: X-37B/Atlas V Scheduled launch Apr 22

THey will never tell you that!!!!!!! Then people will figure out what it is doing up there with telescopes.

"They" won't tell it, sure, but a nine meter long satellite in space is not going to be a secret for very long. Even with humble binoculars I can see objects in space that are not listed anywhere.

Only a night or two ago I saw a very faint satellite racing across the sky with speed I don't remember seeing before. This means the orbit was very low. It was a well camouflaged object, so only a very faint shape appeared in the binoculars.

 

[EarthlingX]

OK... here's a round-table interview with Gary Payton, the Air Force official who oversees the X-37B project.

Yes, it is an orbital project. There is a second vehicle under construction, due to fly in 2011. The vehicles use silica tile and 21st century avionics -- and are capable of staying in orbit up to 270 days. They take half-a-world to land, just like shuttle orbiters -- and fly back in much the same way. The major difference is that the entire process is done on auto-pilot, with nary a human anywhere in sight.

The link to Payton's press conference, held two or three days ago:

http://www.dodlive.mil/index.php/tag/gary-payton/

There are interesting wings on a part, which i guess works similar to space-tug, or service module ?

from www.af.mil : X-37 Orbital Test Vehicle Factsheet

 

[aphh]

I believe people expect too much from X-37. Clearly from the shape you can see that it is an old design that somehow just limped along to year 2000 and beyond. It is a prestige project for the Airforce.

As a space enthusiast I like it, but as a realist I would not expect too much from it. It will not shoot down enemy satellites or fetch broken satellites for repair.

 

[RVHM]

We should be on the lookout for any weird "meteor strikes" over the next few months. It could be a test for a "rod of God".

 

[trailrider]

Oh, yeah! "Rods from God!" Have any of you checked under your bed to see if there is a [fill in the blank] hiding under it? :?

Based on nothing more than a knowledge of aerospace history, and the way things are usually run in the USAF, I would offer the following SPECULATION:

The X-37B is a TEST VEHICLE for possible follow-on craft with a "SR" (Strike-Reconnaisance) mission. Can anyone tell us the actual maximum performance capabilities of the SR-71? How about the TR-2 (latest version of the U-2)? Think higher and faster than has ever been declassified! Predator and Global Hawk drones and other UAV's are operating semi-autonomously over Afghanistan on a regular basis. Think higher and faster, and able to look at almost anyplace on the globe. If it proves practicable, perhaps an operational version can have a cockpit or passenger seats instead of whatever recon avionics packages might go aboard an SR-37C, D or E. Then we can start calling it "Space Eagle" or somesuch.

Unfortunately, it appears the launch of the hypersonic test vehicle went awry. Too bad! Well, maybe next time...

 

[3488]

A quick chime in. Feeling a bit better today, but still not my best.

Oh it has steering jets alright, and it’s very maneuverable (that’s one of the tests). It is a very precise platform. Just point and shoot.

It certainly is point & shoot, or at least point & aim. Wonder what the rate of turn is (on all three axis)? Very quick I would imagine.

Thanks lampblack,

Thrust to mass ratio appears similar to the Shuttle & the glide slope appears similar too.

This is a fascinating test. Wonder if there is any footage / pictures of the X37B being released from the Atlas 5?? That would be something worth seeing.

Be interesting to see what the second vehicle will be for??

Andrew Brown.

 

[shuttle_guy]

This was a test launch however note that the 9 min launch window indicates that they had a rendezvous target.

 

[vladdrac]

At first I thought it was a weapon but given that the majors already have 'Unstoppable' weapons, something so big would be silly. The item in "The New York Times" is a warning to Iranians....even if the description of the weapon is really way off :lol:

 

[trailrider]

This was a test launch however note that the 9 min launch window indicates that they had a rendezvous target.

Would they necessarily have an actual target or possibly a virtual target. Not saying you're not right, but they've done similar virtual target tests with ABM's. For an initial launch it would probably simplify things. The nine-minute launch window might well have been set up to determine if they could launch in that window.

Then again... Getting into the world of pure sarcastic speculation, they lost contact with the hypersonic bird shortly after it went hyper. You don't suppose... :? :shock: Naaa!

 

[lampblack]

This was a test launch however note that the 9 min launch window indicates that they had a rendezvous target.

It's funny... I raised this very question on another forum and got shot down for it. One of the responders suggested that the tight window might be related to a desire to have the sun angles just so for the launch. But that nine-minute window does seem curious.

For whatever it's worth, during the press conference linked earlier in this thread, project head Gary Payton specifically denied any plans for rendezvous operations during the current mission.

 

[MeteorWayne]

From SDC:

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/ne ... 00424.html

The Minotaur 4 booster, flying in a downsized three-stage configuration, launched on a suborbital mission at 4 p.m. local time (7 p.m. EDT; 2300 GMT) from Space Launch Complex 8 at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif...

The craft, called the Hypersonic Test Vehicle 2a, apparently did not complete all of its planned maneuvers to demonstrate new hypersonic flight systems...

But tracking assets lost contact with the triangle-shaped craft 9 minutes after liftoff. "An engineering team is reviewing available data to understand this event," DARPA said in a written statement.

After its release from the Minotaur third stage, the craft was designed to try out its aerodynamic control system and conduct sweeping turns to bleed off excess energy and demonstrate its cross-range capabilities.

The DARPA press release did not specify whether any of the test maneuvers were completed before controllers lost communications with the craft.

The HTV 2a was supposed to glide over the Pacific Ocean at more than 13,000 mph and splash down in the sea near the U.S. Army's Reagan Test Site at Kwajalein Atoll

 

[Zipi]

From SDC:

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/ne ... 00424.html

And how this is related to X-37B?

 

[shuttle_guy]

This was a test launch however note that the 9 min launch window indicates that they had a rendezvous target.

Would they necessarily have an actual target or possibly a virtual target. Not saying you're not right, but they've done similar virtual target tests with ABM's. For an initial launch it would probably simplify things. The nine-minute launch window might well have been set up to determine if they could launch in that window.

Then again... Getting into the world of pure sarcastic speculation, they lost contact with the hypersonic bird shortly after it went hyper. You don't suppose... :? :shock: Naaa!

Yes, it could be a virtual target however to me the fact that they launched at the beginning of a short window is even a better indication of a real target. I say that because that gives them a plane change requirement inorder to get to the target. To me that is logical to test the vehicles ability to aquire the target in a off nominal orbit and get to it.

 

[shuttle_guy]

From SDC:

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/ne ... 00424.html

The Minotaur 4 booster, flying in a downsized three-stage configuration, launched on a suborbital mission at 4 p.m. local time (7 p.m. EDT; 2300 GMT) from Space Launch Complex 8 at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif...

The craft, called the Hypersonic Test Vehicle 2a, apparently did not complete all of its planned maneuvers to demonstrate new hypersonic flight systems...

But tracking assets lost contact with the triangle-shaped craft 9 minutes after liftoff. "An engineering team is reviewing available data to understand this event," DARPA said in a written statement.

After its release from the Minotaur third stage, the craft was designed to try out its aerodynamic control system and conduct sweeping turns to bleed off excess energy and demonstrate its cross-range capabilities.

The DARPA press release did not specify whether any of the test maneuvers were completed before controllers lost communications with the craft.

The HTV 2a was supposed to glide over the Pacific Ocean at more than 13,000 mph and splash down in the sea near the U.S. Army's Reagan Test Site at Kwajalein Atoll

You do realize that the Miniotur with the the hypersonic payload is not the Atlas Five and the X-37b right?

 

[shuttle_guy]

From SDC:

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/ne ... 00424.html

And how this is related to X-37B?

Not at all.

 

[shuttle_guy]

This was a test launch however note that the 9 min launch window indicates that they had a rendezvous target.

It's funny... I raised this very question on another forum and got shot down for it. One of the responders suggested that the tight window might be related to a desire to have the sun angles just so for the launch. But that nine-minute window does seem curious.

For whatever it's worth, during the press conference linked earlier in this thread, project head Gary Payton specifically denied any plans for rendezvous operations during the current mission.

I disagree. the sun angles are no good except for a 9 min period? No way.

 

[MeteorWayne]

From SDC:

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/ne ... 00424.html

And how this is related to X-37B?

OOpsie! That's what happens when I post before morning coffee!

 

[Testing]

I think yer takin the wrong track. Air Force states it is not a weapon. Endurance 270 days with return to Earth. Re-usable. 5500lb thruster on board. 1000lb cargo. Several years ago the Air Force Research Laboratory expressed an interest in rapid response sats for support of warfighters. So you have great big highly capable high dollar observation and sigint sats up there where you want them. Real pain to move them and life shortening. Something happens somewhere and you need a look. Soon. Don't have to launch, already in orbit with three 300lb tinysats on board. What is the response time to have one over the desired area of interest?

 

[Zipi]

X-37B has appeared to Heavens-Above: http://www.heavens-above.com/satinfo.aspx?SatID=36514

Orbital data still pending, but it will be there....

 

[CalliArcale]

Actual performance is classified, of course, but I can't imagine it would have less performance than the NASA version, and that had considerable delta-vee. Its main engine is roughly comparable to a Space Shuttle Orbiter's OMS engine, and with far less mass, it could change its orbital plane a fair bit.

I am skeptical that this will be used as a weapon. It may prove technologies would could later be used for a "rods from god" scenario, but I don't think the X-37B itself is ideal for that. It is, however, ideal for certain reconnaissance activities, and possibly also for interfering with the space assets of other countries. (Hmmmm.....) It will also make an excellent testbed. Previously, to really know if your new tech would work in space, you had to build the whole thing. If this pans out, they'll be able to test technologies without as much expenditure. And if they get the desired rapid turnaround, they might be able to get surveillance data and land the spacecraft before anybody has worked out its orbit and therefore its intent.....

 

[JonClarke]

I think that 99% of the fuss is speculation and hype.

This was a NASA project taken over by the airforce, it is not optimised fror any airforce role. At most it is going to be a useful test bed.

All of the roles suggested would be better done by conventional satellites or hypersonic boost-glide systems.

You can't get quick turn around with the current launch systems.

Bah! Humbug! :lol:

But it is still cool.