- Status
Everybody has seen the X-37B and it's not camouflaged. It's white and black just like the space shuttle, But it is comparatively small and would appear just like the thousands of other space objects in orbit. I've not seen any news that it is lost. Where do you people get all your "information".aphh":3mi7pcqv said:
bdewoody":2eamprbf said:
I'm sure they made spotting this bird as difficult as possible. Camouflaging could simply mean keeping the black or non-shiny side pointed to earth when flying over populated areas.
Some satellite spotters have very good equipment that should be able to make out basic shapes of objects on orbit. But first they need to spot it, of course. It's easier for military tracking installations, who have radars and catalogues of all orbiting objects.
HI, new here.
I'm wondering whatever happened to our launch vehicle technology that got us into LEO and to the moon? I understand the benefits of a reusable launch vehicle, but frankly we should not be using that as a work-horse because it is not cost effective. (And I'm embarassed that we need to pay the Russians because of our lameduck Shuttle program..... I mean, uh, reusable launch vehicle. )
I was just a kid when Armstrong walked on the moon 40 years ago. Surely we can dust off the old designs, hand them over to the Japanese to improve. (They are extremely adept at improving original concepts and designs, very out of the box thinkers.) I would imagine we could use existing designs, but with newer materials, lighter materials, lighter technology, you get the picture.
I guess I'm just trying to understand why we're trying to reinvent the rocket?
- Ron
I'm wondering whatever happened to our launch vehicle technology that got us into LEO and to the moon? I understand the benefits of a reusable launch vehicle, but frankly we should not be using that as a work-horse because it is not cost effective. (And I'm embarassed that we need to pay the Russians because of our lameduck Shuttle program..... I mean, uh, reusable launch vehicle. )
I was just a kid when Armstrong walked on the moon 40 years ago. Surely we can dust off the old designs, hand them over to the Japanese to improve. (They are extremely adept at improving original concepts and designs, very out of the box thinkers.) I would imagine we could use existing designs, but with newer materials, lighter materials, lighter technology, you get the picture.
I guess I'm just trying to understand why we're trying to reinvent the rocket?
- Ron
You can start here :
SDC forum : List of Multiple Threads on the Same Topic
Take your time, look around
edit - this was reply to a moved post.
SDC forum : List of Multiple Threads on the Same Topic
Take your time, look around
edit - this was reply to a moved post.
MeteorWayne":whh37dj8 said:
I don't get it Wayne, where he is getting his ideas from???????
The X-37B is certainly not on a mission to attack anyone, purely an engineering test mission as well as testing the suitability of using the Atlas 5 as a launch vehicle (which has certainly been demonstrated successfully).
This is a great mission, i am not for the militarization of Space, but I still think this is a great mission.
Andrew Brown.
bdewoody":22gshhco said:
I agree completely with you bdewoody.
There is no evidence what so ever that the X-37B has gone AWOL or malfunctioned. I too wonder where these 'updates' come from.
Thanks EarthlingX for your link & reminder about duplicate topics. Help like that is always appreciated. :mrgreen:
Andrew Brown.
Welocomebimmer4011":1cmunwlb said:
It covered in ‹ Missions and Launches viewtopic.php?f=6&t=23643&start=0
3488":14p4d8gy said:
They're likely confusing it with the loss of the unrelated FALCON:
http://www.thetechherald.com/article.ph ... glide-test
3488":rlgp90ub said:
I might not have been totally serious, but this is a weapon after all. It is meant to help fighting a war, and to threaten with war.
By the way, is there any chance they might have launched X-37B to lunar trajectory? What if it would be loitering in the vicinity of moon, where it could not be shot down so easily? Then attack when needed and enter with huge velocity and kinetic energy?
aphh":1rfx4rhn said:
I don't think this is possible... Atlas 501 can deliver 3971kg to GTO and it will be less for lunar trajectory... X-37B weights about 5400kg. Of course X-37B has its own OMS engine, but I still I'm not believe this is possible. Also coming back in one piece from moon orbit with winged spacecraft is harder than earth orbit. It would need to use it's OMS engine to slow down at return trip which yet again reduces available performance for lunar orbit injection. Without slowdown burn with OMS engine the heat shield probably gets more heat than it can handle.
However this is pure speculation since I'm not that level expert... :roll:
Zipi":hz2p2nkc said:
The gap is not that big. A kinetic missile of 4000 kilograms entering with trans-lunar speed steered to a head-on collision would do a lot of harm to that place. That would be the equivalent of 4000 kg asteroid slamming to your coordinates head on and it would be nearly unstoppable.
The total impact energy would be kinetic energy + potential energy = major collision. Not in the atomic weapon class, but close.
This IS pure speculation, if there ever was any. :lol:
Edit: unfortunately I think I just invented a new horrendous space-weapon. A kinetic missile loitering on moon orbit and called on duty when needed. Unstoppable, almost like an atomic bomb and you could keep the whole world as a hostage. :|
>>I'm wondering whatever happened to our launch vehicle technology that got us into LEO and to the moon? I understand the benefits of a reusable launch vehicle, but frankly we should not be using that as a work-horse because it is not cost effective. (And I'm embarassed that we need to pay the Russians because of our lameduck Shuttle program..... I mean, uh, reusable launch vehicle. )
The dirty little secret is that with ELVs or the shuttle human spaceflight is at least 10 times too expensive to be practical. All the fuel that puts the Space Shuttle in orbit costs about $850,000, and more than half of that is for the ammonium perchlorate in the solid fuel boosters. All that energy is an utterly insignificant part of the operating cost. So why is the Shuttle so expensive to fly? Not because it has to carry wings into orbit. The fundamental reason is that it was built without flying prototypes. Consequently there was no way to accurately predict operating costs, and many design decisions increased those costs. many-fold. The money goes for supplies (i.e. helium, which costs more than the fuel) direct labor (i.e. hydrolasing the SRB segments, carne hoisting to assemble the boosters, welding the ET, search and rescue forces for every launch, etc) and overhead (maintaining the VAB, crawlers, MLPs, retrieval ships, etc.) . Things like Isp are irrelevant except to the extent that they are needed to define the system so that cost can be calculated. Cost is what counts, not Isp, and if you cannot accurately predict cost you cannot develop practical human spaceflight.
There were people who understood this 20 years ago, and that was why the RLV program was started, with the X-33, X-34, DC-X and X-37. All were unmanned and none could even reach orbit under their own power, but all could test some aspect of the technology needed for space launch, and most important, all were reusable many times over, so they could produce reliable data on operating costs for spacecraft that would fly time after time.
But NASA has no memory. By the year 2000 the objective of the RLV program had been forgotten and by 2004 it was canceled. One reason NASA rejected the X-33? They discovered it could not go into orbit, which was of course not its original objective. More or less by chance the DOD decided to fly the X-37 (it was designed by NASA to be carried by the Shuttle). I have yet to find a single NASA employee who actually knows what the mission of the X-37 was. They say "it's some secret DOD satelite killer", or "it's useless for people- it's only the size of a pickup truck".
The X-37 was, and is, designed to test reusable technologies for orbital entry and landing, including aerodynamics, thermal protection, navigation and guidance, and autonomous runway landing. To minimize cost (a concept NASA has since forgotten) the X-37 was designed to be unmanned and as small as possible and still perform a valid test of the technology needed for the next generation Space Shuttle. The heat shielding was designed to be more durable, not so that it would work once, but so that it would work many times with little or no maintenance. Since the vehicle is unmanned, it can be modified frequently to test new concepts without expensive man-rating.
The RLV program was intended to compare runway landing (with the X-37, X-33, and X-34) against vertical landing (with the DCX), and to compare ground launch (DC-X and X-33) against air launch (X-34), and bell nozzle (X-34 and DC-X) against spike nozzle (X-33). Two concepts that were rejected from the start because they are known to be too expensive to be practical or reusable were parachute landing and ocean recovery. A major objective was to compare the lifting body concept (X-33 and DC-X), which NASA has pursued unsuccessfully for decades, against the wing-and-fuselage concept (X-34 and X-37) which is probably a lot more practical for reusable spacecraft, as it is for aircraft.
Unfortunately Sean O'Keefe (strangely for an accountant) did not understand that human spaceflight is much too expensive, and canceled some of the RLVs, and Mike Griffin, with his peculiar dream of re-enacting project Apollo, canceled the rest. DOD picked up the X-37 but isn't sure what it wants it for. There is talk in DOD of pairing an operational vehicle about the size and shape of the X-37 with a reusable liquid-fueled first stage which would carry the orbiter into space and then do an RTLS-like "rocket-back" maneuver to return directly to a runway at Cape Canaveral. The system would be used for launching and recovering satellites from low earth orbit at low cost. I wish them luck, but I am disappointed that NASA has abdicated its original goal - providing American industry with new technology of practical value.
The dirty little secret is that with ELVs or the shuttle human spaceflight is at least 10 times too expensive to be practical. All the fuel that puts the Space Shuttle in orbit costs about $850,000, and more than half of that is for the ammonium perchlorate in the solid fuel boosters. All that energy is an utterly insignificant part of the operating cost. So why is the Shuttle so expensive to fly? Not because it has to carry wings into orbit. The fundamental reason is that it was built without flying prototypes. Consequently there was no way to accurately predict operating costs, and many design decisions increased those costs. many-fold. The money goes for supplies (i.e. helium, which costs more than the fuel) direct labor (i.e. hydrolasing the SRB segments, carne hoisting to assemble the boosters, welding the ET, search and rescue forces for every launch, etc) and overhead (maintaining the VAB, crawlers, MLPs, retrieval ships, etc.) . Things like Isp are irrelevant except to the extent that they are needed to define the system so that cost can be calculated. Cost is what counts, not Isp, and if you cannot accurately predict cost you cannot develop practical human spaceflight.
There were people who understood this 20 years ago, and that was why the RLV program was started, with the X-33, X-34, DC-X and X-37. All were unmanned and none could even reach orbit under their own power, but all could test some aspect of the technology needed for space launch, and most important, all were reusable many times over, so they could produce reliable data on operating costs for spacecraft that would fly time after time.
But NASA has no memory. By the year 2000 the objective of the RLV program had been forgotten and by 2004 it was canceled. One reason NASA rejected the X-33? They discovered it could not go into orbit, which was of course not its original objective. More or less by chance the DOD decided to fly the X-37 (it was designed by NASA to be carried by the Shuttle). I have yet to find a single NASA employee who actually knows what the mission of the X-37 was. They say "it's some secret DOD satelite killer", or "it's useless for people- it's only the size of a pickup truck".
The X-37 was, and is, designed to test reusable technologies for orbital entry and landing, including aerodynamics, thermal protection, navigation and guidance, and autonomous runway landing. To minimize cost (a concept NASA has since forgotten) the X-37 was designed to be unmanned and as small as possible and still perform a valid test of the technology needed for the next generation Space Shuttle. The heat shielding was designed to be more durable, not so that it would work once, but so that it would work many times with little or no maintenance. Since the vehicle is unmanned, it can be modified frequently to test new concepts without expensive man-rating.
The RLV program was intended to compare runway landing (with the X-37, X-33, and X-34) against vertical landing (with the DCX), and to compare ground launch (DC-X and X-33) against air launch (X-34), and bell nozzle (X-34 and DC-X) against spike nozzle (X-33). Two concepts that were rejected from the start because they are known to be too expensive to be practical or reusable were parachute landing and ocean recovery. A major objective was to compare the lifting body concept (X-33 and DC-X), which NASA has pursued unsuccessfully for decades, against the wing-and-fuselage concept (X-34 and X-37) which is probably a lot more practical for reusable spacecraft, as it is for aircraft.
Unfortunately Sean O'Keefe (strangely for an accountant) did not understand that human spaceflight is much too expensive, and canceled some of the RLVs, and Mike Griffin, with his peculiar dream of re-enacting project Apollo, canceled the rest. DOD picked up the X-37 but isn't sure what it wants it for. There is talk in DOD of pairing an operational vehicle about the size and shape of the X-37 with a reusable liquid-fueled first stage which would carry the orbiter into space and then do an RTLS-like "rocket-back" maneuver to return directly to a runway at Cape Canaveral. The system would be used for launching and recovering satellites from low earth orbit at low cost. I wish them luck, but I am disappointed that NASA has abdicated its original goal - providing American industry with new technology of practical value.
I think you would have a long line to stand in if you were to try to patent that idea. It's been around for a long time.aphh":2c8opqg0 said:
bdewoody":3tpmgdyb said:
I'm sure it will showing up in the news, until then this has gone off the deep end.
aphh":28yk08a8 said:shuttle_guy":28yk08a8 said:
Then the X-37B can not attack polar regions and we are spared up here in the north. This also fuels the speculations that the enemy is not earth based but comes from space.
More seriously, how much orbital plane change capacity can there be? The cross-range when returning is probably quite wide, although the wings look rather small. If the weight to aspect ratio was comparable to Shuttle, then the wings should be in similar proportion to offer similar lift and cross-range.
3488":tqj1ba1v said:
My guess for plane change capability would be less than 2 degrees. I agree that cross range during entry would be similar to the Shuttle Orbiter. perhaps 800 miles.
ZiraldoAerospace":15di63lr said:
No, It was launched from Cape Canaveral. I witnessed the launch...I live in Titusville, FL and work at KSC.
The trajectory was fairly low in inclination. The flashes of sunlight from the 4 fairing segments as they fell were spectacular. It is not a weapon. The vehicle is, as the designation suggests, and as it originally was under NASA, a technology demonstrator for reusable spacecraft, designed to test thermal protection, aerodynamics, guidance and navigation, autonomous runway landing, and most important, low-maintenance reusability. Its principal goal for DOD is to reduce the cost of launching and retrieving satellites. The wing platform has the relatively high hypersonic crossrange of the delta wing but the separate tail provides much greater pitch trim capability and reduces the Shuttle's problems with CG sensitivity. The Shuttle's vertical fin is not that effective for stability during the early entry as it is in the wake of the body at high angles of attack; the V-tail avoids this. Finally, the autonomous landing system would allow it to come down in poor weather, which the Shuttle cannot do. (The shuttle has autoland also but there's no way to test it as no pilot in the world would give up the chance to land it by hand.)
There is no reason to send the X-37 beyond LEO since it is intended to land and be reused. A missile would have no need for wings. Incredibly, I've heard NASA officials speculating that it is intended to deliver a squad of Marines to some hostile country. Sure, if they can find a 10,000 ft runway with differential GPS that happens to be completely deserted. Oh, and a spare Atlas ready to launch to get them back. No one here even remembers that this was originally a NASA project. Or that the only hangar at the SLF was originally built for the X-34. No wonder we don't know where we're going. We don't even know where we've been.
There is no reason to send the X-37 beyond LEO since it is intended to land and be reused. A missile would have no need for wings. Incredibly, I've heard NASA officials speculating that it is intended to deliver a squad of Marines to some hostile country. Sure, if they can find a 10,000 ft runway with differential GPS that happens to be completely deserted. Oh, and a spare Atlas ready to launch to get them back. No one here even remembers that this was originally a NASA project. Or that the only hangar at the SLF was originally built for the X-34. No wonder we don't know where we're going. We don't even know where we've been.
vulture4":1xy6rvq3 said:
If these Marines fly above 50 miles, does that qualify them as "Space Marines"? Or are they talking about Klingon Marines? And just what was that wheel Ezekiel said he saw?
Interestingly, USAF has been refurbishing a runway at Vandenburg AFB, "in case the X-37B needs to land in an emergency." (Ref: AF Report) But so far it hasn't appeared at either Vandy or Edwards AFB's. I go along with some opinions that this is a prototype for a recon vehicle (think Strike Reconnaisance-37B, or SR-37B. Or maybe (reversing the numbers) "SR-73B", a successor to the SR-71.
With apologies to the late "pad fuhrer" of projects Mercury, Gemini and Apollo, "I vonder vhere the X-37B vendt?"
With apologies to the late "pad fuhrer" of projects Mercury, Gemini and Apollo, "I vonder vhere the X-37B vendt?"
SDC Full Article: http://www.space.com/news/secret-x-37-b-space-plane-spotted-by-amateur-astronomers-100522.html
Heavens-Above X-37B page: http://www.heavens-above.com/satinfo.aspx?SatID=36514
Orbit: 398 x 419 km, 40.0°
Intrinsic brightness (Mag): 5.0 (at 1000km distance, 50% illuminated)
Maximum brightness (Mag): 1.0 (at perigee, 100% illuminated)
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 188
-
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 36
-
Just a couple of questions please about just how far back we can model.- Started by Starstruck
- Replies: 12
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram