X-37B/Atlas V Launch Apr 22

[nimbus]

I see the need for translation thrust, but you could do that with the other hand. Rudders always seemed optimal to me because it removes some chance of separate inputs interfering with each other. I guess if the stick is built right it's not a concern. I'm still curious what the rest of the piloting interface looks like.

in docking you need to move along the X, Y and Z axis as well as around them to match adapter orientations.

Do the control surfaces controls not cycle to command maneuver thrusters once in vacuum?

 

[scottb50]

I see the need for translation thrust, but you could do that with the other hand. Rudders always seemed optimal to me because it removes some chance of separate inputs interfering with each other. I guess if the stick is built right it's not a concern. I'm still curious what the rest of the piloting interface looks like.

in docking you need to move along the X, Y and Z axis as well as around them to match adapter orientations.

Do the control surfaces controls not cycle to command maneuver thrusters once in vacuum?

There are different mode selections available that can be manually or computer controlled.

 

[vulture4]

Its unfortunate that NASA isn't leading this basic research mission. I see that as one of their core missions, but I guess it's a lot easier to find a few spare billions in the defense department than it is within NASA.

I read somewhere that the Shuttle was designed for 100 flights, but that was with a much quicker turnaround between flights. They never thought it would take 30 years just to get 30 flights off the ground.

perhaps this X-37 can fulfill the shuttle's promise of a 2-week turnaround between missions. I assume we have learned a few lessons in the last 30-40 years about TPS technology also.

As far as I know, assuming that notion about TPS is incorrect. That remains the long end of the stick. Now, this is a smaller stick, since it is a smaller craft, and it is unmanned.

The occurrence of the flares confirms specular reflection from the vehicle skin, which suggests the use of a new TPS, perhaps metallic-sheathed as noted elsewhere, which may be more durable and weather-resistant than the Shuttle tiles.

 

[vulture4]

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

Apollo was cancelled in 1974 for a very good reason. Human spaceflight with throw-away rockets was, and is, much too expensive to have any practical value. Consequently Constellation was a dead end from the start, and every dollar spent on it was, and will be, wasted. It is astounding to me that as major a change in strategy as the abandonment of reusable launch vehicles and spacecraft was made without any serious examination of history or any meaningful discussion within the agency of its strategic goals.

 

[scottb50]

The occurrence of the flares confirms specular reflection from the vehicle skin, which suggests the use of a new TPS, perhaps metallic-sheathed as noted elsewhere, which may be more durable and weather-resistant than the Shuttle tiles.

I would think it more indicates they are changing the vehicles orientation where they can see and document it's visibility from the ground. If they want to take pictures or video of specific sites they need to know what will give them the least exposure. With even a minimal ability to change inclination over a narrow range visual observation is the only way to detect an object without sophisticated, and hard to move equipment.

Put in a general orbit and moved frequently could make an object nearly invisible, it only makes sense to experiment with different orientations to see how they increase of decrease the visibility.

 

[nimbus]

The occurrence of the flares confirms specular reflection from the vehicle skin, which suggests the use of a new TPS, perhaps metallic-sheathed as noted elsewhere, which may be more durable and weather-resistant than the Shuttle tiles.

Aren't there publicly available, pre-launch pictures of the TPS side of the X-37?

What could you tell about the TPS from orbital flickers, that you couldn't from a picture like this?

 

[job1207]

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

Apollo was cancelled in 1974 for a very good reason. Human spaceflight with throw-away rockets was, and is, much too expensive to have any practical value. Consequently Constellation was a dead end from the start, and every dollar spent on it was, and will be, wasted. It is astounding to me that as major a change in strategy as the abandonment of reusable launch vehicles and spacecraft was made without any serious examination of history or any meaningful discussion within the agency of its strategic goals.

Human space flight to LEO, with Moon rockets was and is and always will be too expensive. Human space flight that lifts the equivalent of a moon rocket AND returns it, for re use was, and is, and will be for the forseeable future, too expensive.

Human space flight to LEO is not too expensive. We could just buy it from Russia. Now, it looks like we can say that the Falcon 9 will be carrying astronauts to the ISS.

Human space flight to the Moon and Mars remains too expensive, except for flight every once in a while. If the exotic engine program works then that too may become commonplace.

 

[RVHM]

Sadly, exotic engine developments do not generate enough pork to garner political support, and therefore are at a disadvantage.

 

[shuttle_guy]

[ .....................From what I remember, each shuttle really gets stripped down and almost completely rebuilt due to the required inspections and upgrades they perform. It's probably would have been more cost effective to just build a replacement every 5 years. What would a new shuttle cost, assuming parts were available, 2 - 3 billion ?[/quote][/quote][/quote]

That is not true at all. To "....gets stripped down and almost completely rebuilt ..." would take YEARS. This is a very big and complex vehicle! The long pole in a turnaround is TPS inspection and repair and payload Bay re configure from flight.
A OMDP inspection takes months.

A shuttle Orbiter rebuild today....I would say 4 to 5 Billion if the vendors were available.

 

[job1207]

"A new generation of high-temperature wing leading-edge tiles will also debut on the X-37B. These toughened uni-piece fibrous refractory oxidation-resistant ceramic (TUFROC) tiles replace the carbon carbon wing leading edge segments on the Space Shuttle. The X-37B will also use toughened uni-piece fibrous insulation (TUFI) impregnated silica tiles, which are significantly more durable than the first generation tiles used by the Space Shuttle. Advanced conformal reusable insulation (CRI) blankets are used for the first time on the X-37B."

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/ic/ ... b_otv.html

So, the TPS is new. Too bad they cannot just engineer this for the STS. I knew it could not be metal, that would be too heavy. Just a new type of ceramic. This comes right from Boeing.

 

[job1207]

TUFROC

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cac ... tRE-Otmp5Q

lighter and much less expensive than RCC. It flew on the hypersonic aircraft.

 

[job1207]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shut ... ion_system

TUFI is used on the STS.

 

[job1207]

Only the CRI is new. The TUFROC flew on the Hypersonic plane. ( not the STS ) The TUFI flies on the STS.

SOME Information on the CRI. ( in addition to other materials )

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cac ... fzpzKp8xcw

 

[bdewoody]

The more I see and read I think our long term solution to getting to LEO regularly, which is a valid need, is to push forward with a manned development of the X-37B with a crew of 4 or 5 and little or no cargo capacity. The short term solution until this craft is built and tested is to keep the shuttles flying 2 or 3 times a year.

The other need is for a craft to undertake deep space missions, ie. the moon, Mars and beyond. Whether or not the Orion is the right craft for that mission remains to be seen. What has been confusing the issue is the attempt to use Orion for both types of missions.

It's possible that the X-37B followup should be built with private funds under the guidence of NASA but I believe NASA needs to be in the loop for the development of any future space taxi.

 

[trailrider]

http://spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=01&month=06&year=2010

X-37B FLARES: Multiple observers are reporting "X-37B flares." When the USAF space plane flies overhead, it suddenly increases in brightness five-fold or more. Amateur astronomer Bryan Murahashi photographed the phenomenon on March 30th when the X-37B cut through the Big Dipper over San Jose, California:


Photo details: Nikon D300, 26s, f/2.8 at 24.0mm, ISO320


"The space plane brightened at least two magnitudes," says Murahashi. "It was a very neat thing to see."

This is probably due to attitude changes (hopefully commanded attitude changes).

I sure hope these are commanded attitude changes! When I saw the carrier rocket for Sputnik II going over, it appeared to blink on and off as it tumbled, first presenting its entire length to the sunlight (at orbit), then end-on, when it was practically invisible. If the brightening of the X-37 occurred only once during the pass, then it probably was due to a commanded change. If it was repetative, then it may be tumbling out of control. Let's hope NOT the latter!

 

[trailrider]

Und? Anybody got any more info, sightings, etc? Anybody seen anything around Edwards? Groom Lake? :?:

 

[MeteorWayne]

Since it's still in orbit, don't know why you'd expect any sightings there...

 

[shuttle_guy]

Also, I understand the planned landing is at Vandenberg with Edwards as the backup landing site.

 

[gemini50]

X37B

What is the latest status of X37B lauched on April 22. Is it still in orbit?

 

[shuttle_guy]

Perhaps the vehicle will attempt a landing soon and we will be given some information on the mission.

 

[3488]

Perhaps the vehicle will attempt a landing soon and we will be given some information on the mission.

Sure will S_G & will be fascinating to watch the landing if shown & what the test mission was all about. Shame there's no footage of the X-37B being released from the encapulation of the Atlas 5, after successfully reaching orbit, something that would have been worth seeing.

I expect the USAF did have rocket cams on the Atlas 5 as well as the X-37B.

Andrew Brown.

 

[trailrider]

Perhaps the vehicle will attempt a landing soon and we will be given some information on the mission.

Sure will S_G & will be fascinating to watch the landing if shown & what the test mission was all about. Shame there's no footage of the X-37B being released from the encapulation of the Atlas 5, after successfully reaching orbit, something that would have been worth seeing.

I expect the USAF did have rocket cams on the Atlas 5 as well as the X-37B.

Andrew Brown.

Of course! But anyone viewing this without "Top Secret/Unauthorized" clearance will be launched into orbit aboard the next non-returnable capsule! :shock: (Or as they used to say, "This thing is so secret even the participants don't know what's going on!"

So, I guess it will remain a complete secret, at least until you read about it in the following week's issue of "Aviation Leak"!

 

[EarthlingX]

But anyone viewing this without "Top Secret/Unauthorized" clearance will be launched into orbit aboard the next non-returnable capsule! :shock:

Tempting ... You sure about that ? :roll:

Perhaps some of us will live to see this later, when it becomes a history ..

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: X37B

What is the latest status of X37B lauched on April 22. Is it still in orbit?

Heavens-Above has a current orbit as of July 3 in fact I have a bright (Mag +2.3) pass coming up in about half an hour. I'll let you know if I see it!

From H-A:

Identification USSPACECOM Catalog No.: 36514
International Designation Code: 2010-015-A

Satellite Details

Orbit: 399 x 418 km, 40.0°
Category: Space Plane
Country/Org. of Origin: USA
Intrinsic brightness (Mag): 4.2 (at 1000km distance, 50% illuminated)
Maximum brightness (Mag): 0.2 (at perigee, 100% illuminated)

Launch

Date (UTC): 23:58, April 22, 2010
Launch site: Cape Canaveral Air Force Station,
Cape Canaveral, Florida, USA
Launch vehicle: Atlas V

 

[scottb50]

Probably doing exactly what it was supposed to do. It seems to be in a pretty stable orbit and any gyrations noted could have been planned for testing. It's orbit seems undisturbed.