X-37B | FerrariChat

X-37B

Discussion in 'Aviation Chat' started by alexD, Apr 21, 2010.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

  1. alexD

    alexD F1 Rookie

    Oct 1, 2006
    4,670
    sunnyvale
    Full Name:
    alex d
    Mark tomorrow in your calendars because it could quite possibly be one of the biggest turning points in the history of Aerospace for this country, IMO. While we don't know exactly what the Air Force intends to use this for, the possibilities are endless. Global strike, intelligence gathering, sensor testing, satellite deployment, and the list goes on. Even if it's usage is completely benevolent, it still opens up a new realm of possibilities for what we can do in space and the timeliness with which we can do it.

    http://www.inlandnewstoday.com/story.php?s=13898

    CAPE CANAVERAL--The Air Force is launching the X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle, a brand new, unmanned spacecraft to demonstrate the military’s ability to fly into space, circle the globe for months on end, and return intact, only to fly again.

    But whether the X-37 space plane is merely showing off nearly two decades of research and development or is actually a precursor to militarizing the final frontier, is far from clear since the vehicle’s payload is classified. An Air Force official won’t even say when it will return to California or where it will land. But it can “loiter” over the globe for more than nine months.

    “In all honesty, we don’t know when it’s coming back,” said Gary Payton, deputy undersecretary for the Air Force’s space programs, in a conference call with reporters Tuesday.

    'Weaponization' of space?

    Arms control advocates say it is pretty clear the beginning of a “weaponization of space”, precursor to a precision global strike capability that would allow the US to hover for months at a time over anywhere it chose with little anyone could do about it.

    “The idea of being able to launch an unmanned research platform that can stay up there for months on end provides you with all kinds of capability, both military and civilian,” says Chris Hellman, a policy analyst with the National Priorities Project, a budget watchdog in Northampton, Mass.

    He believes the fact that it is an Air Force initiative may say something about what it will ultimately used to do. And that may not sit well with others. “I can see where the prospect of having half a dozen of these things with unknown payloads circling overhead could be very troubling to people,” Mr. Hellman says.

    The Air Force says the X-37 will demonstrate “various experiments” and allow “satellite sensors, subsystems, components, and associated technology” to be transported into space and back. Officials say the vehicle could change the way the Air Force operates by making space operations more “aircraft like” with a vehicle like the X-37 able to take off and later land and then fly again. (Source: csmonitor.com)
     
  2. tazandjan

    tazandjan Three Time F1 World Champ
    Lifetime Rossa Owner

    Jul 19, 2008
    39,164
    Clarksville, Tennessee
    Full Name:
    Terry H Phillips
    #2 tazandjan, Apr 21, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
    Alex- This program initially started as Boeing ReFly and then the joint Boeing/Phillips Lab X-40A and evolved into the Space Maneuver Vehicle program. This continued when we convinced NASA to start the X-37 program. Much water under the bridge since, but here is an image to keep you amused. Has gotten a bit bigger, but the concept is still the same.

    We started working on this in 1995. Takes a while for things to mature.

    Taz
    Terry Phillips
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
     
  3. alexD

    alexD F1 Rookie

    Oct 1, 2006
    4,670
    sunnyvale
    Full Name:
    alex d
    #3 alexD, Apr 21, 2010
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2010
    Terry, the big thing is that the Air Force took over this program from NASA (when funding was slashed I believe) and it immediately went black after that. I can only think of two reasons why the AF sent this program underground: A) The program is a waste of money and the AF doesn't want anyone to see taxpayer dollars being openly wasted, or B) The payloads they plan to put on this thing or some future derivatve of it will not make our enemies happy. I think the answer is B, and if any of the rumors are true (yes, they are still just rumors so they could all be wrong) then this craft could give us a strategic advantage that we haven't seen in decades.
     
  4. 2NA

    2NA F1 World Champ
    Consultant Owner Professional Ferrari Technician

    Dec 29, 2006
    18,221
    Twin Cities
    Full Name:
    Tim Keseluk
    I'm all for it and let the sh!tstorm begin!
     
  5. tazandjan

    tazandjan Three Time F1 World Champ
    Lifetime Rossa Owner

    Jul 19, 2008
    39,164
    Clarksville, Tennessee
    Full Name:
    Terry H Phillips
    Alex- I know nothing, but the progam is not a waste of taxpayer money by a long shot. Money well invested. Just need an RLV to make it more affordable, like we do for most of the old Military Spaceplane architecture.

    Taz
    Terry Phillips
     
  6. ApexOversteer

    ApexOversteer F1 Veteran

    Feb 15, 2007
    5,968
    Smoky Mountains, TN
    Full Name:
    T.A. Bell
    Cute how they think this might be the first weapon in space...
     
  7. alexD

    alexD F1 Rookie

    Oct 1, 2006
    4,670
    sunnyvale
    Full Name:
    alex d
    And I bet you think there are aliens at Area 51 ;)
     
  8. donv

    donv Two Time F1 World Champ
    Owner Rossa Subscribed

    Jan 5, 2002
    26,107
    Portland, Oregon
    Full Name:
    Don
    Didn't the Chinese blow up a satellite a few years back?

    And let's not forget the Soviet gun...

     
  9. tazandjan

    tazandjan Three Time F1 World Champ
    Lifetime Rossa Owner

    Jul 19, 2008
    39,164
    Clarksville, Tennessee
    Full Name:
    Terry H Phillips
    SMV was always a space surveillance and ISR asset. Has not changed. The great unwashed have no clue what anything is.

    Taz
    Terry Phillips
     
  10. Wade

    Wade Three Time F1 World Champ
    Owner

    Mar 31, 2006
    32,793
    East Central, FL
    Full Name:
    Wade O.
  11. tazandjan

    tazandjan Three Time F1 World Champ
    Lifetime Rossa Owner

    Jul 19, 2008
    39,164
    Clarksville, Tennessee
    Full Name:
    Terry H Phillips
    Wade- Well, that makes another 12 years of my life worthwhile. HTV-2 was another big part. Will have to see if it made it.

    Taz
    Terry Phillips
     
  12. Wade

    Wade Three Time F1 World Champ
    Owner

    Mar 31, 2006
    32,793
    East Central, FL
    Full Name:
    Wade O.
    Congratulations Taz, on two counts...

    I've been following both of these for a little while but didn't expect that the HTV-2 would launch so soon.

    Pretty cool ;)
     
  13. TheBigEasy

    TheBigEasy F1 World Champ
    Consultant

    Jun 21, 2005
    18,644
    California
    Full Name:
    Ethan Hunt
    Anyone know what this is really for??

    Cold war? Link?
     
  14. alexD

    alexD F1 Rookie

    Oct 1, 2006
    4,670
    sunnyvale
    Full Name:
    alex d
    There are no weapons in space..he's just putting on a tin foil hat.


    Also, HTV-2 was a failure..lost contact shortly after seperation from launch vehicle. There is one more test, but hopefully this doesn't spell the end of the program..
     
  15. alexD

    alexD F1 Rookie

    Oct 1, 2006
    4,670
    sunnyvale
    Full Name:
    alex d
    X-37 is back. Changed orbit 4 times and was up for 225 days...on the surface it looks like a huge success. Now it will be interesting to see how long it takes for them to launch it again.

    http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/12/secret-space-plane-touches-down-as-twin-readies-for-launch/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+WiredDangerRoom+%28Blog+-+Danger+Room%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

    After 225 days in orbit the Air Force’s mysterious X-37B space plane touched down today at 1:16 am local time at California’s Vandenberg Air Force Base. It was only the second fully-automated re-entry and runway landing in the history of space flight. The Soviets achieved the first in 1988 with the robotic prototype of their Buran Space Shuttle clone.

    Space plane program manager Lt. Col. Troy Giese says that “today’s landing culminates a successful mission” which “completed all the on-orbit objectives.” But the Air Force has been consistently vague about what that mission really was; for a while, military personnel claimed they didn’t even know when the X-37B was coming back to Earth.
     
  16. tazandjan

    tazandjan Three Time F1 World Champ
    Lifetime Rossa Owner

    Jul 19, 2008
    39,164
    Clarksville, Tennessee
    Full Name:
    Terry H Phillips
    #18 tazandjan, Dec 3, 2010
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2010
    X-37B's thermal protection system (TPS) is several generations more advanced than that used on the Shuttles, so she will be much easier to turn. The SMV turn time is not so much determined by how quickly it can turn, probably less than a week, but how quickly they can gin up an EELV to launch her. I still have the original requirements document I wrote for AFSPC for the SMV from the mid-90s. Happy to see she worked as advertised.

    We now know what happened on HTV-2's maiden flight, so hopefully the next one will work fine and 15+ years of work will have a pay-off.

    Incidentally, X-37B's ability to maneuver (originally Space Maneuver Vehicle), makes it much less vulnerable to anti-satellite activity.

    Taz
    Terry Phillips
     
  17. alexD

    alexD F1 Rookie

    Oct 1, 2006
    4,670
    sunnyvale
    Full Name:
    alex d
    #19 alexD, Dec 3, 2010
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2010
    You wrote the original requirements for the X-37/SMV? That's pretty cool. I would imagine it is pretty much invulnerable to any current ASAT weapons in operation/development given it's ability to maneuver (assuming that they can detect a threat and respond to it fast enough). If we had a fleet of these, it would be a huge strategic advantage in any conventional conflict where our recon satellites were in danger. They knock out one of our satellites we can potentially just slap whatever critical sensor was lost onto this thing and throw it into space as a gapfiller. Not only that, it's unpredictable which will give us a capability we haven't really had since the SR-71 was retired.

    Were you involved with the HTV-2 at all? I'm looking forward to the launch of the 2nd vehicle next year...I really hope that it is a success. If we had this in the late 90s, bin Laden would be dead and we wouldn't be fighting two wars right now.
     
  18. tazandjan

    tazandjan Three Time F1 World Champ
    Lifetime Rossa Owner

    Jul 19, 2008
    39,164
    Clarksville, Tennessee
    Full Name:
    Terry H Phillips
    Alex- I was part of the group that conceived the Common Aero Vehicle and wrote the original requirements for that, too. CAV was the HTV-2 operational concept vehicle from the mid-90s, early 00s, and I was on the HTV-2 DARPA test team until recently.

    We had a large amount of AFSPC funding requested for the Military Spaceplane and its payloads, including the SMV and CAV, in the FY 2000 five year defense plan, but Clinton line item vetoed MSP funding (an earmark) in 1998 and that put us back 10 years. Just crawling out of that hole right now.

    The big problem with X-37B/SMV is we need a reusable launch vehicle to make it more affordable. EELV launches are over $200M in real costs, and that makes it rough to affordably launch SMVs or CAVS, which use lowere cost, but still expensive, ELVs. All the payloads for the MSP system have seen the light of day, but the RLV that makes employing those payloads affordable still escapes us. Launching those payloads from ELVs makes them too much of a silver bullet weapon, rather than one easily employed.

    Taz
    Terry Phillips
     
  19. alexD

    alexD F1 Rookie

    Oct 1, 2006
    4,670
    sunnyvale
    Full Name:
    alex d
    #21 alexD, Dec 4, 2010
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2010
    I know the space industry is trying to pool its resources together to find a solution to the launch problem...hopefully they can do it. It's an industry that we absolutely have to rebuild and then maintain.

    I work in the defense industry myself and I love it. When I started out of college, I always thought I would only do it for a few years for the job security/experience, but I'm starting to think I could make a career out of it..I just love the technology too much, I can't imagine working for some commercial company writing software for routers or something boring like that. Plus it's way easier to explain my job to people..I can just say "sorry, can't talk about it."
     
  20. tazandjan

    tazandjan Three Time F1 World Champ
    Lifetime Rossa Owner

    Jul 19, 2008
    39,164
    Clarksville, Tennessee
    Full Name:
    Terry H Phillips
    #22 tazandjan, Dec 4, 2010
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2010
    Alex- You are probably getting it through osmosis because of where you live. Sunnyvale has long been an aerospace breeding ground. My father spent a lot of time there when he was working the Keyhole programs in the 60s.

    When they ask you what you do, you can truthfully tell them you are a rocket scientist, just like I do.

    Taz
    Terry Phillips
     
  21. donv

    donv Two Time F1 World Champ
    Owner Rossa Subscribed

    Jan 5, 2002
    26,107
    Portland, Oregon
    Full Name:
    Don
    What are the main barriers to an affordable (well, relatively) launch vehicle? Is it simply a matter of the energy required, in which case I would think that it would be very difficult, or are there other barriers which are surmountable?
     
  22. tazandjan

    tazandjan Three Time F1 World Champ
    Lifetime Rossa Owner

    Jul 19, 2008
    39,164
    Clarksville, Tennessee
    Full Name:
    Terry H Phillips
    Don- So far it has been mainly funding and misconceptions at the flag and DoD level that we do not have the technology for a cost effective, two stage to orbit RLV. The technology is there, but the initial cost will be high, likely several $B. That kind of money makes a pretty good target for an aircraft-centric USAF.

    Another problem has been low launch rates that make the investment seem unwarranted. We are only launching a dozen or so DoD payloads each year, and the RLV is capable of much higher sortie rates. Sort of a chicken and egg. Launch is expensive so we launch fewer payloads. If we had an RLV, we would probably launch more payloads.

    With China and Russia having demonstrated ASAT capability, an RLV also gives you the capability to rapidly replenish constellations. We cannot do that with current ELVs.

    Good news is SMC and AFRL are working on a reusable booster system for the first stage of system, a useful first step. The program is funded and ongoing, so we are hopeful of an eventual operational RBS.

    Taz
    Terry Phillips
     
  23. TheBigEasy

    TheBigEasy F1 World Champ
    Consultant

    Jun 21, 2005
    18,644
    California
    Full Name:
    Ethan Hunt

Share This Page