X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle (OTV)

Yes, I originally thought that they were going to make a full scale jet powered, radio controlled SMV demonstrator, probably with supersonic performance to explore much bigger flight envelope and landing procedures compared to X-40A. And cheaper as the drop tests from B-52, proposed by NASA. My expectation was wrong.

The engine is really the old good AR2-3, but it was certified to burn mixture of JP-8 instead of original JP-4. However the orbital X-37B prototypes use only hydrazine monopropellant.
 
Jos Heyman said:
On 7 April 2006, as part of the Approach and Landing Test Vehicle (ALTV), the X-37A was released from Scaled Composites’ White Knight vehicle at an altitude of 11.3 km to glide back to Edwards AFB in California. During the landing it rolled off the runway, damaging the nose wheel. Earlier, on 2 September 2004, 21 July 2005 and 24 March 2006 captive flights with the White Knight vehicle had been conducted.
Following that the program moved from Mojave to Palmdale, California where, again using the White Knight, five or more additional flights were performed, at least one of which is believed to have been a freeflight with a successful landing.
Does anybody know the dates of these flights?
Click to expand...

X-37 ALTV free flights: 7 April 2006 (Edwards), 18 August 2006 (Edwards), 26 September 2006 (Edwards)

blackstar said:
X-37B is obviously left over hardware from NASA that USAF has picked up.
Click to expand...

No, in the time when NASA definitely ended the funding (2004), there was not any X-37 OV hardware. Engineers were working only on the atmospheric unpowered X-37 ALTV vehicle and were far away from starting the orbital X-37 OV construction.
 
Vpanoptes said:
Hello -
Another silly question/comment perhaps, but:

I notice on one of the PP slides it indicates a capability to deploy 13 personnel and equipment. While I am aware of (at least some of) and have a healthy respect for Marine Force Recon (and other SOF) capabilities, does it seem a bit of a stretch to imagine that 13 troops inserted anywhere (especially given the conditions necessary to land something like the X-37 or its postulated/projected bigger brethren) could really make a difference? Or is it just me? ???
Click to expand...

X-37 is in this case only an ilustrative vehicle. Try to google for U. S. Marine Corps SUSTAIN (Small Unit Space Transport and Insertion).
 
Byeman said:
quellish said:
Byeman said:
Which any spacecraft can do.
Click to expand...

Some can do it more than others. X-37B, before the propulsion system was changed, could go to GEO and back. Now it can't.
Click to expand...

It never had that capability. The current propulsion system has higher ISP.
Click to expand...

Current X-37B not but the operational SMV with planned Delta-V somewhere near 10 000 fps had. The trick was done during descent from GTO.
 
Genuine X-40B model!

Marked on the PacMin box as an X-40B, with an insignia reading USAF Space Command, this 1/25 scale model has a 13" fuselage. Added to the collection in 2000.
Click to expand...

http://www.chadslattery.com/x-planes/gallery?nggpage=3
 

Attachments

  • x-40b.jpg
    x-40b.jpg
    20.4 KB · Views: 272
Matej said:
No, in the time when NASA definitely ended the funding (2004), there was not any X-37 OV hardware. Engineers were working only on the atmospheric unpowered X-37 ALTV vehicle and were far away from starting the orbital X-37 OV construction.
Click to expand...

Wrong, there was OV hardware at that time
 
Matej said:
Current X-37B not but the operational SMV with planned Delta-V somewhere near 10 000 fps had. The trick was done during descent from GTO.
Click to expand...

No, there was never a design for an "operational" SMV
 
Byeman said:
Matej said:
However the orbital X-37B prototypes use only hydrazine monopropellant.
Click to expand...

No, it is a biprop
Click to expand...

Agreed, I already modified my list in message no. 318

Byeman said:
Matej said:
No, in the time when NASA definitely ended the funding (2004), there was not any X-37 OV hardware. Engineers were working only on the atmospheric unpowered X-37 ALTV vehicle and were far away from starting the orbital X-37 OV construction.
Click to expand...

Wrong, there was OV hardware at that time
Click to expand...

NASA developed X-37OV/LDOV or USAF developed X-40B/OTV? Because this is significant difference. I am not saying that there was not any hardware at all. I am saying that there was not any usable NASA X-37 OV, because its development, not to mention construction was abadoned sometime in 2003.

Byeman said:
Matej said:
Current X-37B not but the operational SMV with planned Delta-V somewhere near 10 000 fps had. The trick was done during descent from GTO.
Click to expand...

No, there was never a design for an "operational" SMV
Click to expand...

There was a study described in AIAA 99-4608 paper that confirmed that (1999 version of) operational SMV can go to GEO and back, even to make a Moon flyby with possibility to return, but not to land on Earth. I think that the term "operational SMV" means basically the X-40B design with powerfull H2O2/JP-8 propulsion system. Small extract:

An operational SMV will be capable of increasing its velocity up to 10k fps, thereby providing significant capability to change its orbital parameters. For example, a SMV in a 200x200 nm orbit could transfer to a GTO (200x19300 nm) by a propulsive burn requiring a Delta-V of 7900 fps. An equal Delta-V burn would be required to return to the circular 200 nm orbit - a requirement well beyond the capability of the SMV. If re-entry is attempted directly from the GTO orbit by decreasing perigee, excessive re-entry heating would be encountered. The additional thermal protection required would result in prohibitive weight and performance penalties. The ability to lower apogee from GTO, and at the same time staying within the SMV Delta-V budget, can be accomplished by...
Click to expand...
 
Matej said:
NASA developed X-37OV/LDOV or USAF developed X-40B/OTV? Because this is significant difference. I am not saying that there was not any hardware at all. I am saying that there was not any usable NASA X-37 OV, because its development, not to mention construction was abadoned sometime in 2003.
Click to expand...

The NASA developed X-37OV/LDOV is the same as the current flying USAF X-37.

The development and construction was not abandoned in 2003, it was taken over by the USAF
 
Thsnk for the Picture, I couldn't help notice the payload bay door hinges are not flush with the airframe, they look like something stolen from 4X4 Landrover doors! :) Not what I might expect to see on a hypersonic glider
 
Another request for identification. This piece of hardware was made before august 1999 and it seems to be middle fuselage of NASA funded X-37. The question is, what specifically it is. Internal structure looks too complicated to be only the full-size mockup and also too complicated for the X-37 model, tested during May 1999 in Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory Tank Shuttle Bay. So what it is? Manufacturing of the X-37 ATV vehicle was at that time planned for 2000/2001 timeframe and even that was the original highly optimistic plan.
 

Attachments

  • august_1999.jpg
    august_1999.jpg
    96.5 KB · Views: 559
After eliminating a lot of possibilities I came to the conclusion, that this is very likely a full-scale SMV center fuselage, built in second half of 1998 for structural testing. It means part of the Phase I MiST (second part was ITTB demonstrator - X-40A) without any relation to the X-37 program.
 
Matej said:
Sometimes also called X-37C. Will be covered in my forthcoming article.
Click to expand...

Oh? I will be looking forward to that, having sometimes wondered about the sensibility of putting cargo and crew in the same vehicle (... the original Shuttle configuration). A small reusable crew vehicle seems somehow more manageable, be it a capsule, glider or something else. There's of course complexity in separate launches for astronauts too, with all the extra orbital maneuvering and docking hassles involved. Perhaps there was a military rationale to an integrated approach, but as the Shuttles didn't exactly turn out to be launcheable on a short notice the concept has been rethought and -scaled accordingly?
 
It appears to me that a capsule may be more survivable in case there is a problem on launch. This may explain the X-37 being better suitable for cargo only.
 
Orionblamblam said:
A propaganda thing that was started the better part of 20 frikken' years ago? Rockwell filed the patent for the thing back in 1993... back when there *was* a Rockwell.
Click to expand...

Reusable flyback satellite
Patent number: 5402965
Filing date: Sep 20, 1993
Issue date: Apr 4, 1995
A reusable flyback satellite system comprises a refly apparatus and accelerating and positioning apparatus. The refly apparatus provides acceleration and injection into orbit, on-orbit functions services for supporting a payload, de-orbiting, re-entering and landing on a runway. The accelerating and positioning apparatus is attached to a carrier aircraft, the accelerating and positioning apparatus releaseably supporting the refly apparatus. The carrier aircraft positions the accelerating and positioning apparatus at a desired first position wherein the accelerating and positioning apparatus is detached from the carrier aircraft. Thereafter, the accelerating and positioning apparatus positions the refly apparatus to a second position wherein the refly apparatus is detachable from the accelerating and positioning apparatus. The second position is such that the refly apparatus can achieve a desired orbit.
Inventors: Richard T. Cervisi, David M. Toliver, Harry S. Greenberg, Timothy R. Kilgore, Jack H. Arnold, John C. Blake
Original Assignee: Rockwell International Corporation


patent was refiled by Rockwell in October 1996 and reassigned to Boeing in August, 1998 after merger


Method of earth orbit space transportation and return David M. Toliver et al
Patent number: 6068211
Filing date: Oct 25, 1996
Issue date: May 30, 2000
The present invention is a method of earth orbit space transportation and return utilizing a reusable flyback satellite. A reusable flyback satellite is positioned to a desired release point which provides the capability of the satellite to achieve a desired orbit. The satellite is deployed from that release point. It is then injected into orbit. On-orbit function and services to a payload of the satellite are provided. The satellite is de-orbited, re-entered and landed with airplane-like functionality and utility.
Inventors: David M. Toliver, Richard T. Cervisi, Armand R. Vanore
 

Attachments

  • 5402965_Reusable_flyback_satellite.pdf
    202.8 KB · Views: 31
  • 6068211_Method_of_earth_orbit_space_tran.pdf
    136.9 KB · Views: 26
Thanks for posting

The key information in patents is described in the patent claims, claim 1 being the most important with the later claims being fallback positions. For some unfathomable reason claims have to be one sentance with no full stops (so they are no fun to read.... actually a lot like my posts!) Abstracts, background to invention and summary of invention will contain interesting information however the real thinking of the inventors & their patent attourneys is hidden in the claims

I think I mentioned before that (to me at least) the most illuminating aspect of claim 1 in patent no 5402965 is the explanation of the origin of the X-37B's ruddervator design ie. to make it easier to mount it (and a bloody big pegasus type booster rocket) underneath a carrier plane.... I think my comment was "it's remarkable that this ruddervator design has persisted to this day"

Do we think the US plans to re-create this monster at some point? for fun I'd suggest that this method of launching the X-37B could be a lower profile option than a Titan rocket from a known launch pad. They'd need a bloody big hangar to assemble this beast....where could they hide that??? ;)

The revelations from claim 1 of patent no. 6068211 are not quite as much fun however it does state explicitly a purpose for this aircraft / winged booster rocket / refly vehicle (fly back satellite) combination

"c) injecting said satellite into orbit and overflying the geographic area of interest on said first orbit and for up to three additional consecutive orbits;
d) providing on-orbit function and services to a payload of said satellite: and,
e) de-orbiting, re-entering and landing said satellite with airplane-like functionality and utility."

So there you go, in my understanding of patent speak, back then according to this patent REFLY = SPY SAT.

As I've already embarrased myself with jokey speculation on big hangars I may as well continue talking bollocks. When the beast of Kandahar was still a rumour we were all guessing why a stealthy UAV was flying over Afghanistan, with hind sight it seems the US had thrown some of its huge resources into building a drone to look for Bin Laden in Pakistan (obviously this aricraft will have other applications). Assuming there was a suspicion in the US intelligence community that elements of the Pakistani gov/intell were supporting OBL it is a reasonable thought that satellite overflight shedules could have been shared. A stealthy drone would not have these issues... a spy sat that can change orbit may have also been a useful tool in the hunt? I'm sure this did not happen in reality but I can't think of a higher priority target for an experimental spy sat at the time OTV-1 was in orbit.
 
Catalytic said:
Thanks for posting
a spy sat that can change orbit may have also been a useful tool in the hunt? I'm sure this did not happen in reality but I can't think of a higher priority target for an experimental spy sat at the time OTV-1 was in orbit.
Click to expand...

With only a 500lb payload, OTV could not be this tool
 
Agreed.

On the plus side my future as an author of low quality techno thrillers is looking up.
 
I wonder if the AIAA paper that started all this new hubbub has surfaced openly yet? This would be a good addition to my .pdf collection.
 
X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle and Derivatives, Arthur Grantz, The Boeing Company, Seal Beach, CA, AIAA-2011-7315, AIAA SPACE 2011 Conference and Exposition, Long Beach, California, Sep. 27-29, 2011, available for registered users in the Publications and Papers section of http://www.aiaa.org/.

Martin
 
Byeman said:
Catalytic said:
Thanks for posting
a spy sat that can change orbit may have also been a useful tool in the hunt? I'm sure this did not happen in reality but I can't think of a higher priority target for an experimental spy sat at the time OTV-1 was in orbit.
Click to expand...

With only a 500lb payload, OTV could not be this tool
Click to expand...
Is this because of the optics? Its entirely possible they are using software to process the light instead of a ton of optics. Have a look at this paper: http://www.lytro.com/renng-thesis.pdf
 
sublight said:
Byeman said:
Catalytic said:
Thanks for posting
a spy sat that can change orbit may have also been a useful tool in the hunt? I'm sure this did not happen in reality but I can't think of a higher priority target for an experimental spy sat at the time OTV-1 was in orbit.
Click to expand...

With only a 500lb payload, OTV could not be this tool
Click to expand...
Is this because of the optics? Its entirely possible they are using software to process the light instead of a ton of optics. Have a look at this paper: http://www.lytro.com/renng-thesis.pdf
Click to expand...

Still have to gather in the light.
 
Byeman said:
sublight said:
Byeman said:
Catalytic said:
Thanks for posting
a spy sat that can change orbit may have also been a useful tool in the hunt? I'm sure this did not happen in reality but I can't think of a higher priority target for an experimental spy sat at the time OTV-1 was in orbit.
Click to expand...

With only a 500lb payload, OTV could not be this tool
Click to expand...
Is this because of the optics? Its entirely possible they are using software to process the light instead of a ton of optics. Have a look at this paper: http://www.lytro.com/renng-thesis.pdf
Click to expand...

Still have to gather in the light.
Click to expand...

The payload bay is seven feet long, four feet wide. Assuming you are on parity with commercial tech (canon 205x202 cmos sensor) you could have eight of these on a six foot long strip with 120 megapixels a piece giving you a whopping 960 megapixels. (assuming the array is only 1x deep) Since the payload bay is four feet wide the array could be at least 5x deep, giving you 5x960 megapixels.
This six foot long array could also be an arc and not necessarily a flat array. The arc would give it much wider light gathering abilities.
 
sublight said:
The payload bay is seven feet long, four feet wide. Assuming you are on parity with commercial tech (canon 205x202 cmos sensor) you could have eight of these on a six foot long strip with 120 megapixels a piece giving you a whopping 960 megapixels. (assuming the array is only 1x deep) Since the payload bay is four feet wide the array could be at least 5x deep, giving you 5x960 megapixels.
This six foot long array could also be an arc and not necessarily a flat array. The arc would give it much wider light gathering abilities.
Click to expand...

Focal length/mirror diameter matter more than megapixels.
 
quellish said:
sublight said:
The payload bay is seven feet long, four feet wide. Assuming you are on parity with commercial tech (canon 205x202 cmos sensor) you could have eight of these on a six foot long strip with 120 megapixels a piece giving you a whopping 960 megapixels. (assuming the array is only 1x deep) Since the payload bay is four feet wide the array could be at least 5x deep, giving you 5x960 megapixels.
This six foot long array could also be an arc and not necessarily a flat array. The arc would give it much wider light gathering abilities.
Click to expand...

Focal length/mirror diameter matter more than megapixels.
Click to expand...
Software for bending the light instead of mirrors and lenses: http://www.lytro.com/renng-thesis.pdf
 
Interesting suggestion in the comments section here:

Phobos-Grunt Mars probe remains silent in Earth orbit.
BY STEPHEN CLARK
SPACEFLIGHT NOW
Posted: November 11, 2011
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1111/11phobosgrunt/

The idea would be to use the X-37B currently in orbit to communicate with the satellite. It certainly could at least photograph it.


Bob Clark
 
RGClark said:
Interesting suggestion in the comments section here:

Phobos-Grunt Mars probe remains silent in Earth orbit.
BY STEPHEN CLARK
SPACEFLIGHT NOW
Posted: November 11, 2011
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1111/11phobosgrunt/

The idea would be to use the X-37B currently in orbit to communicate with the satellite. It certainly could at least photograph it.


Bob Clark
Click to expand...

It can do neither.
Bad idea

a. what says there are cameras onboard?
b. if there were, slew rates too high and FOV to small
c. spacecraft can't communicate with other spacecraft unless designed for it like TDRSS or shuttle to ISS>
 
Byeman said:
RGClark said:
Interesting suggestion in the comments section here:

Phobos-Grunt Mars probe remains silent in Earth orbit.
BY STEPHEN CLARK
SPACEFLIGHT NOW
Posted: November 11, 2011
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1111/11phobosgrunt/

The idea would be to use the X-37B currently in orbit to communicate with the satellite. It certainly could at least photograph it.


Bob Clark
Click to expand...

It can do neither.
Bad idea

a. what says there are cameras onboard?
b. if there were, slew rates too high and FOV to small
c. spacecraft can't communicate with other spacecraft unless designed for it like TDRSS or shuttle to ISS>
Click to expand...

One of the capabilities speculated on for the X-37B is to examine up close other countries satellites, if not to attach to them.

Bob Clark
 
RGClark said:
Byeman said:
RGClark said:
Interesting suggestion in the comments section here:

Phobos-Grunt Mars probe remains silent in Earth orbit.
BY STEPHEN CLARK
SPACEFLIGHT NOW
Posted: November 11, 2011
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1111/11phobosgrunt/
The idea would be to use the X-37B currently in orbit to communicate with the satellite. It certainly could at least photograph it.
Bob Clark
Click to expand...
It can do neither.
Bad idea
a. what says there are cameras onboard?
b. if there were, slew rates too high and FOV to small
c. spacecraft can't communicate with other spacecraft unless designed for it like TDRSS or shuttle to ISS>
Click to expand...
One of the capabilities speculated on for the X-37B is to examine up close other countries satellites, if not to attach to them.
Bob Clark
Click to expand...
but that doesn't mean that:
A.) the prototype will actually be capable of doing it at this stage of development
B.)have enough delta-v to change orbits and intercept the russian probe
C.) it was actually equiped with a camera payload on the current mission
 
RGClark said:
One of the capabilities speculated on for the X-37B is to examine up close other countries satellites, if not to attach to them.

Bob Clark
Click to expand...

It is not in an orbit near any spacecraft. It is in a unique inclination.
Another example, where you take some information from the internet and wrongly apply it to another topic.
 
Byeman said:
RGClark said:
One of the capabilities speculated on for the X-37B is to examine up close other countries satellites, if not to attach to them.

Bob Clark
Click to expand...

It is not in an orbit near any spacecraft. It is in a unique inclination.
Another example, where you take some information from the internet and wrongly apply it to another topic.
Click to expand...

One of the early requirements was for a delta-V of 3,100 m/s, about 10,000 feet per second, though the actual value reached in this vehicle hasn't been released.
The X-37b almost certainly has imaging equipment as one of its reported intentions is to provide orbital surveillance on short notice for varying locations. However, it is a question whether this can be used to image satellites. Still, another speculated upon capability for the X-37b was for it to examine other satellites. See for instance this page, near the end, in the section "X-40 Space Maneuver Vehicle (SMV)":

Military Spaceplane
X-40 Space Maneuver Vehicle
Integrated Tech Testbed.
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/launch/msp.htm

See these pages for the orbital parameters of Phobos-Grunt and the X-37b:

PHOBOS-GRUNT.
http://www.n2yo.com/satellite/?s=37872

OTV 2 (USA 226)
http://www.n2yo.com/satellite/?s=37375

See this page for the formulas for the delta-V required for orbital changes:

ORBITAL MECHANICS.
http://www.braeunig.us/space/orbmech.htm#maneuver

The formulas are rather complicated. But a simplified scenario suggests it might be doable. First, note that unless the altitude difference is very large, such as between LEO to GEO, then the delta-V needed to change altitude isn't too great, particularly when its still in LEO. See for instance this online Hohmann transfer orbit calculator:

Orbital Transfer Calculator.
http://www.vrzone.org/space/orbital_transfer.php

Plugging in the orbital altitudes for Phobos-Grunt and the X-37b gives a delta-V of 40 m/s.

The largest delta-V would probably be due to the plane change. For a simplified case of both circular orbits, the formula is:
ΔV = 2Vsin(θ/2) , where θ is the difference in the angle of inclination, and V is the orbital speed. For a 10 degree angle change and 7,800 m/s orbital speed, this is ΔV = 1,360 m/s. Considering how high was planned to be the delta-V capability this is not out of the question.
Note that for this mission that almost certainly has the capability to image ground sites, you would think Russian sites such as launch sites should be within its orbital change capability. But then if it has the capability to reach these high latitude sites then it also has the capability to reach the orbital inclinations of satellites such as Phobos-Grunt launched from these sites.



Bob Clark
 
RGClark said:
Byeman said:
RGClark said:
One of the capabilities speculated on for the X-37B is to examine up close other countries satellites, if not to attach to them.

Bob Clark
Click to expand...

It is not in an orbit near any spacecraft. It is in a unique inclination.
Another example, where you take some information from the internet and wrongly apply it to another topic.
Click to expand...

One of the early requirements was for a delta-V of 3,100 m/s, about 10,000 feet per second, though the actual value reached in this vehicle hasn't been released.
The X-37b almost certainly has imaging equipment as one of its reported intentions is to provide orbital surveillance on short notice for varying locations. However, it is a question whether this can be used to image satellites. Still, another speculated upon capability for the X-37b was for it to examine other satellites. See for instance this page, near the end, in the section "X-40 Space Maneuver Vehicle (SMV)":

Military Spaceplane
X-40 Space Maneuver Vehicle
Integrated Tech Testbed.
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/launch/msp.htm

See these pages for the orbital parameters of Phobos-Grunt and the X-37b:

PHOBOS-GRUNT.
http://www.n2yo.com/satellite/?s=37872

OTV 2 (USA 226)
http://www.n2yo.com/satellite/?s=37375

See this page for the formulas for the delta-V required for orbital changes:

ORBITAL MECHANICS.
http://www.braeunig.us/space/orbmech.htm#maneuver

The formulas are rather complicated. But a simplified scenario suggests it might be doable. First, note that unless the altitude difference is very large, such as between LEO to GEO, then the delta-V needed to change altitude isn't too great, particularly when its still in LEO. See for instance this online Hohmann transfer orbit calculator:

Orbital Transfer Calculator.
http://www.vrzone.org/space/orbital_transfer.php

Plugging in the orbital altitudes for Phobos-Grunt and the X-37b gives a delta-V of 40 m/s.

The largest delta-V would probably be due to the plane change. For a simplified case of both circular orbits, the formula is:
ΔV = 2Vsin(θ/2) , where θ is the difference in the angle of inclination, and V is the orbital speed. For a 10 degree angle change and 7,800 m/s orbital speed, this is ΔV = 1,360 m/s. Considering how high was planned to be the delta-V capability this is not out of the question.
Note that for this mission that almost certainly has the capability to image ground sites, you would think Russian sites such as launch sites should be within its orbital change capability. But then if it has the capability to reach these high latitude sites then it also has the capability to reach the orbital inclinations of satellites such as Phobos-Grunt launched from these sites.
Click to expand...

Once again, you use unrelated internet data to "prove" a wrong conclusion

A. X-37 is not X-40

B.. X-37 does not have a delta-V of 3,100 m/s

C. You have no proof that X-37 has imaging equipment

d. It isn't complicated to figure out that you do know what you are talking about. You keep trying to find forums where you think people will listen to you but you are no different than the guy who stands on the street corner yelling at people.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom