X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle (OTV)

[Ian33]

My theory if I may.

X37B has in my theory a novel optical sensor payload which is half 'spy satellite' and half experimental communications from space to submarines.
Bear with me - The X37B has been over targets of interest, then swung a few degrees to take it over vast areas of ocean. A few years before the X37B went into space there was a new experimental communications system tested from ultra high aircraft utilising blue lasers. Submarines stayed deep and just sucked in the blue light and voila, covert real time communications with almost zero risk of detection.

Then the twins went into space and they did all sorts of shenanigans over NK, Libya, Iran, then vanished from view swinging back over areas where a lurker could hide easily.

My theory is thus: The Twins are a rapid pop up one look system which acts as a targetting platform for high speed rapid reaction submarine or other asset strikes.

 

[Byeman]

What twins?


And nothing vanishes from view in space.


Your theory has any holes.


The data is not going directly to the asset. There has to be a validation org in between

 

[Ian33]

Validation done before the submarine sortie commences via Commanders Intelligence sortie briefing or instructions via towed array as operations dictate.

'we see it, you shoot it'

X37B (or when potential system is operational its replacement) zooms over, NRO watching optics, mission gets Green light and submarine loitering in allocated area gets a blue nod. Ordinance leaves seconds later and no ELF array or surfacing for the submarine.

Or it could of been me reading way too much Dale Brown this last few weeks

Thanks for letting me mumble on lol.

 

[Byeman]

[quote author=Ian33 link=topic=5232.msg141246#msg141246 date=132555164

Or it could of been me reading way too much Dale Brown this last few weeks



Bingo.


Those are the worst books. Real world physics don't apply

 

[Ian33]

Thanks for letting me use the crayons. I graduate to pencils in the summer.

Back once more to the Hobbit hole.

 

[bobbymike]

How many "Brilliant Pebble" munitions could the X-37B hold? I believe it is a multiple kill ASAT able to stay in orbit and literally take out all of China's satellites, for example.

 

[Orionblamblam]

How many "Brilliant Pebble" munitions could the X-37B hold?

One. Maybe.

X-37 would be a piss-poor way to deliver such things. Since a Brilliant Pebble would be an entirely pointless thing to have sitting on the ground, there's no reason to bring it back. Thus a delivery system that trades economical uplift for no downlift would be the way to go. Additionally, the X-37 payload bay is probably too small to provide the BP with a long-duration cocoon, so the BP would have a seriously limited lifetime on orbit compared to one launched with a cocoon.

 

[Byeman]

How many "Brilliant Pebble" munitions could the X-37B hold? I believe it is a multiple kill ASAT able to stay in orbit and literally take out all of China's satellites, for example.

No, it can't. X-37 is not in any orbit close to China's satellites.

Also, Brilliant Pebbles is not an operational system, nor was any developed.

 

[LowObservable]

One advantage of skipping, if I recall correctly, was to get the range advantage of gliding (versus ballistics) without continuous heat load. I also believe that some TAV concepts were skippers, with plane change in mind.

 

[blackstar]

Also, Brilliant Pebbles is not an operational system, nor was any developed.

Yep. And what is generally not well-known is that the concept started to fall apart very quickly once it was examined closely. There were lots of reasons for this, but command and control of so many small spacecraft is a major challenge. The US Air Force has been flying an operational GPS constellation for two decades now and it still requires a lot of effort to keep them all working. Brilliant Pebbles was proposed at a time when it would have been impossible to control hundreds of small satellites at once.

 

[bobbymike]

Also, Brilliant Pebbles is not an operational system, nor was any developed.

Yep. And what is generally not well-known is that the concept started to fall apart very quickly once it was examined closely. There were lots of reasons for this, but command and control of so many small spacecraft is a major challenge. The US Air Force has been flying an operational GPS constellation for two decades now and it still requires a lot of effort to keep them all working. Brilliant Pebbles was proposed at a time when it would have been impossible to control hundreds of small satellites at once.

I should have been clearer when I put Brilliant Pebbles in quotes " " I was meaning "any nominal smart munition that could be used to hit a satellite".

So let me restate could X-37 launch bay hold a smart munition or several used to target satellites?

 

[Gridlock]

It could hold a snow cone maker, and certainly could hold ASAT weapons. But it's not really likely, at least not during an X- phase.

 

[shedofdread]

Perhaps I'm playing the role of 'devil's advocate' here but how do we know it is in the 'X' phase? Could this be a cover? One can't hide an orbital asset but a small amount of missdirection (relating to purpose) is of course quite easily do-able...

 

[Byeman]

I should have been clearer when I put Brilliant Pebbles in quotes " " I was meaning "any nominal smart munition that could be used to hit a satellite".

So let me restate could X-37 launch bay hold a smart munition or several used to target satellites?

None have been designed. Also, the size of the bay nor 500lb is not enough weapons. The 500lb has to include the ASE and an "upperstage" for the impactor. The upperstage is to get the impactor from the X-37 to the target. Anyways, X-37 as an ASAT needs a warhead. It would be co-orbital and wouldn't have the velocity differential use in kinetic kill vehicles.

 

[sferrin]

How many SM-3 Upper stage/KKV units could be held in it's bay? Also, consider the MKV (multiple kill vehicle- LM's version). Have the X-37 be the "mothership" with several of the mini-KKVs each with a small "kicker" motor (if one was even needed). If it's being used as an ASAT it wouldn't even need to deal with decoys.

 

[sublight]

Nobody here said it matched the orbit of the Tiangong.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16423881

 

[Mat Parry]

The orbits of the X-37 do not coincide with any other spacecraft.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16423881

"The Pentagon has steadfastly refused to discuss its mission but amateur space trackers have noted how its path around the globe is nearly identical to China's spacelab, Tiangong-1


But the suggestion any new sensors in the X-37B might take an interest in Tiangong's telemetry is certainly an interesting one. Washington retains a deep distrust of Beijing's space ambitions - even its apparently straightforward human spaceflight missions. Part of the problem is that China draws little distinction between its civilian and military programmes".

Once Again I'm trying to log orbital changes made by OTV-2 (as the X-37B lauched before Tiangong-1, post launch did X-37B change it's orbit to match that of China's experimental spacecraft...?)

 

[Byeman]

But the suggestion any new sensors in the X-37B might take an interest in Tiangong's telemetry is certainly an interesting one. Washington retains a deep distrust of Beijing's space ambitions - even its apparently straightforward human spaceflight missions. Part of the problem is that China draws little distinction between its civilian and military programmes".

Once Again I'm trying to log orbital changes made by OTV-2 (as the X-37B lauched before Tiangong-1, post launch did X-37B change it's orbit to match that of China's experimental spacecraft...?)

It wouldn't have an use for gathering telemetry. Ground and other space assets are in better position for that.

 

[blackstar]

I'm having a hard time buying that as well. X-37 was launched six months before T, so it was clearly not sent up to watch it. Maybe it did take a look, but it seems unlikely that this was a primary mission.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Maybe the payload is something along the lines of a prototype magnetically focused imaging array? That's a piece of hardware that you definitely would want back on the ground in one piece.

 

[blackstar]

Maybe the payload is something along the lines of a prototype magnetically focused imaging array?

Does something like that actually exist?

 

[sferrin]

Maybe the payload is something along the lines of a prototype magnetically focused imaging array?

Does something like that actually exist?

I think I saw something like that on Star Trek once.

 

[gwiz]

Nobody here said it matched the orbit of the Tiangong.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16423881

That's because it doesn't. Height and inclination to the equator are similar, but right ascension is completely different. Apart from that, it was launched months before the Chinese module.

This story is nonsense.

 

[Avimimus]

None have been designed. Also, the size of the bay nor 500lb is not enough weapons. The 500lb has to include the ASE and an "upperstage" for the impactor. The upperstage is to get the impactor from the X-37 to the target. Anyways, X-37 as an ASAT needs a warhead. It would be co-orbital and wouldn't have the velocity differential use in kinetic kill vehicles.

I have to take issue with two things:

- First, this forum is proof that such systems have been designed. Everything has been designed, at least partially (we have flying submarines, submersible aircraft, and tanks which stop at the edge of the battlefield to deploy flying turrets, pogosticks for use on the moon, 1930s era propeller driven fire-and-forget SAMs, pigeon guided missiles, airplanes which turn into sailboats, VTOL ring aircraft that land to provide fire support at a battlefield, ICBM delivered soldiers, nuclear powered burrowing tanks...) The question is whether any system has reached the prototype stage.

- Secondly, I wouldn't be surprised if the X-37 program isn't related somewhere, to some paper study for some kind of similar, but militarised program. If you want to get funding you argue the military utility of a program - even if it doesn't really make any sense. After all, the Apollo program was partly justified as a race to build military installations on the moon...

Orionblamblam's point is more convincing. Of course, there might be an argument for a complex platform that could skip off the atmosphere to deliver projectiles onto more then one orbit (this would also make the launch platform harder to intercept). However, a number of smaller and simpler ASAT weapons would be cheaper to develop and lower risk to deploy.

However, it doesn't mean that a largely civilian system hasn't been pitched at some point as having a military role (and almost certainly an intelligence role). Even if it's a bad idea.

 

[Byeman]

I have to take issue with two things:

- First, this forum is proof that such systems have been designed. Everything has been designed, at least partially (we have flying submarines, submersible aircraft, and tanks which stop at the edge of the battlefield to deploy flying turrets, pogosticks for use on the moon, 1930s era propeller driven fire-and-forget SAMs, pigeon guided missiles, airplanes which turn into sailboats, VTOL ring aircraft that land to provide fire support at a battlefield, ICBM delivered soldiers, nuclear powered burrowing tanks...) The question is whether any system has reached the prototype stage.

- Secondly, I wouldn't be surprised if the X-37 program isn't related somewhere, to some paper study for some kind of similar, but militarised program. If you want to get funding you argue the military utility of a program - even if it doesn't really make any sense. After all, the Apollo program was partly justified as a race to build military installations on the moon...

Orionblamblam's point is more convincing. Of course, there might be an argument for a complex platform that could skip off the atmosphere to deliver projectiles onto more then one orbit (this would also make the launch platform harder to intercept). However, a number of smaller and simpler ASAT weapons would be cheaper to develop and lower risk to deploy.

Bigger issue, you are wrong on all points

1. "Designed" means to have production drawings made. Conceptual drawings or powerpoint charts are not a design, but a concept.

2. The Apollo program had nothing to do with military installations on the moon. It was a show of technology.

3. there is no basis for such a platform

 

[mz]

Throwing my part in to the "why on earth does the X-37 exist?" thread:

Maybe it's an anachronism. Or a future technology. Something that certainly doesn't make sense right now.

Electronics used to be expensive and unreliable. Satellites still are quite expensive, if nowadays very reliable and capable too.

A "reusable payload shroud" might make sense in a world where launches are cheap compared to the payloads. That doesn't look to be the case now. But it could have been closer to that much earlier. These programs and organizations are so large that they can do stuff that made a lot of sense 20-30 years ago but doesn't cut it anymore.

Of course, things might change again. There are many "chicken and egg" style problems, and one of them is that both rockets and payloads are expensive: even if you build a cheap rocket (assume all the other problems are solved), it can't fly much since there is not enough money to build so many payloads.

So, just in case there actually will be reusable lower stages with cheap cost per flight, then X-37 style technology might make sense to use with those for some missions where you want your payload back. I'm not sure if I can invent any such missions off the top of my head. Maybe rapid testing. And of course human missions. Maybe station supply could be done too. Really dumb payloads that still need maneuvering only in the early phase could also be deployed with things like this.
In many cases you'd probably be better off just extending the functionality of normal upper stages.


Why does it have wings? It seems that it's both for runway landing and for high hypersonic L/D - meaning high cross range meaning more flexibility (or less waiting) for returning to earth. I'm not sure where that would be needed except maybe with humans.

 

[sublight]

I still believe it brings back massive data sets that are too large to transmit over current links. Why would you need all this data to be current on a regular basis? Look at the distributed targeting system they are upgrading in the super hornets for example.

"The system compares synthetic-aperture radar maps from the aircraft’s active-array radar with stored geo-registered SAR maps and generates precise target coordinates for GPS-guided weapons. DTS enhances Super Hornet aircrews’ situational awareness when engaging air-to-ground targets."

Now if you were to take the same data and load it into some weapons themselves you would have a pretty accurate delivery mechanism based on how recent the X-37b data was.

 

[Byeman]

I still believe it brings back massive data sets that are too large to transmit over current links. Why would you need all this data to be current on a regular basis? Look at the distributed targeting system they are upgrading in the super hornets for example.

No, its coverage is too limited and its payload capacity is too small

 

[Matej]

After almost a year... finished!

Introductory article about MSP and SMV architecture, Rockwell ReFly and Boeing Air Launch: http://www.hitechweb.genezis.eu/military_space_plane.htm

Complete history of Boeing X-37 and X-40 that has ambition to answer most of your questions: http://www.hitechweb.genezis.eu/x37_and_x40.htm

English and other languages are available via Google translator. I would like to say thank you to all the people, who helped me to collect materials and information, mostly to Grigory (flateric), Alex Szames (antigravite) and Dan Zinngrabe (quellish).

Now I need to finish articles about X-41, X-42 and FAST and lets start to sort a mess of an European reusable spacelanes!

 

[RGClark]

After almost a year... finished!

Introductory article about MSP and SMV architecture, Rockwell ReFly and Boeing Air Launch: http://www.hitechweb.genezis.eu/military_space_plane.htm

Complete history of Boeing X-37 and X-40 that has ambition to answer most of your questions: http://www.hitechweb.genezis.eu/x37_and_x40.htm

English and other languages are available via Google translator. I would like to say thank you to all the people, who helped me to collect materials and information, mostly to Grigory (flateric), Alex Szames (antigravite) and Dan Zinngrabe (quellish).

Now I need to finish articles about X-41, X-42 and FAST and lets start to sort a mess of an European reusable spacelanes!

Thanks for that. I was able to read it in English by pasting the URL into Google Translator. However, the link on your page to the English version wasn't working when I tried it.

I liked the image of the X-37B being carried as an upper stage to a X-33 first stage:

This would give a fully reusable system. Note that the X-33 program was 80% completed when it was canceled. Then we could have a fully reusable launcher in relatively short order if it were restarted.

Bob Clark

 

[Byeman]

I liked the image of the X-37B being carried as an upper stage to a X-33 first stage:

This would give a fully reusable system. Note that the X-33 program was 80% completed when it was canceled. Then we could have a fully reusable launcher in relatively short order if it were restarted.

Not true.

a. The X-33 was not going to work. Too many issues
b. X-37 is not an upperstage, it is a spacecraft
c. anyways, reusable for little gain, only a 500lb payload

 

[dark sidius]

With the Air force Reusable booster system and may be a bigger x-37 like x-37c you will have a fully reusable system, for military missions.

 

[Matej]

Thanks for that. I was able to read it in English by pasting the URL into Google Translator. However, the link on your page to the English version wasn't working when I tried it.

Yay! I checked the text ten times but forgot to modify the link in menu : Its fixed now.

I liked the image of the X-37B being carried as an upper stage to a X-33 first stage:

Note that only the first (big) image shows design from Boeing, the rest two on the right shows original SMV design from Lockheed Martin.

This would give a fully reusable system. Note that the X-33 program was 80% completed when it was canceled. Then we could have a fully reusable launcher in relatively short order if it were restarted.

As Byeman already wrote, not a chance. X-33 was only a suborbital experimental demonstrator. It was not able/designed to reach orbit, nor to launch SMV on any stable orbit. Fully reusable launcher with reasonable usefull load was Lockheed Martin Venture Star - serial production version of X-33 subscale demonstrator. Time needed for its development was estimated to 15 - 20 years.

 

[LowObservable]

The idea behind Military Spaceplane (MSP) was a sub-orbital reusable booster with three external payloads - SMV (X-40), CAV glider (X-41) and low-cost satellite booster (X-42). So it was technically easier than X-33, which although it was suborbital was a tech demo for the SSTO VentureStar.

MSP first stages were proposed based on X-33, Delta Clipper, and Rockwell's Shuttle-oid things.

 

[Matej]

Not entirely true. Suborbital MSP was planned just as Ops demonstrator, not an operational system. Only the second (orbital capable) generation was planned to enter regular service.

And regarding its payload: suborbital trajectory was suitable only for X-41 and X-42 MIS to LEO. But X-41 was transformed into FALCON program (HTV-1, HTV-2 and HTV-3) and cancelled. X-42 MIS (Modular Insertion Stage) was transformed into X-42 RAST (Reusable Access to Space), then to FAST and now its called RBS (Reusable Booster System), which is first stage on its own. So the only payload, that survived till today, is (kind of) experimental technology demonstrator of future SMV, namely X-37B. And it requires for 95% of its planned missions to reach stable orbit. When launched from some X-33 hybrid, it needs to burn its own fuel even to reach LEO, which greatly reduces its operational time on orbit. So the original idea by RGClark, that if we reincarnate the X-33, we will have a fully reusable space system, is simply wrong.

I am also not sure if there was ever a serious consideration of Rockwell's Shuttle-oid things as MSP candidate. At the fall of 1996, only Lockheed Martin and Boeing received funding for initial studies. At the same time Rockwell International merged with Boeing, so its not very likely that Boeing had any funding to finance second proposal, other than the one based on DC-X/DC-Y.

 

[DSE]

I liked the image of the X-37B being carried as an upper stage to a X-33 first stage:

This would give a fully reusable system. Note that the X-33 program was 80% completed when it was canceled. Then we could have a fully reusable launcher in relatively short order if it were restarted.

Not true.

a. The X-33 was not going to work. Too many issues

Actually even if X-33 worked this couldn't be true. X-33 was never designed to be an orbital vehicle. It was purely suborbital.

 

[Byeman]

With the Air force Reusable booster system and may be a bigger x-37 like x-37c you will have a fully reusable system, for military missions.

No, again, the X-37 is not an upperstage, it is a spacecraft.

 

[RGClark]

As Byeman already wrote, not a chance. X-33 was only a suborbital experimental demonstrator. It was not able/designed to reach orbit, nor to launch SMV on any stable orbit. Fully reusable launcher with reasonable usefull load was Lockheed Martin Venture Star - serial production version of X-33 subscale demonstrator. Time needed for its development was estimated to 15 - 20 years.

Actually from the beginning the Air Force had intended to use the X-33 as a "pop-up" satellite delivery system, where it would serve as a reusable first stage:

The New 'Area 51'
The Air Force has abandoned top-secret testing at its once most secret test site. We know why and we know where they moved it to.
BY JIM WILSON
Published in the June 1997 issue.
"On February 28, 1997, a pen stroke solved the Air Force's money problem. It also pointed us in the direction of the new Area 51. The event was unremarkable. Gen. Howell M. Estes 3rd, commander-in-chief of AFSPC, and NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin signed an agreement to share "redundant assets."
"The most important of these redundant assets was now under construction at Lockheed Martin Skunk Works, the Palmdale, California, incubator that previously hatched the mysterious birds that disturbed the quiet of the desert near Rachel. The Air Force's breakthrough aircraft would be one the public already knew as NASA's X-33. Skunk Works engineers had designed it as a half-scale flying testbed for the space plane that would become the 21st century's space shuttle. (See Tech Update, page 24, Sept. '96.) Measuring 68 ft. long, the lifting-body-shaped craft was a direct descendant of the ultrahigh-performance Have Region aircraft. It could take off vertically, fly faster than Mach 15, soar to 50-mile altitudes and then land on an ordinary runway.
"By the time it was announced, this assets-sharing agreement between the Air Force and NASA was already old news to aerospace industry insiders. Three days earlier, Maj. Ken Verderame, a deputy manager at Phillips, had explained precisely how the X-33 could be turned into a weapon. Speaking at a NASA-sponsored technical conference in Huntsville, Alabama, he pointed out that Skunk Works designers nestled a 5 x 10-ft. payload bay between the X-33's liquid-oxygen and fuel tanks. It wouldn't be used on the NASA missions, but engineers at Phillips were already hard at work on a modular "pop-up" satellite and weapons launcher that could fit inside it. Verderame went on to explain future plans for modular "pop-in" cockpits.
"Knowing that the Air Force had long planned to use the X-33 as an operational aircraft made a curious piece of information we had received months earlier fit into place. In the fall of 1996, NASA had announced the selection of the Michael Army Airfield as a backup runway for several X-33 missions. Given the field's location in a desolate stretch of desert about 80 miles southwest of Salt Lake City, the choice seemed puzzling. But now that the Air Force had acknowledged its plans to use the X-33 as a weapons platform, it made perfect sense. Studying a map of Utah shows that Michael AAF has the exact same security feature that drew U-2 developers to Area 51. It sits next to a ferocious junkyard dog.
"Where the Groom Dry Lake Bed had a nuclear test site to discourage the uninvited, Michael AAF has an equally, perhaps more, compelling deterrent. It is in the midst of Dugway Proving Ground, the place where the Army stores and tests nerve gas. PM learned exactly how secure this site is when we dispatched a plane equipped with an aerial camera to get a closer look. The pilot was warned that if he tried to overfly the site he would be shot down."
http://books.google.com/books?id=X2YEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA58&dq=%22popular+mechanics%22+%22x-33%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5LVPT_vePMPh0QHLpczXDQ&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22popular%20mechanics%22%20%22x-33%22&f=false

As discussed in the article and as shown in the attached image it could carry a 10,000 lb payload under this use.

 

[Matej]

"pop-up" satellite and weapons launcher

In other words - MIS (Modular Insertion Stage) or its flight experiment X-42 USFE (Upper Stage Flight Experiment). What changes nothing in my statement, that X-33/X-37 combination will never produce fully reusable space system, because this combination will never reach stable usefull orbit.

 

[Byeman]

Actually from the beginning the Air Force had intended to use the X-33 as a "pop-up" satellite delivery system, where it would serve as a reusable first stage:

that is a bogus article and not a ounce of truth. Clark, not everything published is true. You can't just rely on the internet as your evidence.