X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle (OTV)

[avatar]

I can assure you that the air force has future plans that exceed what you are presently seeing in this white world test program.

Yes. And there are other countries who probably see similar potential beyond responsive launch architecture.

 

[Tuomasn]

I think one needs to look at the current booster as being available for testing not as the end game plan. I have seen several renderings and studies over the past 10 years mating the X-37 to various first stage TSTO flyback boosters. Having been involved in a subscale DOD related project proposal (didn't make the cut) I can assure you that the air force has future plans that exceed what you are presently seeing in this white world test program. I see the X-37 as a reuseable space vehicle with multi-role capability looking for a booster to complete its intended mission. For the time being this is a way for the air force to acquire funds to keep there little baby alive and kicking.

http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/fap/agenda_2009.html

NASA Fundamental Aeronautics 2009 Annual Meeting
September 29 – October 1, 2009

Wednesday, September 30, 2009
2:00 Status of the NASA/Air Force TSTO System Study. Mr. Jeff Robinson, NASA LaRC

I would love to see the slides of that presentation...
(and why not also the following Vehicle Operations Model Development. Mr. Michael Kelly, SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc.)

 

[Grey Havoc]

They may also be intending to ultimately use it for tests in relation to the proposed 'F6' satellite system. And, if the F6 manages to get to the operational phase, possibly develop the X-37 into an operational vehicle for constellation/element deployment, retrieval and/or renewal. Just a guess though.

 

[hesham]

Hi,

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/space/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385Post%3Ab35ddab3-ad4a-4599-869e-341154278edf

 

[Matej]

Too weird, too heavy and too unpractical design. I hope that the X-37 program technologies will have better use.

 

[blackstar]

They may also be intending to ultimately use it for tests in relation to the proposed 'F6' satellite system. And, if the F6 manages to get to the operational phase, possibly develop the X-37 into an operational vehicle for constellation/element deployment, retrieval and/or renewal. Just a guess though.

Doubtful. The F6 relies on smallsats. Why retrieve or renew them instead of simply replacing them? They're supposed to be cheap.

 

[Jim]

. Sure, the H2O2/JP engine is nice

That was changed long ago, it is a standard N2O4/MMH thruster now

 

[Lauge]

With reusables then indeed all bets are off. You get high flight rate and low cost per kg and then it starts making sense to bring back the satellite.

Isn't that what they said about that Space Shuttle thingy? You know, the one that ended up being the most expensive, least reliable and least safe orbital transfer system in existence?

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

 

[martinbayer]

Yep, thats what you get if you decide to cut development cost and consequently increase ops cost by settling for a (at best) semi-reusable instead of a fully reusable concept. Who knew?

Martin

 

[mz]

With reusables then indeed all bets are off. You get high flight rate and low cost per kg and then it starts making sense to bring back the satellite.

Isn't that what they said about that Space Shuttle thingy? You know, the one that ended up being the most expensive, least reliable and least safe orbital transfer system in existence?

Yeah, I meant a successful reusable.

 

[Lauge]

With reusables then indeed all bets are off. You get high flight rate and low cost per kg and then it starts making sense to bring back the satellite.

Isn't that what they said about that Space Shuttle thingy? You know, the one that ended up being the most expensive, least reliable and least safe orbital transfer system in existence?

Yeah, I meant a successful reusable.

Understood, but isn't that kind of a circular argument? "Reusable launch vehicles will be successful when we have successful reusable launch vehicles" ???

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

All of this has happened before. And all of this will happen again.

Moonbat

 

[mz]

With reusables then indeed all bets are off. You get high flight rate and low cost per kg and then it starts making sense to bring back the satellite.

Isn't that what they said about that Space Shuttle thingy? You know, the one that ended up being the most expensive, least reliable and least safe orbital transfer system in existence?

Yeah, I meant a successful reusable.

Understood, but isn't that kind of a circular argument? "Reusable launch vehicles will be successful when we have successful reusable launch vehicles" ???

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

Yeah it is. There is no short word for a routinely operable RLV. None exist at the moment. When you say RLV, people think about space shuttle, but it's only a single and a very deeply flawed example. It's wrong to think nothing different can exist in the future on the basis of this first prototype. (Some people also think X-30 or exotic SSTO pipe dream RLV:s but that's NOT what an RLV means, it's a broad category that does include designs that actually close.)

Some of the arguments of why routine RLV:s can't exist are circular: cheap flights can't exist because payloads are expensive and payloads are expensive since cheap flight opportunities don't exist. ???

This is where stuff like X-37 reusable satellites possibly come into play. Even though it's hugely heavy and inefficient compared to ordinary sats and it would cost a lot to launch it twice, never mind ten times (the launch costs would exceed the cost of the sat many times over with conventional launchers!). But if it's needed just for a few months anyway, and flights up are not that expensive per mass, it might actually make sense to bring it back and fly again.

Ie you have some conclusions currently like "sats are not reusable for a reason" which make a lot of sense with current assumptions that launching more mass/multiple times is expensive. But if launching mass/multiple times is not expensive, the assumptions change, and conclusions can change. Some people keep on banging the same conclusions and that "history shows that thing X doesn't make sense". Under certain assumptions yes, but if those change, then it's a different ball game.

This of course is all just matters of principle. It still doesn't necessarily make sense. I at least am somewhat sceptical. Sensors are getting cheaper nowadays.

 

[Desert Dawn]

X-37 shows up piggy back on numerous DOD TSTO hypersonic concepts.

**Subsonic ones too. There was one of a X-37 attacked to a large rocket booster with wings and a shape almost the same as a Pegasus rocket on the back of a Boeing 747 on the Phantom Works website a few years ago.

 

[martinbayer]

That was the Boeing AirLaunch concept:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=1021
http://space.skyrocket.de/index_frame.htm?http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/airlaunch.htm

Martin

 

[Antonio]

Boeing AirLaunch

look at Reply#34 for a picture

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,523.0.html

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Funny how Boeing's OSP concept seemed to be a scaled-up X-37. Fascinating. Oh, the possibilities. We could use that capability soon.

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2003/q2/nr_030418s.html

Here's a status update:
http://spaceflightnow.com/atlas/av012/100225x37arrival/

 

[flateric]

"The X-37B will launch aboard the 501 version of the Atlas 5. That configuration features a bulbous five-meter payload fairing enclosing the spacecraft and the Centaur upper stage. Images of this rocket configuration taken during a 2002 launch pad test can be seen here.
...
File image shows the Atlas 5 rocket configuration slated to launch the X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle.
Credit: Pat Corkery/Lockheed Martin"
http://spaceflightnow.com/atlas/av020/080730delay.html

 

[RyanC]

Bet you the USAF eventually lists a requirement for at least one X-37 descendant to be in orbit at all times (you DID notice the part about can orbit for 270 days?)

So that if war breaks out, we can just manouver our unmanned spaceplane and launch SIM-9 Spacewinders to kill enemy satellites, without alerting our enemies with the huge noise of a launch from Vandenberg or KSC -- and of course, no 'LAUNCH PLUME DETECTED IN US' that would freak the Chinese or Russians out.

 

[sferrin]

Bet you the USAF eventually lists a requirement for at least one X-37 descendant to be in orbit at all times (you DID notice the part about can orbit for 270 days?)

So that if war breaks out, we can just manouver our unmanned spaceplane and launch SIM-9 Spacewinders to kill enemy satellites, without alerting our enemies with the huge noise of a launch from Vandenberg or KSC -- and of course, no 'LAUNCH PLUME DETECTED IN US' that would freak the Chinese or Russians out.

I wonder how many SM-3 3rd stage/KKVs they could stuff into an X-37?

 

[blackstar]

So that if war breaks out, we can just manouver our unmanned spaceplane and launch SIM-9 Spacewinders to kill enemy satellites, without alerting our enemies with the huge noise of a launch from Vandenberg or KSC -- and of course, no 'LAUNCH PLUME DETECTED IN US' that would freak the Chinese or Russians out.

But why use a reusable winged vehicle for such a mission? It carries a lot of mass into orbit that is not required for such a mission--mass that could be devoted to payload. The X-37B mission has to be something that justifies the reusability part.

 

[sferrin]

So that if war breaks out, we can just manouver our unmanned spaceplane and launch SIM-9 Spacewinders to kill enemy satellites, without alerting our enemies with the huge noise of a launch from Vandenberg or KSC -- and of course, no 'LAUNCH PLUME DETECTED IN US' that would freak the Chinese or Russians out.

But why use a reusable winged vehicle for such a mission? It carries a lot of mass into orbit that is not required for such a mission--mass that could be devoted to payload. The X-37B mission has to be something that justifies the reusability part.

Maybe it returns to earth now and then for refurbishing/refueling.

 

[blackstar]

So that if war breaks out, we can just manouver our unmanned spaceplane and launch SIM-9 Spacewinders to kill enemy satellites, without alerting our enemies with the huge noise of a launch from Vandenberg or KSC -- and of course, no 'LAUNCH PLUME DETECTED IN US' that would freak the Chinese or Russians out.

But why use a reusable winged vehicle for such a mission? It carries a lot of mass into orbit that is not required for such a mission--mass that could be devoted to payload. The X-37B mission has to be something that justifies the reusability part.

Maybe it returns to earth now and then for refurbishing/refueling.

For what purpose? Returning it to Earth requires that it be launched again, and an Atlas 5 is an expensive rocket. Why not launch something that lasts for 8 years in orbit? Wouldn't that be cheaper and more efficient?

 

[sferrin]

For what purpose? Returning it to Earth requires that it be launched again, and an Atlas 5 is an expensive rocket. Why not launch something that lasts for 8 years in orbit? Wouldn't that be cheaper and more efficient?

Depends on what's on the vehicle I suppose. Hypothetically let's say it's got a cluster of SM-3 upper stage/KKVs (and let's not get bogged down in "SM-3 wouldn't work in space because. . ."; it's a for-example), a fire control system, and other off the shelf items. (It's not entirely unheard of. For instance the Detla 180 SDI mission achieved a space-to-space kill using a KKV with a Phoenix missile seeker. ) Developing that kind of system and weapons that could operate unattended for eight years in space could easily end up costing billions while this kind of capability could let you send things up, play around with them, and then bring them back to see how they faired. Also, if all you're doing is R&D and don't need to stay up for eight years (or whatever) you might use something like this. Whatever it is it's the bring-back ability that's important I'd think and what would be worth bringing back? Doesn't seem like there would be many things that would qualify.

 

[blackstar]

Price an Atlas 5. They're at least in the $140 million+ range. No matter what it's going to be cheaper to launch a payload, let it sit up there for several years, and then throw it away.

That's why X-37 is such a mystery--it has a payload bay that is too small to carry anything really useful, and short lifetime and reusability don't make much sense.

 

[CFE]

My guess is that X-37B exists purely as a tech demo for a possible RLV that's a decade or two away from being developed. The pilots will always want to see a military man-in-space, hence the need for reusability. They won't be swayed with endless logical arguments about the limited benefits and extreme costs of manned milspace missions.

Over a decade ago, artwork was created under contract to the Air Force for a military spaceplane system. These graphics were clearly pie-in-the-sky, depicting the X-37 catching a ride to orbit on the Boeing or LockMart X-33 designs. The Air Force's wasting of any taxpayer money on these ludicrous renderings shows that the military spaceplane effort (at least the portions that have been made public) are a delusional fantasy.

 

[Byeman]

Developing that kind of system and weapons that could operate unattended for eight years in space could easily end up costing billions while this kind of capability could let you send things up, play around with them, and then bring them back to see how they faired.

That isn't it. There is no real difference between 1/2 in space vs 8 years in space, except for more propellant. Both are going to cost the same.

 

[sferrin]

The Air Force's wasting of any taxpayer money on these ludicrous renderings shows that the military spaceplane effort (at least the portions that have been made public) are a delusional fantasy.

We'll be watching your "delusional fantasy" take to the air in a few months.

 

[sferrin]

Developing that kind of system and weapons that could operate unattended for eight years in space could easily end up costing billions while this kind of capability could let you send things up, play around with them, and then bring them back to see how they faired.

That isn't it. There is no real difference between 1/2 in space vs 8 years in space, except for more propellant. Both are going to cost the same.

Bring. Back.

 

[Byeman]

Bring. Back.

That would cost more. There are no savings in returning a system designed to operate in space. There is no real benefit of sending a system into space and return it after 6 months to see if it can last for 8 years because there is no real difference in the designs of the two systems.

 

[sferrin]

Bring. Back.

That would cost more. There are no savings in returning a system designed to operate in space. There is no real benefit of sending a system into space and return it after 6 months to see if it can last for 8 years because there is no real difference in the designs of the two systems.

Maybe during your months of testing in space you decided you want to try something different or upgrade what you sent up the first time. I don't know, I'm just speculating. It doesn't seem like something that would lend itself to short notice deployment without a solid booster though (or storable liquid I suppose).

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

OK Im gonna go out on a limb here, And I know you all will probably rip my head off anyway.

But what if the AF is doing this as an upgraded XSS-11 demonstration. Only key difference here, the upgraded part, is that this satellite inspector is reusable?

Perhaps later, maybe the AF wil try something else up it's sleeve

Maybe a rendevous or refueling test (granted that the X-37 is rather puny to be a tanker).

Honestly, whatever the AF chooses to put that little X-37 payload bay is anybody's guess. But whatever it is must well worth the price of reusability.

Personally I think the old SAINT concept might be making a comeback. But that's just me

 

[CFE]

Honestly, whatever the AF chooses to put that little X-37 payload bay is anybody's guess. But whatever it is must well worth the price of reusability.

Given the developmental & operational expenses that are associated with developing reusable space hardware, the flight rate would need to be extremely high before those added costs paid off. I firmly believe that mass production of expendable space payloads (the Iridium system comes to mind) is the easiest way to acquire low-cost space systems.

 

[blackstar]

OK Im gonna go out on a limb here, And I know you all will probably rip my head off anyway.

But what if the AF is doing this as an upgraded XSS-11 demonstration. Only key difference here, the upgraded part, is that this satellite inspector is reusable?

Nobody's ripping heads.

The problem with this theory is that it still doesn't explain the reusability part. If they want to do an upgraded XSS-11 demonstration, then why do they need to bring it back? Why not simply leave it up there? There's a big initial cost with the launch, and bringing something back for reuse later still requires an expendable launch vehicle. Things only get cheaper if a) your entire launch vehicle is reusable, and b) you have a high flight rate. Neither applies for the X-37B.

It would be a worthwhile exercise for somebody to research the history of attitudes toward reusability. When NASA was first pitching the space shuttle in the early 1970s, they argued that payloads could be refurbished and reused. That didn't happen except with the Hubble. There were a few instances where satellites were fixed in orbit (Solar-Max, the Palapas and the Intelsat VI comsat), but they were the exception to the rule. NASA never adopted the approach themselves, and did not design their own LEO satellites for refurbishment by the shuttle. It would be interesting to ask why.

Supposedly, NRO did an assessment of the benefits of reusability and refurbishment in the 1980s and determined that by the end of its lifetime, too many things had worn out on a spacecraft to make refurbishment practical--it's why you buy a new car after ten years instead of completely rebuilding the old one. And then there's the issue of technological obsolescence.

Comsat operators have apparently determined that they would rather throw away a comsat after a 12 year lifetime and replace it instead of refueling it. The reason is primarily because a new comsat will have far greater capacity. This is one of the reasons why the concept of fuel depots never took off in the commercial world, and something that their advocates don't pay much attention to.

So with the X-37B, the reason it is so puzzling is because it doesn't make sense according to the conventional rules that we've seen emerge over the past four decades.

 

[mz]

OK Im gonna go out on a limb here, And I know you all will probably rip my head off anyway.

But what if the AF is doing this as an upgraded XSS-11 demonstration. Only key difference here, the upgraded part, is that this satellite inspector is reusable?

Nobody's ripping heads.

The problem with this theory is that it still doesn't explain the reusability part. If they want to do an upgraded XSS-11 demonstration, then why do they need to bring it back?

Of course to bring back captured satellites!

 

[quellish]

Supposedly, NRO did an assessment of the benefits of reusability and refurbishment in the 1980s and determined that by the end of its lifetime, too many things had worn out on a spacecraft to make refurbishment practical--it's why you buy a new car after ten years instead of completely rebuilding the old one. And then there's the issue of technological obsolescence.

They're still very interested in on orbit servicing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_Express
Though I doubt that X-37B has anything to do with the above. There are things that are impractical to do without regular servicing that DoD and NRO would like to do, and of course this would add a lot of flexibility to how things are done now. For example, you could send up a payload with a minimal fuel load and then gas up with one or more service launches. That's similar to what NRO was supposedly considering for 12 after various issues that would not allow STS to hit the correct orbit with a full load of fuel.

 

[sferrin]

Maybe they've got themselves a RASCAL-like vehicle. Something fast is using that big new hanger out at Groom Lake. The plane would be easy enough to test and keep underwraps but if you had a reusable 2nd stage (yes, I know, RASCALs upper stage wasn't reusable, and yes I know this would need to be a bit bigger than RASCAL- which the new hangar would easily contain) that would be tough to pull off if you needed an Atlas to test it. So maybe they test it, "retire" it, and then the next step is a an X-37 on an upper stage launched from a "RASCAL".

 

[CFE]

An operational X-37-type system would need to have three or even four stages (including X-37 itself.) The X-37 orbiter doesn't have a lot of delta-V for orbit insertion. That's why the depictions of a "military spaceplane" riding on an X-33 were so fanciful. The system would only be able to make it to around half of orbital velocity. Perhaps X-37 would be useful as a suborbital weapon delivery system, but there are less expensive ways to deliver suborbital weapons than a reusable vehicle.

It's worth noting that the X-37 concept dates back to work Rockwell North American was doing in the mid 90's just before the Boeing buyout. Boeing later considered the X-37 moldline as an Orbital Space Plane design, but it would have taken too long to develop (and didn't meet post-Columbia requirements for passive reentry.)

 

[Proponent]

So with the X-37B, the reason it is so puzzling is because it doesn't make sense according to the conventional rules that we've seen emerge over the past four decades.

I've seen the suggestion that the X-37B is another program that the Air Force does not want but is forced on it by Congress. That seems unlikely given the program's low public visibility. So that leaves two possibilities: it's tied to some classified need that we haven't thought of or, as suggested by CFE, it's the latest manifestation of the Air Force's man-in-space fantasy.

 

[quellish]

Something fast is using that big new hanger out at Groom Lake.

Or they just needed more space.

If there was a large aircraft program flying out of that hangar, it would have a correspondingly large logistic footprint. A large RASCAL-like stage eats a lot of fluids and spare parts. The amount of those things going into and out of that base does not seem to support such a theory.

They are, however, doing a general expansion. New power lines, new running track and fitness facilities, new desks, new phone system, etc. etc.