Military Space Plane vs. Ares 1...which could be operational first?

On Nov 15, 4:33*pm, Jochem Huhmann wrote:

1. The only even remotely possible reason would be to return things
found
in orbit. Is there something up there they want to grab and return? It
would've to be something fairly small or a small part of something
larger, mind you.


2. Or they have some reusable black launcher in the works.

1. Nope. no rendezvous capability

2. nope

Me writes:

On Nov 15, 4:33Â*pm, Jochem Huhmann wrote:

1. The only even remotely possible reason would be to return things
found
in orbit. Is there something up there they want to grab and return? It
would've to be something fairly small or a small part of something
larger, mind you.


2. Or they have some reusable black launcher in the works.

1. Nope. no rendezvous capability

2. nope

Well, then it looks they have no mission for that thing...

Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Jochem Huhmann wrote:
I have been looking for that mission when the X37-B launch were
announced back then (it has been delayed more than once yet) and ended
up with two options: One, they have a clear idea for that and I was
totally unable to even guess at it. Two, they have no idea either.

The only even remotely possible reason would be to return things found
in orbit. Is there something up there they want to grab and return? It
would've to be something fairly small or a small part of something
larger, mind you.

One option would be that it refuels and replenishes reconsats, as well
as possibly boosting their orbits.
This speculated it is a space bomber: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3077821/
And the Boeing artwork of one with a RV riding over either inner wing
would suggest that's the case also:
http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/1...2.standard.jpg
But you would need a large number of them in orbit to get one within
range of the intended target at the time you wanted to hit it due to
orbital mechanics.
Also, since the X-37 is intended for a 270 day mission, what exactly do
you do with the RVs when the vehicle heads home for refurbishment and
relaunch?
In this other piece of artwork, the X-37 is shown with a solar array
deployed and something cylindrical down in the cargo bay:
http://space.skyrocket.de/index_fram..._sdat/x-37.htm
But it doesn't look like a camera...ASAT weapon?
You could carry a nuclear warhead inside the cargo bay and have the
vehicle land at the end of its mission with that aboard, but that would
be a direct violation of the Treaty Of Outer Space, and a pretty
treacherous step to take as it could then be used as a first strike weapon.
Still, this thing is a holdover from the second Bush administration, so
who knows? They tossed the ABM Treaty, so maybe the TOOS was on the
chopping block also?




"Rapid sortie photo-reconnaissance" launched on an Atlas V sounds a bit
crazy, if you ask me. There *must* be simpler and cheaper and more rapid
ways to do that.

Or they have some reusable black launcher in the works.


Since the X-37B doesn't seem to have much acceleration ability on its
own given its internal propellant tankage, such a launcher would have to
be able to get it up to around 80% orbital velocity to work.

Pat

Me wrote:

1. Nope. no rendezvous capability


We don't know that; the rendezvous antennas could deploy from inside the
cargo bay, and it does have RCS and maneuvering engines:
http://a52.g.akamaitech.net/f/52/827...hematic_02.jpg

Pat

On Nov 12, 10:01*pm, "Jonathan" wrote:

I'm starting to believe transferring the entire manned space program
to the military is the best way to go.



Whose says they can do better? Their management of space systems is
even worse

On Nov 15, 7:47*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
Me wrote:
1. *Nope. *no rendezvous capability

We don't know that; the rendezvous antennas could deploy from inside the
cargo bay, and it does have RCS and maneuvering engines:http://a52.g.akamaitech.net/f/52/827...mages/h_x37_sc...

Pat

Yes, I do. Also, doesn't have the proper placement of thrusters for
rendezvous/docking.

Me writes:

On Nov 15, 7:47Â*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
Me wrote:
1. Â*Nope. Â*no rendezvous capability

We don't know that; the rendezvous antennas could deploy from inside the
cargo bay, and it does have RCS and maneuvering engines:http://a52.g.akamaitech.net/f/52/827...mages/h_x37_sc...

Pat

Yes, I do. Also, doesn't have the proper placement of thrusters for
rendezvous/docking.

OK, what's the thing for then? The USAF has been talking about
space-testing (and returning) components, which sounds somewhat reasonable
in itself (especially when you've got components you can't just mount to
the outside of the ISS for obvious reasons). But even this sounds
somewhat like an excuse.


Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Jochem Huhmann wrote:
Me writes:

On Nov 15, 7:47 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
Me wrote:
1. Nope. no rendezvous capability
We don't know that; the rendezvous antennas could deploy from inside the
cargo bay, and it does have RCS and maneuvering engines:http://a52.g.akamaitech.net/f/52/827...mages/h_x37_sc...

Pat
Yes, I do. Also, doesn't have the proper placement of thrusters for
rendezvous/docking.

OK, what's the thing for then? The USAF has been talking about
space-testing (and returning) components, which sounds somewhat reasonable
in itself (especially when you've got components you can't just mount to
the outside of the ISS for obvious reasons). But even this sounds
somewhat like an excuse.

Consider the possibility that the "X" in the vehicle name really is
accurate: it's an experimental vehicle, not directly a prototype for a
particular operational vehicle (which would have a "Y" prefix).

Jorge R. Frank wrote:
Consider the possibility that the "X" in the vehicle name really is
accurate: it's an experimental vehicle, not directly a prototype for a
particular operational vehicle (which would have a "Y" prefix).

A lot of the other military X-planes that have been recently made are
prototypes for operational weapons systems.
What makes X-37B interesting is that originally NASA was supposed to
have some use for this spacecraft also in the X-37A version.
Here's some more info on it:
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/x-37.html

Pat

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
m...
"Jonathan" wrote in message
...



Maybe it's me, but it seems rather straight forward that the idea
is to lower cost to orbit with a reusable spacecraft. Which would
enable the military, and civilian sector, to do whatever they
pleased in the future due to the lower costs.

Why would anyone think the X-37B is in it's final form, or scale?
All of the others X planes were scale versions.

Umm, no they weren't. Most where in fact the only version.

I've done my homework. They were all testbeds, not prototypes.
There's no reason to believe the X-37B is any different.We can't
assume the final form will be manned or unmanned,

The Lockheed Martin X-33 was an unmanned, sub-scale technology
demonstrator for the VentureStar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-33

The X-43 is an unmanned experimental hypersonic aircraft design
with multiple planned scale variations meant to test different aspects
of hypersonic flight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-43

The unpiloted X-40 was built to 85 percent scale to test aero
dynamics and navigation of the X-37
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-40

The Orbital Sciences X-34 was intended as a low-cost testbed to
demonstrate "key technologies" integratable to the Reusable Launch
Vehicle program.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_Sciences_X-34

The Boeing X-37 Advanced Technology Demonstrator is a demonstration
spaceplane that is intended to test future launch technologies while
in orbit and during atmospheric reentry. It is a reusable robotic
spacecraft that is a 120%-scaled derivative of the X-40A.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-37B


My point is that the assumption around here is that all these
attempts were failures, got canceled, and that's the end of
the low cost reusable story. I say, and it seems rather
obvious, that instead, the various technologies which /were/
successful are in the process of creating the latest attempt.
The X-37B. All these programs just didn't get ****-canned.
The best of it went to the Pentagon black budget and
low cost reusable technology is not just alive and well, but
quickly catching up...imho.


From what I can gather
it seems pretty clear the military has cherry-picked the successful
technologies from the various other 'canceled' projects, the X-33,
X-34 and X-43, and have run with them with the X-37B.

The next space war will be won by the side that can replace
their space assets, taken out on 'day one', the fastest.

There's nothing new there. We've known that for a few decades.


But my point is that our tactics are in the process of changing.
The Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) program started in
2003 or so, and marks the shift away from the large nuclear war
hardened satellites, to the small easily replaceable micro satellites
they wish to begin building. Not having large military assets in
space translates to ... not needing....men in space in the future.

My point....and I wish people here would actually try to discuss
the point, not just holler "you're full of ****". I mean once in a
while it would be nice to have an adult conversation around here.
My point, is that the X-37 B looks quite suitable for that kind
of military tactics. While The Stick and Heavy would be exactly
the opposite of what the military could use.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...6/076oeyqy.asp


All these things also point to a quick demise of the notion of returning to
the Moon.




--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.