Inspections have begun on Air Force space plane

In article
tatelephone,
says...

On 12/21/2010 7:35 PM, David Spain wrote:


I think this is a false lesson. Sure this didn't work for the shuttle,
but the shuttle was crewed. This is un-crewed and can fly and re-fly for
a fraction of what it costs to launch the shuttle.

Not with an Atlas V launch every time you fly it...it puts around 750
pounds max into orbit with a launch cost of around $90-100 million.
Compared to Shuttle's launch cost per pound, that's pretty poor.
So you had better _really_ want that payload back with launch costs per
pound like that.

This is like damning DC-X because it didn't have the mass fraction
required of a vehicle to make orbit. It's an X-vehicle, cut it *some*
slack. It did prove an unmanned winged vehicle can safely land on a
runway after months in orbit. The USAF must be completely giddy over
that feat.

Jeff
--
42

On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 22:05:23 -0800, Pat Flannery
wrote:

On 12/21/2010 11:10 AM, Rick Jones wrote:
wrote:
No, this is not make payloads reusable. That was already possible
with the shuttle and it didn't provide any advantages and it
increases costs. Reconfiguration for recoverablility compromises
too many things.

Isn't Shuttle a rather extreme example of the increased costs? If so,
should it then tar all reusability?

If payload weighs amount X, then using the X-37B to launch it is X plus
the 10,000 pound weight of X-37B itself. That's not the way to reduce
launch costs,

Don't forget that your "payload" still needs a spacecraft bus. The
actual X-37 replaces the satellite bus in this context, not the
payload (the science or reconnaissance instruments.)

Even if this is just an R&D vehicle and has no real ambitions toward
reusable satellites, X-37B does give us another data point besides the
insanely expensive Space Shuttle. Reducing costs have to start
somewhere, and sometimes groundbreaking ideas come from completely
unexpected places.

Brian

On 12/22/2010 6:47 PM, Brian Thorn wrote:


Don't forget that your "payload" still needs a spacecraft bus. The
actual X-37 replaces the satellite bus in this context, not the
payload (the science or reconnaissance instruments.)

Even if this is just an R&D vehicle and has no real ambitions toward
reusable satellites, X-37B does give us another data point besides the
insanely expensive Space Shuttle. Reducing costs have to start
somewhere, and sometimes groundbreaking ideas come from completely
unexpected places.

It gives you a solar array for power, a RCS system to maneuver and
position yourself in orbit, and a way back home...and that's all it
gives you over launching an independent satellite.
Per-pound launch costs over launching something on a Shuttle and picking
it up with another Shuttle after its mission is done...suck, even by the
disaster area of per-mission Shuttle launch costs.

Pat

On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 02:34:34 -0800, Pat Flannery
wrote:

Even if this is just an R&D vehicle and has no real ambitions toward
reusable satellites, X-37B does give us another data point besides the
insanely expensive Space Shuttle. Reducing costs have to start
somewhere, and sometimes groundbreaking ideas come from completely
unexpected places.

It gives you a solar array for power, a RCS system to maneuver and
position yourself in orbit, and a way back home...and that's all it
gives you over launching an independent satellite.

It gives us a spaceborne SR-71 or U-2. Remember, satellites still
generally cost a lot more than the rockets that launch them, being
able to reuse the entire satellite could be huge, potentially worth
the cost of the extra weight of the X-37B. Much depends on the
details, of course, and X-37B is only Step 1.5.

You and "me" seem to be able to look no further than Shuttle and say
"EGADS! THIS WILL NEVER WORK!" Sure, Shuttle was a collosal failure.
But as Jeff noted, don't learn the wrong lesson from Shuttle. Shuttle
was both launch vehicle and manned spacecraft. X-37B is just an
unmanned spacecraft.

Brian

Pat Flannery wrote:
It gives you a solar array for power, a RCS system to maneuver and
position yourself in orbit, and a way back home...and that's all it
gives you over launching an independent satellite.

I think 'a way back home' is very significant, I'll get back to that point in
a second.

Per-pound launch costs over launching something on a Shuttle and picking
it up with another Shuttle after its mission is done...suck, even by the
disaster area of per-mission Shuttle launch costs.

Sucks yes on this metric, but certainly it sucks less than Shuttle when you
consider other metrics. You're talking in the order of 90-100 million per
launch vs 650M-1B per launch. I think we can't go on cost per pound as the
only metric. This would be useful if we were mass launching these things, but
I don't think that is the plan, at least as Jeff points out not as part of a
X-series.

There are other significant metrics to note here. One is time for operation
on-orbit. With shuttle we are limited to about 14 days. If you do the drop-off
and pick-up option, you are depending on shuttle meeting tight and regular
schedules. Which it has never be able to achieve. This thing we know can
already operate 200 days in orbit and can come down pretty much whenever it
is decided to do so. And go up in the time it takes to prep an Atlas-5.

Getting back to a way back home...

To my mind, the most significant idea behind X37-B and what makes it so
interesting *is* the 'bus' or transport platform concept. This SOOOO
simplifies satellite design. Instead of taking on the whole system design, you
only have to limit yourself to space environmental hardening and making sure
the interfaces fit (mechanicals and electrical) and the weight works.

It's a lot easier to quickly build something that fits in a box or a can, than
something you also have to be able to drive. This should also drive the price
of the 'package' way way down as well.

And if you can recover and refurbish it and get it back up on station quickly
this is a huge win. Esp. when there is a malfunction. A lot of intel can be
done with such a platform.

Dave

On 12/23/2010 9:04 AM, David Spain wrote:

And if you can recover and refurbish it and get it back up on station
quickly this is a huge win. Esp. when there is a malfunction. A lot of
intel can be done with such a platform.

I still like the Boeing drawing of it with the bombs riding on top of
the wings: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3077821/

Pat

In article
tatelephone,
says...

On 12/23/2010 9:04 AM, David Spain wrote:

And if you can recover and refurbish it and get it back up on station
quickly this is a huge win. Esp. when there is a malfunction. A lot of
intel can be done with such a platform.

I still like the Boeing drawing of it with the bombs riding on top of
the wings: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3077821/

When you take orbital mechanics into account, it doesn't make much
sense. I'd think an advanced cruise missile would be cheaper. But, the
USAF has always been searching for a mission for a "blue" orbital
vehicle. Rapid recon (optical or otherwise) makes more sense to me than
a conventional warhead platform.

Jeff
--
42

On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 22:33:52 -0800, Pat Flannery
wrote:

It gives us a spaceborne SR-71 or U-2. Remember, satellites still
generally cost a lot more than the rockets that launch them, being
able to reuse the entire satellite could be huge, potentially worth
the cost of the extra weight of the X-37B. Much depends on the
details, of course, and X-37B is only Step 1.5.

Resolution of photos taken from orbit is directly related to the
diameter of the mirror you use to take them, and unless they have come
up with a way to fold up the mirror when it's stowed in the cargo bay,
that means X-37B is limited to a mirror size of under four feet.

X-37B is a testbed, not an operational vehicle. An operational vehicle
would presumably be larger. If such a vehicle were twice the size of
X-37B, then an eight foot mirror is roughly equivalent to Hubble's.

Brian

On 12/24/2010 4:18 PM, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 22:33:52 -0800, Pat
wrote:

It gives us a spaceborne SR-71 or U-2. Remember, satellites still
generally cost a lot more than the rockets that launch them, being
able to reuse the entire satellite could be huge, potentially worth
the cost of the extra weight of the X-37B. Much depends on the
details, of course, and X-37B is only Step 1.5.

Resolution of photos taken from orbit is directly related to the
diameter of the mirror you use to take them, and unless they have come
up with a way to fold up the mirror when it's stowed in the cargo bay,
that means X-37B is limited to a mirror size of under four feet.

X-37B is a testbed, not an operational vehicle. An operational vehicle
would presumably be larger. If such a vehicle were twice the size of
X-37B, then an eight foot mirror is roughly equivalent to Hubble's.

Well, they've got another one under construction already, and they say
they are going to make multiple flights with both of them.
If they do decide to make more after those two, I think they are going
to stay the same size, as they seem to have sized it to ride on a Atlas
V for economy's sake.
Lockheed is supposed to be working on some sort of a winged reusable
launch vehicle for the Air Force at the moment, but info on it is very
sparse:
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/...le-space-plane
From what can be seen in the photo it bears an uncanny resemblance to
the Testors model of what the Aurora Project was supposed to look like:
http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.co...Davies/00.shtm

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:
Resolution of photos taken from orbit is directly related to the
diameter of the mirror you use to take them, and unless they have come
up with a way to fold up the mirror when it's stowed in the cargo bay,
that means X-37B is limited to a mirror size of under four feet.

Sure that helps. But adaptive optics that shine lasers down through the
atmosphere and modulate the mirror shape in real time have vastly improved
on that old equation such that mirror diameter isn't nearly as important as it
used to be.

Here's a link for you comrade:

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/track/altay.pdf

The Altay doesn't look to be anywhere near 4 ft.

If you can work it going up you can also work it going down...

;-)

Dave