Could the X-37B be an attempt to bypass the FOBS Treaty?

On Apr 12, 6:05*am, "Jonathan" wrote:

1. The fact the X-37b is designed to stay aloft for 270 days, and

2. be able to
dramatically change orbits with it's large engine,

3. indicates it's more of
an orbital maneuvering vehicle than any kind of weapon delivery system.

4. The X-37b is probably meant to service various future military
satellites
and provide flexible surveillance and so on.

5. Response time and flexibility
are always crucial for military systems, so they can be deployed to
a region quickly. Having something already in orbit, which it can change
quickly, is the fastest way I would think.

6. And being in orbit so long
would indicate any payload is dedicated to the work being done
in orbit, not so much for orbital lift and recovery.
Since the X-37 can stay in orbit so long, we would only need to build
a small number of them, and launch costs wouldn't be such an issue.

7 For all we know, this might be a 1/3 scale model, and in the end
it ends up being an unmanned version of the shuttle, even launched
the same way as the shuttle.

1. Not a big deal , since it is a satellite and not a manned
spacecraft

2. Not so, it can not "dramatically" change orbits. It can adjust
its orbit, much like the shuttle. And it is not a big engine.

3. It indicates nothing.

4. There is nothing to indicate this. The X-37 does not have
rendezvous sensors.

5. It is not quick reaction. it is limit in its orbit path, just
like any other spacecraft. That is why quick response involves a
launch vehicle so it can go over the target in the first orbit.

6. 270 days is not a long time, it is short for a satellite. Most
satellites last 3-5 years in LEO and don't need wings. It has wings,
that means recovery and reuse. That is its primary feature and not
the "short" mission duration of 270 days.

7. It is not a 1/3 scale model. NASA started the program. It was
not designed to USAF requirements, the USAF is just continuing to use
a vehicle as a test platform

On Apr 29, 6:43*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:

1. So did the NASA one have RVs riding atop the wings also?:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3077821/

2. As far as it having rendezvous sensors - other than a deployable
solar
panel, we don't have a clue about what else is in the small cargo bay.


1. Boeing marketing pitch

2. RCS is not set up for rendezvous

On 4/29/2010 8:37 AM, Me wrote:

7. It is not a 1/3 scale model. NASA started the program. It was
not designed to USAF requirements, the USAF is just continuing to use
a vehicle as a test platform

So did the NASA one have RVs riding atop the wings also?:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3077821/
As far as it having rendezvous sensors - other than a deployable solar
panel, we don't have a clue about what else is in the small cargo bay.

Pat

On 4/29/2010 12:25 PM, Me wrote:

1. Boeing marketing pitch

Boeing marketing pitch from way back before this was ever a NASA
project, and it was a DARPA/Air Force military space program.
This is the flip side of the Shuttle program, where NASA was told they
could only develop the Shuttle if they could get the Air Force
interested in it, and the Air Force didn't really want it.
In this case, the Air Force was told that they couldn't develop the
thing unless they could get NASA interested in it, and it was NASA who
didn't really want it. :-D

Pat