Pentagon [is not] ready to unveil and demonstrate operational Classified Space Weapon

TomcatViP said:
A smaller winged vehicle (less wing area) can sustain more easily the re-entry.
Click to expand...
One problem: X-37 is not human-rated.
TomcatViP said:
At that time (a decade or more ago), there was no Crew-Dragon!
Click to expand...
And no MOL analogues to man them. So?
TomcatViP said:
Using the built-in re-entry capabilities of the X-37 means that you don't double down on your total launch mass since the launch-only capsule does not have to host fuel to de-orbit, have a shield etc... Hence more useful cargo to resupply the MOL.
Click to expand...
How exactly wasting two boosters instead of one is more reliable?
 
To close the discussion, it's probably doable:

ModuleGeo1_b.jpg Section1.jpg Section1_WithX37_s.jpg

And what could be a mission patch (hijacked from the X-37b thread):

$_57.JPG
 
Last edited:
Found this somewhat related to the envisioned concept for the X-37b: an ambulance version (although I am skeptical with the prone position of the evacuee facing trajectory head down!):

X-37UCD.jpg

Not particularly what we are discussing here, but shows that this has been thought of.

EDIT: Has anyone a a good 3d model of the X-37b to share?
 

Attachments

  • Robinson_10-19-16.pdf
    2.1 MB · Views: 18
Last edited:
I would be very impressed if the "Classified capability" turned out to be X-37 ability to perfom tanker mission to refuel Satellite.
 
publiusr said:
Forry Ackerman had that original model at the big Ackermansion. I saw it in person.

Unlike the platforms in 2001, you immediately knew what it was. ICON from SPACE COWBOYS reminded me of Polyus.
Click to expand...

Holy shet, you got to go to the Ackermansion? Man, that must have been awesome!
 
Given that #1, #4 & #5 FSA "Alternatives" have eventually materialized after all these years at different paces , with #2 on the not too distant horizon,, where would you bet on the missing member of the family in a scale of 1 to 10, #3, aka: Space Bomber being the mysterious classified "weapon"?
 

Attachments

  • Komadina 2003 LRSA NG.jpg
    Komadina 2003 LRSA NG.jpg
    164.8 KB · Views: 171
X-39 said:
Given that #1, #4 & #5 FSA "Alternatives" have eventually materialized after all these years at different paces , with #2 on the not too distant horizon,, where would you bet on the missing member of the family in a scale of 1 to 10, #3, aka: Space Bomber being the mysterious classified "weapon"?
Click to expand...
Can you post that whole document?
 
bobbymike said:
X-39 said:
Given that #1, #4 & #5 FSA "Alternatives" have eventually materialized after all these years at different paces , with #2 on the not too distant horizon,, where would you bet on the missing member of the family in a scale of 1 to 10, #3, aka: Space Bomber being the mysterious classified "weapon"?
Click to expand...
Can you post that whole document?
Click to expand...
Silly me, posting a reference without context :p https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/northrop-qsp-studies-military-and-civil.604/post-302144
 

Attachments

  • 2-Panel2-Komadina-Northrop(1).pdf
    6.1 MB · Views: 36
Last edited:
At the time the original article came out, I had thought its reveal was shelved to the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Perhaps after that, the war made its disclosure too escalatory. How firm was this story in the first place? The fact that it dropped names made me think it had a decent chance of being true at the time. Was this a bad article or something overtaken by events?
 
bobbymike said:
X-39 said:
Given that #1, #4 & #5 FSA "Alternatives" have eventually materialized after all these years at different paces , with #2 on the not too distant horizon,, where would you bet on the missing member of the family in a scale of 1 to 10, #3, aka: Space Bomber being the mysterious classified "weapon"?
Click to expand...
Can you post that whole document?
Click to expand...
Some of those QSP candidate concepts in that document are crazy wild, especially the X-wing
 

Attachments

  • candidateconceps.png
    candidateconceps.png
    49.2 KB · Views: 119
Arjen said:
That is the kind of remark only to be made if you know every single person in the room, most likely not even then. Grossly insensitive.
Click to expand...
I could make that kind of joke in any all-military environment, even if I had just walked into the room for the first time. Could probably do it in a bunch of police, too, they tend to have the same Gallows Humor. It's iffier for the rest of the first responders.
 
Scott Kenny said:
iffier for the rest of the first responders.
Click to expand...
Like the fire brigade and ambulance personnel, who have to clean up afterwards. Try that quip in A&E. Better, don't.
I can get my head around gallows humour as a coping mechanism, but the STS-27 debriefing wasn't anything that needed that kind of coping.
 
Last edited:
I don't see why a person would need to be carried in the vehicle to fulfill any role and it seems whatever ASAT capability the USAF has is not tied to the X-37 in any case.
 
Arjen said:
Like the fire brigade and ambulance personnel, who have to clean up afterwards. Try that quip in A&E. Better, don't.
I can get my head around gallows humour as a coping mechanism, but the STS-27 debriefing wasn't anything that needed that kind of coping.
Click to expand...
Some departments have pretty serious gallows humor, some don't.

That's why I said it'd be iffier with them.

As to the immaturity claims, I always ask the folks getting ready to retire from the military "so, what are you going to be when you grow up?"
 
Byeman said:
no, it is not.
Support for a person take a lot more volume and mass. Need O2, heat rejection, CO2 removal, air circulation, etc. X-37B can only carry 500 lbs. And the head can not stick up like that.
Click to expand...

Plus the poor guy looks like a leg amputee (no feet visible)
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom