X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle (OTV)

[RGClark]

Once again, you use unrelated internet data to "prove" a wrong conclusion
A. X-37 is not X-40
B. X-37 does not have a delta-V of 3,100 m/s
C. You have no proof that X-37 has imaging equipment
D. It isn't complicated to figure out that you do know what you are talking about. You keep trying to find forums where you think people will listen to you but you are no different than the guy who stands on the street corner yelling at people.

See here for how the X-40 program became the X-37 program:

Boeing X-37 / X-40.
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/x-37.html

Nobody knows, outside the classified program, what its delta-V capability is because it hasn't been released. Since this is not a completely operational system it's likely to be less than 3,100 m/s but nobody knows how much less. Interestingly, it might be possible to estimate its delta-V capability from the size of the propellant tanks and knowing which fuel/oxidizer is being used:

Air Force's X-37B Secret Space Plane.
http://www.uaff.us/secret_spacecraft.htm

This page though is giving the fuel as kerosene. Some other sources say this was changed to hydrazine, or the military equivalent of that.

Look up references to the X-37b. It's meant to serve as a test platform for such imaging capabilities in addition to testing capabilities required of a reusable spacecraft. It would be hard to imagine testing such imaging capabilities without giving the craft the ability to do some type of imaging.


Bob Clark

 

[Matej]

See here for how the X-40 program became the X-37 program:

Boeing X-37 / X-40.
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/x-37.html

They are totally different vehicles! Some time both programs even run in parallel. And besides - now OTVs have different propulsion system than originally planned.

 

[RGClark]

See here for how the X-40 program became the X-37 program:

Boeing X-37 / X-40.
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/x-37.html

They are totally different vehicles! Some time both programs even run in parallel. And besides - now OTVs have different propulsion system than originally planned.

The intended military applications of both vehicles is the same, as well as their shapes. The X-37b is just a test version, so is not considered an operational vehicle.


Bob Clark

 

[Byeman]

The military applications of both vehicles is the same as well as their shapes.

No, they are not.

The delta V is much lower and it is using NTO/MMH.

It's meant to serve as a test platform, for what, is unknown. Imaging is just speculation but it is not in an orbit conducive to it.

You keep pointing to unverified links and keep coming up with uninformed conclusions.

 

[Orionblamblam]

It's meant to serve as a test platform, for what, is unknown. Imaging is just speculation but it is not in an orbit conducive to it.

The X-37 is simply a reusable payload shroud with a bit of on-orbit propulsion capability. Imaging, bombs, electronic warfare... these are not X-37 any more than Hubble was STS. They are simply payloads that might or might not fit into the X-37 payload bay.

 

[RGClark]

The X-37 is simply a reusable payload shroud with a bit of on-orbit propulsion capability. Imaging, bombs, electronic warfare... these are not X-37 any more than Hubble was STS. They are simply payloads that might or might not fit into the X-37 payload bay.

It is notable that of the Air Force denials, they have denied that the X-37b can carry weapons such as hypervelocity surface directed projectiles. But they have never denied it can do imaging. They have described it as having "sensors" to help surface military activity. It is widely acknowledged by experts on reconnaissance satellites that its main role is that of surveillance:

Surveillance Suspected as Spacecraft’s Main Role.
By WILLIAM J. BROAD
Published: May 22, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/science/space/23secret.html

Wings into Space.
by Craig Covault
Aerospace America, November, 2010
http://www.aerospaceamerica.org/Documents/November%202010/Feature_Air_Force_X-37_Nov2010.pdf


Bob Clark

 

[RGClark]

The X-37 is simply a reusable payload shroud with a bit of on-orbit propulsion capability. Imaging, bombs, electronic warfare... these are not X-37 any more than Hubble was STS. They are simply payloads that might or might not fit into the X-37 payload bay.

The question may turn out to be moot:

23 November 2011 Last updated at 03:50 ET
Signal picked up from Russia's stranded Mars probe.
By Jonathan Amos
Science correspondent, BBC News
"Contact has finally been made with Russia's troubled Mars mission, says the European Space Agency (Esa)."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15850516


Bob Clark

 

[sublight]

They are totally different vehicles! Some time both programs even run in parallel. And besides - now OTVs have different propulsion system than originally planned.

Re: "the X37 is not designed to satisfy air force operational requirements".
It sounds like it was a last minute appropriation to address a critical gap. Did some other major platform fail or get cancelled?

 

[RGClark]

They are totally different vehicles! Some time both programs even run in parallel. And besides - now OTVs have different propulsion system than originally planned.

Re: "the X37 is not designed to satisfy air force operational requirements".
It sounds like it was a last minute appropriation to address a critical gap. Did some other major platform fail or get cancelled?

Since the Air Force and NASA were developing similar vehicles, that might just have been referring to the NASA civilian version. The current X-37b is an Air Force vehicle and is probably closer to what the Air Force wanted with a "Space Maneuver Vehicle".

Bob Clark

 

[Byeman]

The X-37 is simply a reusable payload shroud with a bit of on-orbit propulsion capability. Imaging, bombs, electronic warfare... these are not X-37 any more than Hubble was STS. They are simply payloads that might or might not fit into the X-37 payload bay.

It is notable that of the Air Force denials, they have denied that the X-37b can carry weapons such as hypervelocity surface directed projectiles. But they have never denied it can do imaging. They have described it as having "sensors" to help surface military activity. It is widely acknowledged by experts on reconnaissance satellites that its main role is that of surveillance:

Surveillance Suspected as Spacecraft’s Main Role.
By WILLIAM J. BROAD
Published: May 22, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/science/space/23secret.html

Wings into Space.
by Craig Covault
Aerospace America, November, 2010
http://www.aerospaceamerica.org/Documents/November%202010/Feature_Air_Force_X-37_Nov2010.pdf


Bob Clark

surveillance doesn't optical or imaging exclusively, there are other means of surveillance.

 

[Byeman]

Since the Air Force and NASA were developing similar vehicles, that might just have been referring to the NASA civilian version. The current X-37b is an Air Force vehicle and is probably closer to what the Air Force wanted with a "Space Maneuver Vehicle".

Bob Clark

Wrong, the X-37B was the same NASA vehicle, the Air Force took over the program. Again, you don't know what you are talking about. When are you going provide some first hand information instead of posting links?

 

[RGClark]

Since the Air Force and NASA were developing similar vehicles, that might just have been referring to the NASA civilian version. The current X-37b is an Air Force vehicle and is probably closer to what the Air Force wanted with a "Space Maneuver Vehicle".

Bob Clark

Wrong, the X-37B was the same NASA vehicle, the Air Force took over the program. Again, you don't know what you are talking about. When are you going provide some first hand information instead of posting links?

I'd tell you but then I'd have my top secret security clearance revoked.


Bob Clark

 

[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.

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

The platforms are supposed to be cheap; Not necessarily some of the instruments/components fitted to them.

Regarding the F6 program itself, a DARPA solicitation (Special Notice) issued on November 18th of this year: https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=96912d46c245b03595aa5ba8efb51b76&tab=core&_cview=0

including

System F6 Demo Bus RFI


Final solicitation for the F6 Tech Package (F6TP).

DARPA TTO Program Overview Briefing on the 'System F6' from June 8th of this year: www.darpa.mil/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=2147484487

 

[blackstar]

Re the F6:

The standard problem--it is the fundamental issue with trying to figure out the X-37B's mission--is that you have to explain the wings. Simply put, what can the X-37B do in space that requires that it be reusable? And couldn't you do this cheaper with a throw-away vehicle? After all, you're still throwing away a big expensive rocket with each mission.

I've been writing about U.S. military space programs for about fifteen years now (you can look up my stuff) and I haven't figured the X-37B out. It just doesn't quite make sense. Either I'm missing something, or maybe the USAF has simply decided to spend a lot of money developing technology that has no obvious mission.

 

[Orionblamblam]

maybe the USAF has simply decided to spend a lot of money developing technology that has no obvious mission.

The X-37 - as the "X" designation indicates - started life as a technology demonstrator rather than an operational vehicle. But if they can get some operational use out of experimental flights... why not?

Still, a reusable payload shroud is not the most sensible thing to develop. There are cheaper ways of gettign the payload & propulsion systems back to Earth.

 

[Gridlock]

Re the F6:

The standard problem--it is the fundamental issue with trying to figure out the X-37B's mission--is that you have to explain the wings. Simply put, what can the X-37B do in space that requires that it be reusable? And couldn't you do this cheaper with a throw-away vehicle? After all, you're still throwing away a big expensive rocket with each mission.

Logically speaking, it suggests a mission profile where it is not only the ability to convey physical items *into* orbit that is sought.


Whether that relates to physical items that left Earth on/as part of the 37 and can't be abandoned, or to items acquired on orbit, that's the question I think.

 

[Mat Parry]

It is a puzzle, in the wider picture are there any clues to be gleaned (or faulty conclusions to be drawn).

The glaringly obvious situation is the collapse of the Future Imagery Architecture program (a suprising place for the US to be given the invaluable historical contribution of IMINT reconnaissance satelites). I wonder if the USAF apparent inheritance of the X-37B (a program that no one wanted) has been put to work to test components of radical new ways to gather IMINT, Sublight's suggestion in post 346 of this thread is an example of breakout thinking for IMINT satelites that don't have to be the size of a school bus. Not saying this is the answer but is an example of something that could be tested on X-37B, returned, tweaked and retested.

Purely a thought experiment...
Alternately are there any radical experimental sensors (3D, hyperspectral, holographic, quantum RADAR ;D ) who's data could not be broadcast back to earth due to the resultant data stream being too sensitive / distinctive / instructive to an observers SIGINT efforts. For this hypothetical situation an X-37B may be a more secure situation than the older analogy of dropping of film canisters?

Most likely what happened is the USAF inherited a program it didn't want and is making most of the opportunity to play with an X-space plane to test boring stuff like TPS and other components robustness to a year or so in space.

 

[blackstar]

The glaringly obvious situation is the collapse of the Future Imagery Architecture program (a suprising place for the US to be given the invaluable historical contribution of IMINT reconnaissance satelites). I wonder if the USAF apparent inheritance of the X-37B (a program that no one wanted) has been put to work to test components of radical new ways to gather IMINT, Sublight's suggestion in post 346 of this thread is an example of breakout thinking for IMINT satelites that don't have to be the size of a school bus. Not saying this is the answer but is an example of something that could be tested on X-37B, returned, tweaked and retested.

Not really. There's no reason to assume that this is connected to FIA. After all, there is a replacement in the works for FIA, and there are other programs that have been canceled too, like the T-SAT comsat. X-37B is also small. There's not a lot of room to carry stuff up.

 

[blackstar]

1-Alternately are there any radical experimental sensors (3D, hyperspectral, holographic, quantum RADAR ;D ) who's data could not be broadcast back to earth due to the resultant data stream being too sensitive / distinctive / instructive to an observers SIGINT efforts. For this hypothetical situation an X-37B may be a more secure situation than the older analogy of dropping of film canisters?

2-Most likely what happened is the USAF inherited a program it didn't want and is making most of the opportunity to play with an X-space plane to test boring stuff like TPS and other components robustness to a year or so in space.

1-The spooks have been doing secure comm for quite a few decades now. There's no reason why encrypted data cannot go via the same channels.

2-The problem with that is the USAF didn't "inherit" this; they chose to do it. Total program cost is classified, but we do know that the Atlas rocket that they used cost on the order of $130+ million apiece (and I suspect a lot more than that). So figure that the launch costs alone were at least $300 million. Then there's operations costs and the costs of the vehicles. This program probably costs a billion dollars or more. That's a WAG on my part, but the USAF cannot fire a bottle rocket without spending a few hundred million.

That's the dilemma for the X-37B: if it is a test program, it is pretty expensive, and why the classification? So the cost and the classification imply that it's doing something important and useful, and what could that be?

 

[AAAdrone]

Whatever the purpose of this X-37B test vehicle is, I'm hoping it is something that could really give the USAF the edge it needs to maintain its ability to influence global affairs. By this I mean, something that is applicable to successful weaponization of space.

As blackstar stated the fact that the payload is classified must mean it is important and useful so I am hoping it will be used to deliver a payload that could help revolutionize warfare, i.e. a non-nuclear EMP weapon that will degrade all communications equipment and detection equipment in a rogue country in the event of a war to make toppling their government easier. ;D

 

[blackstar]

Whatever the purpose of this X-37B test vehicle is, I'm hoping it is something that could really give the USAF the edge it needs to maintain its ability to influence global affairs. By this I mean, something that is applicable to successful weaponization of space.

As blackstar stated the fact that the payload is classified must mean it is important and useful so I am hoping it will be used to deliver a payload that could help revolutionize warfare, i.e. a non-nuclear EMP weapon that will degrade all communications equipment and detection equipment in a rogue country in the event of a war to make toppling their government easier. ;D

And again, why are wings required for such a mission?

The other downside is that this is a short lifetime spacecraft. So they're spending hundreds of millions of dollars for a mission that does not last a year.

 

[LowObservable]

When I think of the X-37, I go back to its early role in the troika of upper stages that were to be carried on the mid-90s Military Spaceplane concept. If you recall, that combined a reusable suborbital booster (that might be a Shuttle-like Rockwell design, an MDC Delta Clipper or a LockMart X-33) with a boost glider (X-41 CAV), a low-cost orbital upper stage booster (X-42 USFE) or a Space Maneuver Vehicle (X-40).

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/x-42.html

As the Space Maneuver Vehicle was described to me, its key attribute was agility. That is, it could be parked on orbit but then perform major orbital changes, without actually burning up the life of the spacecraft. Since we scheduled stuff around known satellite moves in the desert, the other side would do the same, so non-Kepplerian-overflight (with the plane change performed out of sight of the target) would have been one advantage. The inflexibility of recce sats had also been an issue in GW1. Clearly, satellite inspection would be another application of this capability.

Remember, too, this was before the era of ubiquitous, cheap, high-rez imaging satellites. Also, the idea at the time was that launch would get cheaper (with EELVs being pumped out by the yard, followed by reusables).

So I would guess today that the AF's interest still revolves around agility. If you run the vehicle on orbit low on fuel, you move the spare up in the schedule.

An alternative would be to carry some kind of radar - in that case, you could use a fuel cell to generate power when you want to acquire an image, but (again) without eating into effective lifetime, just mission endurance.

 

[Mat Parry]

1-The spooks have been doing secure comm for quite a few decades now. There's no reason why encrypted data cannot go via the same channels.

Absolutley, I'd agree with all that you said. I'm just trying to understand what this white elephant is all about. It is by no means obvious, although in future with the benefit of hind-sight it's purpose will probably be clear. Perhaps data collected by (my completely hypothetical) sensor systems aboard the next generation of satelites cannot be broadcast, maybe data is captured on some revoultionary matrix that does not easily lend itself to translation and digital transfer onboard the next generation of IMINT satelites, hence the mysterious X-37B instead of rather obvious transport aircraft mounting fulton skyhook booms to pluck data matrix canisters out of the sky?

Regarding UASF inheritance of X-37B, I should have checked, my recollection is that this was originally a NASA program.

BAH I dont have a clue, If it's not too annoying I'll keep on lining them up so that they can be eliminated as possibilities? Anyone else care to embarrass themselves with speculation?

 

[Mat Parry]

So I would guess today that the AF's interest still revolves around agility. If you run the vehicle on orbit low on fuel, you move the spare up in the schedule.

Agreed, however this still leaves us guessing about the relatively small sensor package, assuming the X-37B isn't just a demonstrator for a much larger follow on craft. If the X-37B did have a functional recce payload it's small size would imply poor performance with current technology or something rather interesting if the performance is comparable with current systems.... or am I talking bollocks? (quite possible)

 

[sublight]

Perhaps data collected by (my completely hypothetical) sensor systems aboard the next generation of satelites cannot be broadcast, maybe data is captured on some revoultionary matrix that does not easily lend itself to translation and digital transfer onboard the next generation of IMINT satelites, hence the mysterious X-37B instead of rather obvious transport aircraft mounting fulton skyhook booms to pluck data matrix canisters out of the sky?

You may be onto something there. Does anybody know the max encrypted datalink speeds for satcoms we have these days? If you are doing uber high res ground mapping/analysis of some sort, you are going to generate terabytes of data sets that may be way too large to send back over a data link.

 

[Hobbes]

A 1-terabyte image would require a CCD with 10^12 pixels (or 10^6 if you use a line-scan array), which is several orders of magnitude more than the current state of the art.
A sensor that size would take photos with 1 cm resolution of an area of 10x10 km. That's if the resolution of the optical system can be made that high, and if you can compensate for atmospheric effects. ISTR that a resolution of 10 cm is the theoretical maximum at optical wavelengths, and that requires a big mirror. I doubt the X-37 is large enough: vehicle diameter is no more than 1.5 m, I'd be surprised if the payload bay is more than 1.2 m deep.

 

[AAAdrone]

So I would guess today that the AF's interest still revolves around agility. If you run the vehicle on orbit low on fuel, you move the spare up in the schedule.

Agreed, however this still leaves us guessing about the relatively small sensor package, assuming the X-37B isn't just a demonstrator for a much larger follow on craft. If the X-37B did have a functional recce payload it's small size would imply poor performance with current technology or something rather interesting if the performance is comparable with current systems.... or am I talking bollocks? (quite possible)

The X-37B, by definition of the "X" designation in front of it, is a demonstrator and can't be some final operational product so it would have to be a scaled-down testbed given the general notion that any sort of useful payload would be a bit too large for that thing to reliably carry. If this does progress into a future test bed or even an operational vehicle it would hopefully be scaled up to be of more use to the AF.

As for the need for wings, I must be going on a mental tangent about resurrecting Dynasoar again. I was thinking about something that could do its job and then glide/maneuver back to earth and be reused again. Though the cost apparently is still an issue. I am certain the idea of using this vehicle as a method of sabotaging enemy satellites has already been discussed to death but I thought maybe something that is agile like what LowObservable said would be able to easily and efficiently transfer orbits in order to better service and maintain friendly satellites as well as destroy enemy satellites to degrade communications and data networks. Of course we also can't rule out the other idea of a flexible reconnaissance platform that could make large plane changes and other orbital maneuvers to more easily image/scan an area of interest without burning up airframe hours as noted by LowObservable.

 

[sublight]

A 1-terabyte image would require a CCD with 10^12 pixels (or 10^6 if you use a line-scan array), which is several orders of magnitude more than the current state of the art.
A sensor that size would take photos with 1 cm resolution of an area of 10x10 km. That's if the resolution of the optical system can be made that high, and if you can compensate for atmospheric effects. ISTR that a resolution of 10 cm is the theoretical maximum at optical wavelengths, and that requires a big mirror. I doubt the X-37 is large enough: vehicle diameter is no more than 1.5 m, I'd be surprised if the payload bay is more than 1.2 m deep.

Doesn't need the big mirrors if its using software optics. http://www.lytro.com/renng-thesis.pdf

Why would you assume its taking a single gigantor 1-terabyte image instead of mapping the planet and storing multi terabytes of data?

 

[Hobbes]

I was trying to estimate the maximum amount of information you could record of a small space. If you were to take 1 TB of data every 10 km, yes, you'd fill up your storage quickly and have problems transmitting it in the 10 minutes or so (out of 90) that your orbit is above CONUS.
Point is, 1 TB per 10 km is maybe 1000x too high. I can think of no technology that would generate terabytes of data in a single orbit and still fit in the X-37.

Light field cameras are interesting, but is the technology useful for spy satellites? I'm having difficulty understanding the concept. At least the most obvious application of the light field (i.e. being able to refocus after you take the picture) is of no use in a spy camera, since all the interesting stuff is in a single plane anyway.

I also don't buy it that you don't need a large lens.
A large lens serves two purposes:
1. gather many photons
2. enlarge the incoming image
Neither is solved by light field photography.

 

[sublight]

Regardless of how you feel about them, scientists have been using light field camera's for some time now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plenoptic_camera
All the functions of a lens can now be approximated in software. I'm not saying you could capture the equivalent photons on a match head but certainly there is much research out there that is way beyond what is public knowledge on the subject. Our centuries old notion of optics are based upon our understanding of the human optical senses. Once you can get past that, the possibilities are wide open.

 

[blackstar]

When I think of the X-37, I go back to its early role in the troika of upper stages that were to be carried on the mid-90s Military Spaceplane concept. If you recall, that combined a reusable suborbital booster (that might be a Shuttle-like Rockwell design, an MDC Delta Clipper or a LockMart X-33) with a boost glider (X-41 CAV), a low-cost orbital upper stage booster (X-42 USFE) or a Space Maneuver Vehicle (X-40).

Actually, I think that the "military spaceplane" concept evolved into the "Space Maneuver Vehicle" concept. They were different names for essentially the same program. That then evolved into the X-37.

 

[blackstar]

You may be onto something there. Does anybody know the max encrypted datalink speeds for satcoms we have these days? If you are doing uber high res ground mapping/analysis of some sort, you are going to generate terabytes of data sets that may be way too large to send back over a data link.

It's pretty high. They're sending this over EHF comms. It's nowhere near what you get with a ground-based optical fiber, but it doesn't have to be. After all, you're not imaging all the time, so you can transmit during long downtimes.

 

[blackstar]

The X-37B, by definition of the "X" designation in front of it, is a demonstrator and can't be some final operational product so it would have to be a scaled-down testbed given the general notion that any sort of useful payload would be a bit too large for that thing to reliably carry.

We can all see the "X" and recently a USAF general made a comment that it is "experimental" and not "operational."

But the problem remains that it is a rather expensive program to simply be experimental. Why spend all that money? And if it is indeed a testbed for something that will come later, what is that thing? And why haven't we heard anything about it?

Again, the problem is that the price tag for something that doesn't have a clear benefit is very curious. Why isn't the Air Force flying other experimental payloads too?

 

[antigravite]

Purely a thought experiment...
Alternately are there any radical experimental sensors (3D, hyperspectral, holographic, quantum RADAR ;D ) who's data could not be broadcast back to earth due to the resultant data stream being too sensitive / distinctive / instructive to an observers SIGINT efforts. For this hypothetical situation an X-37B may be a more secure situation than the older analogy of dropping of film canisters?

Beyond kiddin', some "references"
[/size][/color]1 source material:[/size][/color][/size][/color]Title: [/size]Radar Systems and methods using entangled quantum particles
Inventor: Edward Allen
Affiliation: Lockheed-Martin, Co.
US patent application No. US20050198829
EP patent application No. EP20060254079
EP patent No. EP1750145 Issued: 2007-02-07


1 press coverage:


[/color]http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/03/lockheeds_spook/

 

[AAAdrone]

If we're spending all that money then it can't be too big of a leap of faith to say that it is indeed a testbed for something bigger and better right? Said larger-scale operational spacecraft might have to be classified if it is to be such a game-changer in Air Force capability so would it be such a stretch to believe that this project is the return of the X-20 (albeit more refined and better developed/proven) or some such vehicle for the purposes I've mentioned above?

I'm sure the Chinese and Russians aren't too happy with the US's ambition with regards to weaponizing space so US denial of any sort of bigger picture behind this demonstrator would make sense if that were the case.

 

[blackstar]

so would it be such a stretch to believe that this project is the return of the X-20 (albeit more refined and better developed/proven) or some such vehicle for the purposes I've mentioned above?

Note the "X" in "X-20."

X-20 had the same issue: that was a lot of money to spend on something that didn't have an operational mission. The proponents kept claiming that it could slice bread and walk the dog, but that wasn't convincing. X-20 got canceled.

 

[TomS]

The physics are pretty clear -- you can't beat the diffraction limit on resolution (except in some very special cases that don't apply for Earth observation satellites). Better resolution requires bigger lenses or shorter wavelengths, period.

 

[sublight]

The physics are pretty clear -- you can't beat the diffraction limit on resolution (except in some very special cases that don't apply for Earth observation satellites). Better resolution requires bigger lenses or shorter wavelengths, period.

Nope. That only applies when you have an aperture. No aperture=no diffraction limit. Besides, we aren't talking about higher resolutions, we're talking about smaller equipment to accomplish the same task.

 

[AAAdrone]

so would it be such a stretch to believe that this project is the return of the X-20 (albeit more refined and better developed/proven) or some such vehicle for the purposes I've mentioned above?

Note the "X" in "X-20."

X-20 had the same issue: that was a lot of money to spend on something that didn't have an operational mission. The proponents kept claiming that it could slice bread and walk the dog, but that wasn't convincing. X-20 got canceled.

I'm aware of the issues with X-20. When I said "more refined and better developed" I meant that maybe the USAF might have finally clearly defined some sort of mission objective that the project was to accomplish and that said objective can be better explored given whatever advancements in technology that have been developed as well as better methods of testing new equipment that could make a better, more reliable, and cost effective solution. The thing is, there's a chance the international community might not respond to the overall scheme of things very well and that could explain why the average joe isn't supposed to know whatever the true intentions of this project are.

 

[blackstar]

Regarding UASF inheritance of X-37B, I should have checked, my recollection is that this was originally a NASA program.

It was a NASA program. But when USAF took it over, they decided to pay for it. So that was a decision to start spending significant amounts of money. Two Atlas V rockets for starters.