X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle (OTV)

[LowObservable]

Byeman -

Still, the USAF assessment of the X-33 was in parallel with the approach to Military Spaceplane. The key to the USAF's interest in that configuration was that a recoverable first-stage booster with a choice of external upper stages was much less difficult that NASA's goal of an SSTO with an internal payload bay.

 

[Mat Parry]

One year... and counting, Muwahahaha!

Just how long do you have to stay in orbit to test TPS on re-entry anyway?

 

[sferrin]

A couple other options are it's already down or they lost communication with it.

 

[quellish]

A couple other options are it's already down or they lost communication with it.

It's a little hard to miss one of these coming down, and it's still being observed from the ground.

 

[sublight]

http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2012/03/12.aspx

 

[Byeman]

http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2012/03/12.aspx

What does that have to do with x-37?

 

[sublight]

http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2012/03/12.aspx

What does that have to do with x-37?

Would it not be the right platform for ejecting these when needed? I'm suggesting that is what the Air Force is doing now, and DARPA is trying to make it more cost effective. And non-black.

 

[Byeman]

http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2012/03/12.aspx

What does that have to do with x-37?

Would it not be the right platform for ejecting these when needed? I'm suggesting that is what the Air Force is doing now, and DARPA is trying to make it more cost effective. And non-black.

No. The whole point is a responsive launcher and X-37 uses Atlas which is not resposive. X-37 is a spacecraft and not a deployment device. It would be an unnecessary addition to the deployment of these small spacecraft. The small spacecraft can be launched by the Atlas with out the need of the X-37 (but there still is the responsiveness problem).
The X-37 is not like the space shuttle, it is not launch vehicle or an upperstage, it is a spacecraft.

Also, security has nothing to do with it.

 

[sublight]

No. The whole point is a responsive launcher and X-37 uses Atlas which is not resposive. X-37 is a spacecraft and not a deployment device. It would be an unnecessary addition to the deployment of these small spacecraft. The small spacecraft can be launched by the Atlas with out the need of the X-37 (but there still is the responsiveness problem).
The X-37 is not like the space shuttle, it is not launch vehicle or an upperstage, it is a spacecraft.

Also, security has nothing to do with it.

The way you are wording it, you make it sound like the 7x4 foot payload bay is empty and therefore the platform is just for show?
The long term deployment of the X-37B would give it the ability to deploy micro sats in a responsive manner, irregardless of the responsiveness of the launcher.

 

[Mat Parry]

http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2012/03/12.aspx

"The program may leverage DARPA’s Airborne Launch Assist Space Access (ALASA) program, which is developing an aircraft-based satellite launch platform for payloads on the order of 100 lbs. ALASA seeks to provide low-cost, rapid launch of small satellites into any required orbit, a capability not possible today from fixed ground launch sites".

This aircraft based method of launching small satelites would make more sense than using X-37B, the X-37B could be used to chuck the odd stealthy small satelite out the bay having done one of its disappearing tricks via orbital maneuvering. I have to agree though that the use of many X-37B launches to deploy a constellation of 2 dozen of these small satelites seems overly complicated.

The use of X-37B payload bay to test the optical systems of these proposed small satelites (and thereby the ability to return this payload for further optimisation on the ground) seems right up this spacecrafts street. But as we all know... "you can't do IMINT from such small packages". Stupid DARPA! Clearly DARPA aren't stupid, so it seems you can do useful IMINT from such a small package .... so what has X-37B been doing for the last year anyway?

 

[Byeman]

The way you are wording it, you make it sound like the 7x4 foot payload bay is empty and therefore the platform is just for show?
The long term deployment of the X-37B would give it the ability to deploy micro sats in a responsive manner, irregardless of the responsiveness of the launcher.

No, the payload bay is to carry a sensor. And it can only hold 500lbs.

No, the long term deployment of the X-37B does not give it the ability to deploy micro sats in a responsive manner.
a. they would be limited to a narrow band of inclination that the X-37 is already flying in. (the X-37 does not have the maneuvering capability everyone thinks it has).
b. The satellites would degrade in the X-37 anyways, so just launch them on their own

 

[Byeman]

Clearly DARPA aren't stupid, so it seems you can do useful IMINT from such a small package .... so what has X-37B been doing for the last year anyway?

there is no proof of this

 

[Byeman]

low-cost, rapid launch of small satellites into any required orbit, a capability not possible today from fixed ground launch sites".

Which is also not possible from orbital asset.

 

[Mat Parry]

low-cost, rapid launch of small satellites into any required orbit, a capability not possible today from fixed ground launch sites".

Which is also not possible from orbital asset.

Where did I say that it was?

 

[Byeman]

low-cost, rapid launch of small satellites into any required orbit, a capability not possible today from fixed ground launch sites".

Which is also not possible from orbital asset.

Where did I say that it was?

I was only making a statement

 

[mz]

Yes, to sum it up to those not up to speed in orbital mechanics:

Launching from space is harder than launching from earth. Unless you go to pretty much the same orbit you're already in. So launching from space is not responsive or flexible.

So if you want responsive minisat assets, that requires responsive launchers, probably from aircraft so that they can fly to desired launch zones which improves flexibility. And probably solids at current tech levels so the things can be kept integrated and fueled (don't know about keeping the sats fueled though, and the upper stages' attitude systems too and also batteries, environmental control etc etc..). So the system for that is something like a modified Pegasus sitting in storage with a simple satellite integrated.

It's probably trickier than ICBM:s since the sats need good batteries for longer life than a warhead and also liquid engines for attitude control / orbit adjust. Maybe technically you could get by without liquids, using reaction wheels and magnetotorquers and just assuming the orbital insertion is accurate and you don't adjust the orbit after that (even if it decays).

I'm sure some real space engineers on the board can comment on this.

 

[sublight]

No, the payload bay is to carry a sensor. And it can only hold 500lbs.

No, the long term deployment of the X-37B does not give it the ability to deploy micro sats in a responsive manner.
a. they would be limited to a narrow band of inclination that the X-37 is already flying in. (the X-37 does not have the maneuvering capability everyone thinks it has).
b. The satellites would degrade in the X-37 anyways, so just launch them on their own

Thanks for elaborating on that.

 

[blackstar]

But as we all know... "you can't do IMINT from such small packages". Stupid DARPA! Clearly DARPA aren't stupid, so it seems you can do useful IMINT from such a small package

Do you know what DARPA's role is? They try out new technologies, and sometimes (actually, probably most of the time) they fail. It has nothing to do with being "smart" or "stupid" or knowing what is best before they start. They don't try to do something knowing that it will work, and so they're not automatically "smart" when they pick a technology to try out.

There are lots of examples--LOTS OF EXAMPLES--of DARPA spending serious money and failing. And there are lots of examples where they really screwed up what they were doing. DARPA is not some miracle government agency that never makes mistakes and turns everything it touches into gold. (Search for the DARPA histories posted here and read them and you can find a lot of examples in DARPA's official history of their failures.) So don't automatically assume that just because DARPA has decided to try something that this is proof that it does work, or that it will work.

 

[Mat Parry]

A fair point.

Forgive my ignorance, do DARPA often solicit for input from companies not usually involved in defense manufacturing for proof of concept studies?

In my industry "open innovation" is common, usually however the concept is proven but different/better ways of achieving a goal are sought. The concept of achieving useful IMINT from such a small disposable package seems challenging (I'm not suggesting KH-11 levels of performance). Without a method of miniaturising the optics having been already demonstrated, it is hard to envisage how "shelf galloping" of commercial technologies would solve the problem on it's own. If you don't have the instructions to build the toy, just looking for different/new Lego blocks is unlikely to help you.

I have no axe to grind here, very likely my experience does not translate to DARPA's ways of working (compared to me DARPA are indisputably smart), as I said I'm ignorant and just asking a stupid question.

 

[blackstar]

Forgive my ignorance, do DARPA often solicit for input from companies not usually involved in defense manufacturing for proof of concept studies?

Sometimes they do.

DARPA is a weird organization. It is not perfect. They try things and fail, then maybe they try them again years later. Sometimes they fail spectacularly. They have tried cheap, small launch vehicles and cheap, small satellites several times--late 1980s, again in the early 2000s, and now they seem to be trying again. They may fail again.

 

[GeorgeA]

DARPA also tests things that turn out to be technically viable but operationally limited. The original X-45A program is an example. The vision was literally a "bomber in a box" -- small aircraft placed in storage until needed, then quickly made operational and employed in a high operational tempo, with minimal support needs. It turned out that cruise missiles already covered the sweet spot of stored, surge strike capability, and the program migrated to a larger, more conventional-aircraft-like system (X-45C, X-47).

The program pushed a lot of UAV capability development and concept of operations thinking, and is the ancestor of UCLASS and perhaps LRS-B, so it was highly useful as a technical pathfinder if not an actual program.

 

[blackstar]

DARPA also test things that turn out to be technically viable but operationally limited.

I think that is a key point, and something that is hard to understand or qualify. DARPA is supposed to be pushing the technology envelope, but what happens when they are pushing the development of technology that is not really useful? They might make advances, but the advances can prove to be pointless.

There is a mythology associated with DARPA that they are a bunch of geniuses. But the reality is that they also waste a lot of money. Now it may simply be that in order to make progress you have to spend a lot of money (and maybe that is not really "waste"). But it is also important to manage well, and keep focused on things that are more likely to be useful.

I also think that one of their strengths--they rotate in people for short terms of service--is also one of their weaknesses. I think they argue that bringing people in for short periods of time gets them fresh blood and people with real-world operational experience. But it also results in very short corporate memory. Now they might argue that this is an asset, because they don't have old-timers hanging around telling them that they tried to do X ten years ago and failed, and so they should not try that again. But it also means that they probably repeat a lot of the same mistakes, and it means that they may not have the important follow-through that is necessary to advance a technology into something that is operationally useful. The program manager leaves and all is forgotten, and maybe the one promising offshoot of that technology is simply lost.

 

[quellish]

DARPA also test things that turn out to be technically viable but operationally limited. The original X-45A program is an example. The vision was literally a "bomber in a box" -- small aircraft placed in storage until needed, then quickly made operational and employed in a high operational tempo, with minimal support needs. It turned out that cruise missiles already covered the sweet spot of stored, surge strike capability, and the program migrated to a larger, more conventional-aircraft-like system (X-45C, X-47).

The program pushed a lot of UAV capability development and concept of operations thinking, and is the ancestor of UCLASS and perhaps LRS-B, so it was highly useful as a technical pathfinder if not an actual program.

Well, no. From:
http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=1647
"The goal of the joint DARPA/Air Force UCAV ATD program is to demonstrate the technical feasibility for a UCAV system to effectively and affordably prosecute 21st century suppression of enemy air defenses and strike missions. "
The "bomber in a box" concept was entirely part of Boeing's response, not part of the requirements. By the time X-45A flew, that part of the operational concept had already been largely discarded. The X-45C program was intended to build on the work of the X-45A DARPA program, but in 2006 USAF withdrew from the program after DARPA had already invested over 800 m.

DARPA sometimes does truly groundbreaking work. The services sometimes don't take ownership of that work and turn it into an operational system.

(Cruise missiles haven't taken up the SEAD role that X-45A was intended to pave the way for.)

"DARPA’s original mission, established in 1958, was to prevent technological surprise like the launch of Sputnik, which signaled that the Soviets had beaten the U.S. into space. The mission statement has evolved over time. Today, DARPA’s mission is still to prevent technological surprise to the US, but also to create technological surprise for its enemies."

That means taking risks - often expensive risks.

 

[Stargazer]

DARPA is supposed to be pushing the technology envelope, but what happens when they are pushing the development of technology that is not really useful? They might make advances, but the advances can prove to be pointless.

The thing is, often you need to test and try many different ideas, configurations and solutions until you can identify those that work. And among those that work you can then pick the ones that prove the most efficient and useful. Being able to tell what is useful from the very start is a bit like expecting the Wright Brothers to develop their first aircraft with ailerons, flaps, a streamlined fuselage and a cockpit... All the early aviators had to try hundreds of wacky things until the most appropriate and useful features became evident. So is it with DARPA. The fact that you don't know if a new technology will prove useful in the end is no reason to keep from developing it: first and foremost because if you don't, others will, and if they discover it's useful, you will have lost your technological edge. And also because what may not be useful now could prove vital years down the line.

 

[Whisperstream]

Preparations for the second landing of the X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle are underway at Vandenberg Air Force Base. While the exact landing date and time will depend on technical and weather considerations, it is expected to occur sometime in early to mid-June. I'm not sure if there will be a public announcement ahead of time. The last landing took place at night, with no notice.

 

[sferrin]

Came back today.

 

[flateric]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYTTfGiSO-E&list=UUERSmy00m7OND5ZTFugfmuw&index=1&feature=plcp

 

[sublight]

If the Air Force needed "unobtanium" that could only be produced in microgravity, would they be forced to use a system like this because of an inability to do it on the ISS because of security concerns?

 

[Byeman]

If the Air Force needed "unobtanium" that could only be produced in microgravity, would they be forced to use a system like this because of an inability to do it on the ISS because of security concerns?

No, there are protocols for the ISS to protect propriety and sensitive information. Also, they wouldn't be "forced" to use X-37, there is Dragon and other vehicles available.

 

[flateric]

http://www.lompocrecord.com/news/local/military/vandenberg/happy-homecoming-for-mini-shuttle/article_7ed1220a-b83d-11e1-9747-0019bb2963f4.html

 

[flateric]

Photo credit: USAF/Boeing

 

[dark sidius]

Great success for Boeing and the Air force, this spaceplane is very exciting and open the way of reusable military spaceplane with affordable costs. There is a great potential for the military missions in orbit, now with a futur reusable first stage we will see the holy grail of space transport. Congratulations for the people who work on this programm.

 

[archipeppe]

Absolutely outstanding!!!!

 

[flateric]

Photo credit: USAF/Boeing

 

[Byeman]

Great success for Boeing and the Air force, this spaceplane is very exciting and open the way of reusable military spaceplane with affordable costs. There is a great potential for the military missions in orbit, now with a futur reusable first stage we will see the holy grail of space transport. Congratulations for the people who work on this programm.

Huh? Actually, no. This was not launch vehicle. Even with a reusable first stage, this vehicle would not make to orbit, it would still need to ride on an upperstage. Also, this vehicle could only carry a 500lb payload package to LEO. Most DOD spacecraft go to GSO and are much larger than the X-37.

 

[dark sidius]

You don't understand I say with a futur reusable first stage and the X-37b you will have the holy grail TSTO. May be in the futur a first stage like the RBS Pathfinder programm.

 

[Byeman]

You don't understand I say with a futur reusable first stage and the X-37b you will have the holy grail TSTO. May be in the futur a first stage like the RBS Pathfinder programm.

Incorrect, you don't understand. X-37b is not stage, it is a spacecraft and not part of a launch vehicle. With a future reusable first stage, you would have an SSTO, Single stage to ocean.

 

[Steve Pace]

Here's the Flybys I just wrote on it. -SP

 

[dark sidius]

Byeman you think its impossible to put a X-37 like spacecraft on a reusable first stage, instead of an expendable launcher?

 

[Hobbes]

No, he's saying that you need 2 stages to get the X-37 to orbit.