X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle (OTV)

Can it simply get “high enough” to put GEO satellites at risk (ie see “secret space weapon to be revealed” thread)

Can you “intercept” a GEO satellite and return to a lower orbit or am I out to lunch? I admit clear ignorance of orbital dynamics.
 
bobbymike said:
Can it simply get “high enough” to put GEO satellites at risk (ie see “secret space weapon to be revealed” thread)

Can you “intercept” a GEO satellite and return to a lower orbit or am I out to lunch? I admit clear ignorance of orbital dynamics.
Click to expand...
Coming down to a significantly lower orbit from GEO needs a sizable fraction of the delta-v used to get you there in the first place. So no, it's not really practical.
 
sferrin said:
Could a Heavy deliver an X-37B and additional fuel to geostationary orbit wherein the X-37B could, at a future date, lower its altitude/speed to a lower orbit so it doesn't burn up on reentry? (Though I guess the fairing on the Heavy might limit what you could do.)
Click to expand...
A previous X-37B flight included a small Hall thruster. If they scaled that up, potentially it could drop itself down from a higher orbit into something it could reenter from. It would take a long time, but they're certainly not shy about long missions
 
Alternatively, if the orbit has a very high apogee but low perigee, might some kind of friction (breaking or control surfaces or just straight up drag?) combined with on orbit burning (to boost perigee periodically when it’s too low) create a recoverable orbit over the course of a couple years?
 
Josh_TN said:
Alternatively, if the orbit has a very high apogee but low perigee, might some kind of friction (breaking or control surfaces or just straight up drag?) combined with on orbit burning (to boost perigee periodically when it’s too low) create a recoverable orbit over the course of a couple years?
Click to expand...
This is the on orbit configuration of the X-37 (minus the service module).
Not very conducive to aerobraking.
 

Attachments

  • artists-concept-of-the-nasa-x-37b-spacecraft-in-orbit-showing-payload-bay-and-solar-panels-RT3...jpg
    artists-concept-of-the-nasa-x-37b-spacecraft-in-orbit-showing-payload-bay-and-solar-panels-RT3...jpg
    102.1 KB · Views: 61
Byeman said:
This is the on orbit configuration of the X-37 (minus the service module).
Not very conducive to aerobraking.
Click to expand...

I know, but I was thinking maybe even some kind of marginal friction could work over the course of a couple years. I’m just trying to make sense of the huge amount of kinetic energy the USAF is throwing into this mission.
 
Harder to see a secondary payload deployed higher up...here is a guess...X-37 gets chunked early...and something remains with the upper stage. I am thinking there will be no information released on second stage burns.
 
Another option would be a significantly larger/heavier service module as opposed the unit sent up last time. Or perhaps even something along the lines of a third stage for lowering orbit before re-entry. Should be fun to keep an eye on, anyway.
 
Josh_TN said:
Another option would be a significantly larger/heavier service module as opposed the unit sent up last time. Or perhaps even something along the lines of a third stage for lowering orbit before re-entry. Should be fun to keep an eye on, anyway.
Click to expand...
Or a bigger modified X-37....
 
dark sidius said:
Or a bigger modified X-37....
Click to expand...

Probably not even possible even if you assumed it was developed and budgeted in secret (which seems incredibly doubtful given USAF budget constraints and use case). You could make it longer, but the shroud limits wingspan to about what it is now.
 
Josh_TN said:
Probably not even possible even if you assumed it was developed and budgeted in secret (which seems incredibly doubtful given USAF budget constraints and use case). You could make it longer, but the shroud limits wingspan to about what it is now.
Click to expand...

Does the shroud allow for a substantially larger service module? For that matter, have we ever seen the current SM?
 
TomS said:
Does the shroud allow for a substantially larger service module? For that matter, have we ever seen the current SM?
Click to expand...
Maybe? There looks to be some room but I'm not sure what the clearance tolerances are for the wings.


But of course size != mass. A particularly dense module or payload might require more lift. What seems odd to me is that the core is apparently being jettisoned (can anyone confirm?). If that is the case, not only are is USAF going for more lift, but in fact they are shooting for the upper part of the FH envelope.
 
Josh_TN said:
Maybe? There looks to be some room but I'm not sure what the clearance tolerances are for the wings.


But of course size != mass. A particularly dense module or payload might require more lift. What seems odd to me is that the core is apparently being jettisoned (can anyone confirm?). If that is the case, not only are is USAF going for more lift, but in fact they are shooting for the upper part of the FH envelope.
Click to expand...

It looks like they may have just stopped trying to recover FH cores.
 
Regarding the O-37, I have noted in another thread where the question was to see if it could host a human cargo for re-entry, that jettisoning at high altitude would allow the 37 to bring back a much higher mass that if it had to land with it (no aerodynamics requirements).

The concept is the following: de-orbit, aerobrake, rollover or bump over, release, glide back and land. The payload (in my scenario a survival capsule) land via parachute (at sea, in the case study, or in a deserted area on land).
This way the 37 is able to operate with confidential payload in a rather high discretion.

So please, when assessing what could be the reason for that extra launch mass, de-couple the problem from launch to recovery.
 
TomcatViP said:
Regarding the O-37, I have noted in another thread where the question was to see if it could host a human cargo for re-entry, that jettisoning at high altitude would allow the 37 to bring back a much higher mass that if it had to land with it (no aerodynamics requirements).

The concept is the following: de-orbit, aerobrake, rollover or bump over, release, glide back and land. The payload (in my scenario a survival capsule) land via parachute (at sea, in the case study, or in a deserted area on land).
This way the 37 is able to operate with confidential payload in a rather high discretion.
Click to expand...
Wrong. The X-37 does not have the capability to "dump" or jettison anything from its payload bay after deorbiting.
 
Hypothesis are not wrong. They are proven inadapted or applicable.
 
Last edited:
"Omae wa mu, shindeiru"

"Froid en novembre, Noel en décembre " (proverb: "Frost in november, Christmas in December" - yes, it's a joke poking fun at old proverbs)

"That's really one big pile of shit" (Ian Malcolm)
 
Really. Expand on this. Not much lecture can fly farther than being thrown not so far away from a garbage can.
 
TomcatViP said:
Really. Expand on this. Not much lecture can fly farther than being thrown not so far away from a garbage can.
Click to expand...
The photo is the X-37 on orbit with the payload doors with solar array and radiators deployed.
The tweet shows the solar array stowed but the doors still open plus a video of the array deployment.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1305835389907865602
View: https://twitter.com/DutchSpace/status/1305835389907865602?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1305835389907865602%7Ctwgr%5E0e8a3a147d49f70033762b859dee7927fb8e634b%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedrive.com%2Fthe-war-zone%2F36440%2Fthis-is-our-first-look-at-the-secretive-x-37b-spaceplane-with-its-cargo-bay-doors-open

a. The doors can not be opened after deorbit. They can't take the loads (nor can the radiators)
b. The solar array covers everything in the payload bay.
c. The x-37 can not roll upside down, much like the shuttle. There is no real distinction between "aerobraking" and gliding. It is a seamless transition. Full glide would only be on final approach.
d. The X-37, much like the shuttle, does not glide in from the horizon. It is overhead of the landing strip at mach 2 at 100,000 ft still using thrusters for yaw control (this is within sigh of those on the ground). This is when it makes the wide turn (sometimes up to 270 degrees) to line up with the runway.
 

Attachments

  • x-37.jpeg
    x-37.jpeg
    211.6 KB · Views: 33
Last edited:
I appreciate your effort but aerobraking does not involve aerodynamics force as expressed in Lift theory (see hypersonic aerodynamics simifications in available litterature). That is the main reference.
Also winged re-entry doesn't involves falling down on top of your airfield from Space. The glide down from high alt take advantage of lifting and aero characteristics. Cross range is one. Gliding slope is another one.

The manoeuvre you describe is to ensure that the glider has enough energy to land with a high degree of probability on the target airfiled when the low speed range is reached.

Last but not least, soot mark patterns on cargo bay doors suggest that door are open in the early or late portion of re-entry.

But all this was stated already in the mentioned thread. I would suggest we don't double down here.
 
TomcatViP said:
1. I appreciate your effort but aerobraking does not involve aerodynamics force as expressed in Lift theory (see hypersonic aerodynamics simifications in available litterature). That is the main reference.
Click to expand...
TomcatViP said:
2. Also winged re-entry doesn't involves falling down on top of your airfield from Space. The glide down from high alt take advantage of lifting and aero characteristics. Cross range is one. Gliding slope is another one.


3. The manoeuvre you describe is to ensure that the glider has enough energy to land with a high degree of probability on the target airfiled when the low speed range is reached.

4. Last but not least, soot mark patterns on cargo bay doors suggest that door are open in the early or late portion of re-entry.
Click to expand...

I am knowledgable about the shuttle and X-37 entry characteristics after having been in the what could be called the Air Force Shuttle program office in the 80's and working on assessments with the AFFTC on shuttle landings. Also, I have personally witness dozens of shuttle landings both at KSC and EAFB. And finally, I worked some X-37 studies while it was a NASA project.

1. Wrong. It does involve force and heating (see Mars spacecraft that have used the maneuver). X-37 doesn't do a separate aerobraking maneuver anyways (orbit change). It just reenters and continues to landing.

2. You don't understand the basics. Entry starts thousands of miles away and at 400,000 feet. I was describing the conditions when both the shuttle and X-37 enter the landing area during a return from orbit. This was to point out that "releasing" something out of X-37 makes no sense. It is still very high and traveling fast while entering the landing area.

3. And that maneuver was/is used by the shuttle and X-37

4, It makes no such suggestion. It is just outgassing from different materials use on the doors vs the nose. The shuttle had the same "soot" at transitions from one type of material to another. The attach photo shows the "soot" starts before the doors at a material transition on top of the nose.

Save the nonsense for Dan Brown novels.
 

Attachments

  • 221111-F-XX000-0002.jpeg
    221111-F-XX000-0002.jpeg
    1.1 MB · Views: 32
Any possibility of a "kick stage" attached to the rear of the X-37? Is the FH fairing even large enough to allow it? There has to be some reason they're going with the FH.
 
Byeman said:
I am knowledgable about the shuttle and X-37 entry characteristics after having been in the what could be called the Air Force Shuttle program office in the 80's and working on assessments with the AFFTC on shuttle landings. Also, I have personally witness dozens of shuttle landings both at KSC and EAFB. And finally, I worked some X-37 studies while it was a NASA project.

1. Wrong. It does involve force and heating (see Mars spacecraft that have used the maneuver). X-37 doesn't do a separate aerobraking maneuver anyways (orbit change). It just reenters and continues to landing.

2. You don't understand the basics. Entry starts thousands of miles away and at 400,000 feet. I was describing the conditions when both the shuttle and X-37 enter the landing area during a return from orbit. This was to point out that "releasing" something out of X-37 makes no sense. It is still very high and traveling fast while entering the landing area.

3. And that maneuver was/is used by the shuttle and X-37

4, It makes no such suggestion. It is just outgassing from different materials use on the doors vs the nose. The shuttle had the same "soot" at transitions from one type of material to another. The attach photo shows the "soot" starts before the doors at a material transition on top of the nose.

Save the nonsense for Dan Brown novels.
Click to expand...
Stating it wrong and then saying the same thing with a different wording doesn't sounds logical.
I think you are tired and I am not willing to go further down the aisle either.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
Sayi g wrong and then saying the same thing with a different wording doesn't sounds logical.
Click to expand...
Not logical is the cockamamie idea of dropping off something mid flight.

Lift has nothing to do with aerobraking.
 
TomcatViP said:
I appreciate your effort but aerobraking does not involve aerodynamics force as expressed in Lift theory (see hypersonic aerodynamics simifications in available litterature). That is the main reference.
Also winged re-entry ......
Click to expand...
Here is the issue. Aerobraking and re-entry are two different things.
 
Byeman said:
This was to point out that "releasing" something out of X-37 makes no sense. It is still very high and traveling fast while entering the landing area.
Click to expand...
I would like to see two objects photograph each other on re-entry.

There is a way where the "top" of a craft can experience the heating keeping the other side's visibility clear.

We have never seen the side view of LVs all the way through launch.

How tough do the solar panels need to be for aerobraking?

GOCE looked the toughest.
 
publiusr said:
I would like to see two objects photograph each other on re-entry.

There is a way where the "top" of a craft can experience the heating keeping the other side's visibility clear.

We have never seen the side view of LVs all the way through launch.

How tough do the solar panels need to be for aerobraking?

GOCE looked the toughest.
Click to expand...
The first sentence of your post vaguely sounds like a request for some sort of kinky mecha anime niche reentry porn to me (what with all the top visibility and side views and whatnot), but the rest of your message is really just plainly unintelligible to me. Come again?
 
The last really good footage of a rocket at altitude was the big wing Canberra filming Starship.

Probes can aerobrake---but would the solar panels need beefing up?
 
In this new encapsulation photo it looks to be sitting higher in the payload shrouding than in previous photos from past flights. That said the FH payload fairing usable height is a fair bit shorter than the Atlas fairing, and I don’t think we have any such photos from when it flew on the Falcon 9.

www.spaceforce.mil

US Space Force prepares X-37B for launch

The seventh mission of the X-37B, also known as OTV-7, will be the first to launch on a SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket—designated USSF-52—with a wide range of test and experimentation objectives.
www.spaceforce.mil
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom