X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle (OTV)

[Byeman]

OK Im gonna go out on a limb here, And I know you all will probably rip my head off anyway.

But what if the AF is doing this as an upgraded XSS-11 demonstration. Only key difference here, the upgraded part, is that this satellite inspector is reusable?

It doesn't have rendezvous sensors

 

[sferrin]

Something fast is using that big new hanger out at Groom Lake.

Or they just needed more space.

I don't think we're talking about the same hangar.

I was thinking about this one. Clearly it's designed (or meant to be perceived to be) to be a drive through and turn around on the pad to the rear. Also the presence of the painted circle / guideline-for-the-nose-gear suggests it's a tight squeeze. (The XB-70 is to scale.)

 

[quellish]

I don't think we're talking about the same hangar.

I was thinking about this one. Clearly it's designed (or meant to be perceived to be) to be a drive through and turn around on the pad to the rear. Also the presence of the painted circle / guideline-for-the-nose-gear suggests it's a tight squeeze. (The XB-70 is to scale.)

That is hangar 19, which was extended several years ago. You can see it on photos from the 80s, it's hardly new. It's location is a dead giveaway - one of it's uses it as a scoot and hide shelter for aircraft getting ready to test.

It actually has a cousin at Edwards.

 

[sferrin]

I don't think we're talking about the same hangar.

I was thinking about this one. Clearly it's designed (or meant to be perceived to be) to be a drive through and turn around on the pad to the rear. Also the presence of the painted circle / guideline-for-the-nose-gear suggests it's a tight squeeze. (The XB-70 is to scale.)

That is hangar 19, which was extended several years ago. You can see it on photos from the 80s, it's hardly new. It's location is a dead giveaway - one of it's uses it as a scoot and hide shelter for aircraft getting ready to test.

It actually has a cousin at Edwards.

Which really changes nothing. Whether it was newly built in 2003 or remodeled it makes no difference to what is housed in it. If anything it supports what I'm saying. The thing is over 300 feet long now with a turn-around pad over 200 feet square. The fact that they've painted the line as an aid for turning around suggests whatever it is is a tight squeeze.

 

[quellish]

Which really changes nothing. Whether it was newly built in 2003 or remodeled it makes no difference to what is housed in it. If anything it supports what I'm saying. The thing is over 300 feet long now with a turn-around pad over 200 feet square. The fact that they've painted the line as an aid for turning around suggests whatever it is is a tight squeeze.

Not really. The hangar, and the line, have been there at least since the A-12 program. Nothing has ever been based there, it's more of a transient shelter - I would say it was the first Scoot-N-Hide shelter, but I'm not 100% sure. The walls of the extensions have no bottom, they do not reach the ground. It's also been used as the arm/dearm area for test flights.

 

[sferrin]

Which really changes nothing. Whether it was newly built in 2003 or remodeled it makes no difference to what is housed in it. If anything it supports what I'm saying. The thing is over 300 feet long now with a turn-around pad over 200 feet square. The fact that they've painted the line as an aid for turning around suggests whatever it is is a tight squeeze.

Not really. The hangar, and the line, have been there at least since the A-12 program. Nothing has ever been based there, it's more of a transient shelter - I would say it was the first Scoot-N-Hide shelter, but I'm not 100% sure. The walls of the extensions have no bottom, they do not reach the ground. It's also been used as the arm/dearm area for test flights.

Okay well that's good (but disappointing) to know. The curiosity was killing me.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Here's a paper on the Sentinel spaceplane concept with an X-37 type payload.
http://www.sei.aero/eng/papers/uploads/archive/SEI_JANNAF_Sentinel_2007.pdf

 

[cardonet]

A new article on the X-37B
http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/space-flight/us-air-force-launches-secret-flying-twinkie

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Here's the latest report:
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/atlas/av012/100402x37update/

Moonbat

 

[blackstar]

Unfortunately, there's nothing new in that article. Maybe in a few weeks Craig Covault will sit down with somebody in a bar in Cocoa Beach and find out what's really going on. What kind of payload do you need to test in a space environment for 200-odd days that you couldn't test far more cheaply on the ground?

Several months ago a reporter I know interviewed a senior Air Force official about this project and asked him what would be inside the payload bay, and got a very strict silence.

 

[quellish]

Unfortunately, there's nothing new in that article. Maybe in a few weeks Craig Covault will sit down with somebody in a bar in Cocoa Beach and find out what's really going on. What kind of payload do you need to test in a space environment for 200-odd days that you couldn't test far more cheaply on the ground?

Several months ago a reporter I know interviewed a senior Air Force official about this project and asked him what would be inside the payload bay, and got a very strict silence.

A few months ago while looking for something else I did find the PE code and funding for X-37, and right next to it was something that looked like it could be the payload. I can't find it now though, and haven't been able to find X-37 in the RDT&E summaries to look up it's code

 

[blackstar]

A few months ago while looking for something else I did find the PE code and funding for X-37, and right next to it was something that looked like it could be the payload. I can't find it now though, and haven't been able to find X-37 in the RDT&E summaries to look up it's code

Can you translate that into English?

 

[blackstar]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/03/AR2010040301711.html

Air Force to launch robotic winged space plane
By JOHN ANTCZAK
The Associated Press
Saturday, April 3, 2010; 6:56 PM

LOS ANGELES -- After a decade of development, the Air Force this month plans to launch a robotic spacecraft resembling a small space shuttle to conduct technology tests in orbit and then glide home to a California runway.

The ultimate purpose of the X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle and details about the craft, which has been passed between several government agencies, however, remain a mystery as it is prepared for launch April 19 from Cape Canaveral, Fla.

"As long as you're confused you're in good shape," said defense analyst John Pike, director of Globalsecurity.org. "I looked into this a couple of years ago - the entire sort of hypersonic, suborbital, scramjet nest of programs - of which there are upwards of a dozen. The more I studied it the less I understood it."

The quietly scheduled launch culminates the project's long and expensive journey from NASA to the Pentagon's research and development arm and then to a secretive Air Force unit.

Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on the X-37 program, but the current total has not been released.

The launch date, landing sites and a fact sheet were released by Air Force spokeswoman Maj. Angie I. Blair. She said more information would be released soon, but questions on cost and other matters submitted by e-mail weren't answered by Friday.

While the massive space shuttles have been likened to cargo-hauling trucks, the X-37B is more like a sports car, with the equivalent trunk capacity.

Built by Boeing Co.'s Phantom Works, the 11,000-pound craft is 9 1/2 feet tall and just over 29 feet long, with a wingspan of less than 15 feet. It has two angled tail fins rather than a single vertical stabilizer.

Unlike the shuttle, it will be launched like a satellite, housed in a fairing atop an expendable Atlas V rocket, and deploy solar panels to provide electrical power in orbit.

The Air Force released only a general description of the mission objectives: testing of guidance, navigation, control, thermal protection and autonomous operation in orbit, re-entry and landing.

The mission's length was not released but the Air Force said the X-37B can stay in orbit for 270 days. The primary landing site will be northwest of Los Angeles at coastal Vandenberg Air Force Base.

The significance of the X-37B is unclear because the program has been around for so long, said Peter A. Wilson, a senior defense research analyst for the RAND Corp. who several years ago served as executive director of a congressional panel that evaluated national security space launch requirements.

"From my perspective it's a little puzzling as to whether this is the beginning of a program or the end of one," Wilson said Friday in a telephone interview from Washington, D.C.

As NASA anticipated the end of the shuttle, the X-37B was viewed as a working prototype of the next-generation design of a fully reusable spacecraft, but the space agency lost interest and the Air Force picked it up, Wilson said.

"It's viewed as a prototype of a vehicle that could carry small payloads into orbit, carry out a variety of military missions and then return to Earth," he said.

The Air Force statement said the X-37 program is being used "to continue full-scale development" and orbital testing of a long-duration, reusable space vehicle.

Wilson sees the upcoming launch as "a one-shot deal."

He acknowledged that he does not know if there is a classified portion of the program but said there is no evidence of a second vehicle being built to follow the prototype. In aerospace, a prototype typically remains a test vehicle used to prove and improve designs for successive operational vehicles.

To fully function as a completely reusable launch system there would also have to be development of a booster rocket that is capable of landing itself back on Earth to be reassembled with the spacecraft, according to Wilson, who does not see any support for such an initiative.

Wilson also said the usefulness of payloads such as small military satellites is in question, which would undercut the need for the launch system.

The X-37B is now under the direction of the Air Force's Rapid Capabilities Office. Its mission is to speed up development of combat-support systems and weapons systems.

Operating since 2003, the office has worked on several things, including upgrading the air defenses around the nation's capital as an anti-terrorism measure and assessing threats to U.S. combat operations, according to an Air Force fact sheet.

NASA began the X-37 program in 1999 in a cooperative deal with Boeing to roughly split the $173 million cost of developing an experimental space plane. The Air Force put in a small share.

The X-37, initially intended to be carried into space by shuttles in 2003, was a larger version of the Air Force X-40A, a concept for a "Space Maneuver Vehicle" to put small military satellites in orbit. The X-40A was dropped from a helicopter in glide and landing tests but was never capable of actual space flight.

In 2002, NASA awarded Boeing a $301 million contract to complete a version of the X-37 to be used in approach and landing tests and begin designing an orbital version that would fly in 2006.

But in 2004 NASA turned the project over to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Defense Department's research and development arm. In 2006, the X-37 was put through captive-carry and drop tests using Mojave-based Scaled Composite LLC's White Knight, the jet that launched SpaceShipOne on the first private suborbital manned space flights.

The Air Force then began work on the X-37B, projecting it would fly in 2008. An Air Force News story at the time reported that the first one or two flights would check out the performance of the vehicle itself and then it would become a space test platform with unspecified components flown in its experiment bay.

 

[quellish]

A few months ago while looking for something else I did find the PE code and funding for X-37, and right next to it was something that looked like it could be the payload. I can't find it now though, and haven't been able to find X-37 in the RDT&E summaries to look up it's code

Can you translate that into English?

Sure.
A program element code is DoD's identifier for program funding in their budget. The codes themselves follow a protocol that gives you some information on what it is, if you search the site you can find a secret decoder ring for these values. Classified programs are easy to find, they're have no descriptive summaries, rarely show amounts budgeted, and either have something iike "Classified DARPA programs" or "TRACTOR BUTT" as their listed name. A lot of the time you can use earlier references to the name or PE code to get more information. TRACTOR BUTT's PE code may have been listed as "Advanced Technology Latrine Support" a few years ago, for example.
RDT&E is Research and Development, Test & Evaluation. Most of the interesting programs are grouped here, and DoD produces a number of different documents describing these programs and their progress. The R-1 document is generally a list of the RDT&E programs broken down by service, and the R-2 is the more detailed descriptive summaries for each of those programs.

SO for example, there is a program "Advanced Sensor Integration" with a sub-heading of "Avionics Integration Technology". It's PE code is 0603253F . It seems unassuming at first, until you can get the descriptive summary, which includes:
"Developed and demonstrated advanced architecture concepts to support seamless information flow and fusion for application in space and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Developed UAV architecture concepts applicable to multiple UAV applications. Developed an Assured Space Access Architecture (ASAA) for the space maneuver vehicle as well as the command and control information infrastructure needed for ASAA. (In FY 2001, this work transferred to PE 0603726F, Project 4850.)"

See, I could even keep this post relevant.

Sometime in the last few months I did spot the PE code and funding for X-37B. Right along side it was a sensitive program that was a sensor payload, and a quick check showed it has been around about as long as SMV.

 

[quellish]

This has some interesting stuff:
http://www.responsivespace.com/Papers/RS1%5CSESSION1%5CKOLODZIE%5C1002C.pdf
(what SOV has to do with NGB isn't clear, unless they are specifically talking about the CAV component)

 

[blackstar]

This has some interesting stuff:
http://www.responsivespace.com/Papers/RS1%5CSESSION1%5CKOLODZIE%5C1002C.pdf
(what SOV has to do with NGB isn't clear, unless they are specifically talking about the CAV component)

That is interesting, but it still doesn't shed much light on the X-37B issue. You can see a clear linkage between the Space Maneuver Vehicle (see slide 17) and the X-37B. But SMV doesn't make much sense if there is no reusable first stage to put it into orbit. Without that, you're spending at least $130 million just to launch it each time, and that's a lot of money. Plus, it takes a lot of time to prep the Atlas for launch. Not quick response.

It's possible that X-37B is simply the tail end of a project that's been completed, and nobody has bothered to shut it down because they still think it will answer some interesting things. But there remain a bunch of unknowns about that.

I'd also add that SMV still doesn't make much sense even if you did have a fully reusable first stage. Look at that slide 17 again. Look at the missions listed:

-sensor/payload deploy
-reconnaissance
-surveillance/inspection
-space object ID
-electronic warfare
-space control
-space test

You can do all of those things with a throw-away vehicle. Now if you had a fully reusable vehicle that was CHEAP, then there might be some benefits to this. But even then you're limited by a rather small payload capability with the current X-37B design.

One interesting thing is the listing of "electronic warfare." I've never seen a public acknowledgment that you might be able to do something like that in space. What does that mean? Jamming a satellite transmission? Or jamming something on the ground?

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

The Space Maneuver Vehicle: Enhancing Space's Utility To The Warfighter MAJ Stephen L Davis, USAF
Report Date: 1-7-2002

http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA404007

 

[quellish]

That is interesting, but it still doesn't shed much light on the X-37B issue. You can see a clear linkage between the Space Maneuver Vehicle (see slide 17) and the X-37B. But SMV doesn't make much sense if there is no reusable first stage to put it into orbit. Without that, you're spending at least $130 million just to launch it each time, and that's a lot of money. Plus, it takes a lot of time to prep the Atlas for launch. Not quick response.

No argument there. I can't tell wether at this point X-37B = SMV or not. There have been design changes that suggest they are different enough, but at the same time maybe not if there are particular payloads or mission profiles in mind.
Either way, this is relevant to our interests:
http://web.archive.org/web/20050514041936/http://www.3div.usmc.mil/G6/command&staff/8806/Space+Operations.ppt

something like that in space. What does that mean? Jamming a satellite transmission? Or jamming something on the ground?

Apparently both, which is covered in the above powerpoint. Both blocking line of sight to the ground as well as active jamming. I've seen in documents "blocking" both RF signals and imaging.

 

[blackstar]

No argument there. I can't tell wether at this point X-37B = SMV or not. There have been design changes that suggest they are different enough, but at the same time maybe not if there are particular payloads or mission profiles in mind.

I think it helps to not be too literal. SMV is really a concept of a vehicle, rather than a vehicle. To develop SMV, you would first need a prototype, then the operational vehicle.

X-37B is obviously left over hardware from NASA that USAF has picked up. Now have they picked it up because they view it as contributing to the things they wanted to do with SMV? I don't know. I'll also admit that I don't know enough about SMV except that the program apparently died several years ago (I think). Now there are a lot of poorly-formed military space ideas that get to Advanced PowerPoint Stage and then die. Some of these are good ideas and many are simply dumb. And the dumb ones can include things that are simply way too far ahead of their time--in other words an idea that might work at some point in the future when lots of other things have improved.

The earlier document that you linked refers to Operationally Responsive Space, which took off in a different direction, with an emphasis on small, expendable rockets and small expendable satellites. If you design the satellite to be expendable, you don't need a reusable vehicle. ORS is struggling, but may start to work in a few years.

And of course, we could branch off in a different direction and leave ORS behind. The important thing is delivering the capabilities quickly to the people who need them. And that could be done with better control of the big, long-lived satellites in orbit. And it can also be done with lots of UAVs.

My point is that you cannot always draw straight lines from one idea, or system, to another. So X-37B may not fit into this calculation in an easy and simple to understand way. I like this quote from the AP article on X-37B" "From my perspective it's a little puzzling as to whether this is the beginning of a program or the end of one."

 

[blackstar]

http://web.archive.org/web/20050514041936/http://www.3div.usmc.mil/G6/command&staff/8806/Space+Operations.ppt

>>What does that mean? Jamming a satellite transmission? Or jamming something on the ground?

Apparently both, which is covered in the above powerpoint. Both blocking line of sight to the ground as well as active jamming. I've seen in documents "blocking" both RF signals and imaging.

That's an interesting document, but also somewhat schizophrenic. Although it appears to date from 2005 or so, it reads at times like a document dating from somewhat earlier. For instance, why no mention of T-SAT, which was a program in development then? Why mention Discoverer II, which was long gone?

The list of a whole bunch of what are essentially ASAT payloads for the Space Maneuver Vehicle is interesting. Was any of that stuff approved? Was any of it funded? Why carry so many (up to 10) on a single SMV? Of course, if the SMV can actually maneuver, then you can hit a bunch of targets with it. Still, that seems dubious and doubtful. And why do this on an SMV when you could find an ELV in shorter time?

It's just really hard to fit that document into context. Space Command has in the past proposed some nutty and ill-formed ideas, usually space weapons systems. What often happens is that they get overruled and told to focus on more mundane stuff like comsats. Maybe that's what we're seeing here--they're ignoring the comsat stuff and going nuts about SMV and exotic minisat weapons.

But... maybe some of those minisat ideas survived in some way and that's the payload for the X-37B.

Still... you don't need a semi-reusable vehicle for that.

 

[quellish]

I think it helps to not be too literal. SMV is really a concept of a vehicle, rather than a vehicle. To develop SMV, you would first need a prototype, then the operational vehicle.

X-37B is obviously left over hardware from NASA that USAF has picked up.

This is something I am trying to get to the bottom of. I now have a good number of documents that refer to "X-37 tail number two" (same for X-40, though this is not directly related and is clearly NASA hardware), wether that is what became the X-37B hardware or is something else I do not yet know. What was done and/or proposed to do with "tail number two" though was all over the place, it's not entirely clear wether it is a second "A", or the "B" OTV-1.

Example:
"Developed and demonstrated technologies for a military-unique reusable satellite bus and upper stage for the Military Spaceplane system. This effort will provide the Air Force with a method for demonstrating critical Air Force technologies and concept of operations. Developed technologies for a second tail number, leveraging the technology investment in the NASA X-37, and addressed specific Air Force requirements including space operations and operability technologies."
(from R-2 for PE 0603401F, June 2001)

 

[quellish]

That's an interesting document, but also somewhat schizophrenic. Although it appears to date from 2005 or so, it reads at times like a document dating from somewhat earlier. For instance, why no mention of T-SAT, which was a program in development then? Why mention Discoverer II, which was long gone?

The list of a whole bunch of what are essentially ASAT payloads for the Space Maneuver Vehicle is interesting. Was any of that stuff approved? Was any of it funded? Why carry so many (up to 10) on a single SMV? Of course, if the SMV can actually maneuver, then you can hit a bunch of targets with it. Still, that seems dubious and doubtful. And why do this on an SMV when you could find an ELV in shorter time?

It is, and every payload is XSS-1 with something pasted on the front! They do present some interesting ideas.

To me, the most interesting part of the document is at the end:
"The Space Maneuver Vehicle or SMV is critical to programs such as the microsats.
The SMV is itself a small winged returnable satellite. It is capable of launch on the SOV or on an EELV. Once on orbit the SMV can deliver or retrieve satellites to or from orbit. The SMV can maintain microsats on orbit for up to one year. Once returned from orbit the SMV can be recycled and used for other missions."

Someone saw the SMV capability as critical - why?

It's just really hard to fit that document into context. Space Command has in the past proposed some nutty and ill-formed ideas, usually space weapons systems. What often happens is that they get overruled and told to focus on more mundane stuff like comsats. Maybe that's what we're seeing here--they're ignoring the comsat stuff and going nuts about SMV and exotic minisat weapons.

But... maybe some of those minisat ideas survived in some way and that's the payload for the X-37B.

Still... you don't need a semi-reusable vehicle for that.

IF I had to take a guess, I would say the program found a sugar daddy that has a payload they want brought back.
A payload less than 1200 pounds, that doesn't require a lot of power .

 

[blackstar]

"The SMV can maintain microsats on orbit for up to one year. Once returned from orbit the SMV can be recycled and used for other missions."

Someone saw the SMV capability as critical - why?

CUT

IF I had to take a guess, I would say the program found a sugar daddy that has a payload they want brought back.
A payload less than 1200 pounds, that doesn't require a lot of power .

Man, this stuff can give you headaches. What's the value of returning _any_ microsatellite? If it is small, then it should be cheap, and it should be easier and cheaper to simply throw it away at the end of the mission. You gain nothing by returning it. It can only make sense if your launch costs drop dramatically. But if you calculate the cost of the launch vehicle, plus the cost of the X-37B, you come up with a number that is almost certainly bigger than whatever they want to stick in the payload bay (probably at least in the $300-$400 million range).

Yeah, maybe they found a sugardaddy with a payload that they want back. What kind of payload would that be?

That said, the logic could simply be a lot of little reasons adding up to critical mass to justify the mission. So maybe there is somebody who is interested in maneuverable reentry who was wiling to fork over some money, and somebody who was interested in autonomous operations who was also willing to throw in some cash, and maybe a customer who just happened to have a prototype that they want to fly but cannot afford to replace, and so they threw in some cash. And all this adds up to enough money and enough reason to fly the mission.

 

[Byeman]

A payload less than 1200 pounds, that doesn't require a lot of power .

X-37 capability is 500lbs and that would have to include the structure to hold the payload.

 

[Ian33]

http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/Space-Shuttle-Jr.html#

Interesting read.

But as for the period between launch and landing, no one, save for a select few in the Department of Defense, knows exactly what the little Boeing-built spaceplane will do, or for how long. The Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office, which is running the program, says only that the orbital test version, the X-37B, will take a suite of next-generation technologies to orbit and will break new ground in the realm of launch, recovery, and reuse, all with an unmanned twist that the shuttle never offered.

I did however find this comment intruiging in the follow up comments box.

The plot thickens! Now we learn that during the same week that X-37B is in orbit, the AF plans to launch an HTV-2 hypersonic vehicle from Vandenberg to Kwaj. I wonder if X-37B will happen to be overhead during the Mach-5 test vehicle's plunge back into the atmosphere?

 

[blackstar]

The plot thickens! Now we learn that during the same week that X-37B is in orbit, the AF plans to launch an HTV-2 hypersonic vehicle from Vandenberg to Kwaj. I wonder if X-37B will happen to be overhead during the Mach-5 test vehicle's plunge back into the atmosphere?

I'm not sure that the two events have anything to do with each other. If the launch of either one slips, that would make it pretty clear that they're not connected.

As for the article's comment about a "suite" of instruments, my suspicion is that the reporter is guessing.

 

[Ian33]

Anyone remember this?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3077821/ns/technology_and_science-space/

The vehicle, originally characterized as a mini-spaceplane called “Refly,” was marketed as a “reusable weapon delivery platform” in an April 27, 1997, briefing to Air Force officials, according to a Boeing computer presentation obtained by NBC News.

Boeing described its ability to be launched on a rocket — preferably on one of its new Delta rockets — to fly across the Atlantic, release its conventionally armed re-entry vehicles over the eastern Mediterranean, and strike targets in Iraq before returning to Earth after one orbit. Similarly, a launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California would permit the bombing of targets in Asia on a “once-around” mission, Boeing noted.


In each scenario, the space bomber is shown fitted with two 1,000-pound re-entry vehicles that could be fired at ground targets.

“We’re talking about a quick lethal kill,” says Martel, who has taught at both the Air War College and the Naval War College, where he currently works. “It’s all in the physics. Something moving at 4 to 6 miles per second from such an altitude has enormous kinetic energy and explosive power. We have enormous capabilities now in terms of re-entry vehicles. So I would argue for purely conventional arms. Everyone pretty much agrees that nuclear arms do not have much military utility.”

 

[blackstar]

Yes, that's essentially a description of "prompt global strike." Google it and you'll find a lot of information. But there's no reason to believe that they're testing this. PGS is expensive--a Delta costs $130+ million. That's a lot of money to deliver two bombs, no matter how valuable the target is.

 

[Ian33]

Yes, that's essentially a description of "prompt global strike." Google it and you'll find a lot of information. But there's no reason to believe that they're testing this. PGS is expensive--a Delta costs $130+ million. That's a lot of money to deliver two bombs, no matter how valuable the target is.

Boeings art not mine.

ReFLY became X-40A which was the small scale test vehicle for the X-37 if I am not mistaken. This is just me seeing the pattern and usefulness of a space airframe that could deliver weapons in a prompt time scale. Or not, and I may be massively wrong, and if I am, well then I will just wonder all the more

 

[blackstar]

Speaka da devil...

The Washington Post has an article up just now saying that the USAF is going to conduct a test of a PGS weapon next month. But it's not X-37B:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/07/AR2010040704920.html?hpid=topnews

"The Air Force prototype Prompt Global Strike design is a modified Peacekeeper III intercontinental ballistic missile. If it is successful, the plan is to deploy a handful of the missiles at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

The weapons would be overseen by the U.S. Strategic Command, which is responsible for the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Air Force Gen. Kevin P. Chilton, who leads the command, based near Omaha, has said he sees Prompt Global Strike as a niche weapon, not one that could substitute for nuclear arms. "

And

"To alleviate the risk of an accidental Russian nuclear retaliation, the Air Force is developing a conventional, land-based ballistic missile that would fire into space at a much lower altitude than nuclear warheads, something that could be detected by Russian early-warning radar systems. U.S. military officials have also said they might be willing to grant access to Russian inspectors, or warn Moscow about a conventional strike on a third-party target.

The Army is working on a separate design that is not as far along in its development. The Navy had been preparing yet another design -- a conventional version of its submarine-based Trident missile -- but Congress curtailed that program two years ago because of concerns that it was too difficult to distinguish from a nuclear-armed Trident. "

 

[blackstar]

It's worth noting that the article is a little odd. There is no such thing as a "Peacekeeper III" missile. They probably mean a Minuteman III. And what do they mean about plans to deploy some at VAFB? Vandenberg only has a few ICBM silos and that's for reliability testing of missiles. If they stick operational ICBMs in those silos, then they cannot test. They'd have to build entirely new silos, and that would be expensive. This just doesn't seem right.

 

[Ian33]

http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2011/OSD/0604165D8Z_PB_2011.pdf

Page 8.

Minatour lV and Vandenberg for hypersonic glide vehicle testing as part of the Prompt Global Strike. This next one also mentions Vandenberg as a possible alternate launch.


http://www.scribd.com/full/29465110?access_key=key-1gtz8of10fddajtdztuy

Comes up full screen from Scribd.com

Next link is an article - All sorts of hypersonic / PGS mentioned and housed at Vandenberg. 2009 date.

http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20090701_5635.php

 

[Ian33]

Back onto X-37B.


http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a1553afc7-cc1e-4b5e-9a6c-ced39704d348&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

As Bill notes, the US Air Force is finally getting round to testing the reusable, maneuverable orbital vehicle part, in the shape of the Boeing X-37B. But what about the commensurate quick-turnaround launch vehice?

Well the Air Force Research Laboratory has just released a pre-solicitation notice for its Reusable Booster System (RBS) Pathfinder program. This is to be a subscale demonstrator for a reusable booster that would launch vertically, release an expendable upper-stage stack, and return to a horizontal landing on a runway at the launch site. The full-size RBS is envisioned as replacing Atlas and Delta EELVs some time after 2035.

Unusual.

 

[quellish]

Speaka da devil...

The Washington Post has an article up just now saying that the USAF is going to conduct a test of a PGS weapon next month. But it's not X-37B:

It's HTV-2, which is spec'd for Minotaur series launchers as well as Falcon. They still have not solved the "looks like a nuke, smells like a nuke" problem that is getting in the way of funding anything more than glide tests.
However, there have been a lot of tests of almost-ready things snuck in. Lockheed tested their tail kit, for example. That is pretty much ready to deploy.

 

[blackstar]

http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2011/OSD/0604165D8Z_PB_2011.pdf

Page 8.

Minatour lV and Vandenberg for hypersonic glide vehicle testing as part of the Prompt Global Strike. This next one also mentions Vandenberg as a possible alternate launch.


http://www.scribd.com/full/29465110?access_key=key-1gtz8of10fddajtdztuy

Comes up full screen from Scribd.com

Next link is an article - All sorts of hypersonic / PGS mentioned and housed at Vandenberg. 2009 date.

http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20090701_5635.php

The problem is with fielding an operational Minuteman III PGS weapon at Vandenberg. There are only a few available MIII silos there and they are in use. If they are to be converted to this mission, then their users have to go elsewhere. So the Post article as written is probably misleading and/or mistaken.

 

[blackstar]

Well the Air Force Research Laboratory has just released a pre-solicitation notice for its Reusable Booster System (RBS) Pathfinder program. This is to be a subscale demonstrator for a reusable booster that would launch vertically, release an expendable upper-stage stack, and return to a horizontal landing on a runway at the launch site. The full-size RBS is envisioned as replacing Atlas and Delta EELVs some time after 2035.

>>Unusual.

This RBS thing is not a full development program. I think these two things (RBS Pathfinder) and X-37B are probably an order of magnitude different in size. X-37B is clearly a program costing hundreds of millions of dollars (at least $130 million for the rocket alone). I'm betting this RBS Pathfinder is probably in the few tens of millions at most. If their ultimate time horizon is 25 years from now, that indicates that they're just toying with the technology, not on a path for an actual vehicle.

 

[Ian33]

The problem is with fielding an operational Minuteman III PGS weapon at Vandenberg. There are only a few available MIII silos there and they are in use. If they are to be converted to this mission, then their users have to go elsewhere. So the Post article as written is probably misleading and/or mistaken.

If you read the links you will see the system is planned to be above ground for satellite inspection by the Russians, and with a different shallower launch profile than a pure nuclear ICBM to assure people with fingers on buttons.

 

[blackstar]

The problem is with fielding an operational Minuteman III PGS weapon at Vandenberg. There are only a few available MIII silos there and they are in use. If they are to be converted to this mission, then their users have to go elsewhere. So the Post article as written is probably misleading and/or mistaken.

If you read the links you will see the system is planned to be above ground for satellite inspection by the Russians, and with a different shallower launch profile than a pure nuclear ICBM to assure people with fingers on buttons.

I was referring to the article that I posted.

 

[blackstar]

Here's something else on the prompt global strike issue from 2007:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/06/global_strike_p/

 

[blackstar]

Some new stuff on the Reusable Booster System:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:1553afc7-cc1e-4b5e-9a6c-ced39704d348


Doing a 180 - AFRL's Rocket-back Pathfinder
Posted by Graham Warwick at 4/7/2010 7:52 AM CDT

Forget the personal jetpacks, the thing we've waited longest for is a military spaceplane. As Bill notes, the US Air Force is finally getting round to testing the reusable, maneuverable orbital vehicle part, in the shape of the Boeing X-37B. But what about the commensurate quick-turnaround launch vehicle?

http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/59838

http://gravityloss.wordpress.com/2010/04/08/the-us-air-force-tries-to-do-reusables/