blackstar said:
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.

Yup, the Post article is misinformed. The idea here is that if it gets deployed, Minotaurs will be on "alert" at VAFB pads loaded with production PGS weapons (wether it is AHW, HTV-2, or.... whatever.). They want to flight test different "see? I'm not a nuke!" launch profiles, but there is so far no $ allocated for what they want to do.
 
quellish said:
Yup, the Post article is misinformed. The idea here is that if it gets deployed, Minotaurs will be on "alert" at VAFB pads loaded with production PGS weapons (wether it is AHW, HTV-2, or.... whatever.). They want to flight test different "see? I'm not a nuke!" launch profiles, but there is so far no $ allocated for what they want to do.

Yep. I don't know if a Minotaur can stand "alert" however. If they're talking about something above ground, how do they deal with the environment? (I've been to Vandenberg numerous times and it's foggy a lot and rains quite a bit)

Somebody told me to go to GoogleEarth and use the ruler function and draw a line from Vandenberg to Iran and see what countries such a missile would fly over.
 
Meanwhile, I was at a newsstand this evening and saw the new issue of Popular Mechanics, which has a cover story on the X-37B. Except the spaceplane on the cover is not actually the X-37.
 
blackstar said:
Meanwhile, I was at a newsstand this evening and saw the new issue of Popular Mechanics, which has a cover story on the X-37B. Except the spaceplane on the cover is not actually the X-37.

What was it? Brahmos? ;D
 
It was an artist imagination vehicle, similar to the X-37B but with different wings and with two engines in the tail, one mounted above the other. It was a dramatic shot from below as the vehicle climbs away. Because of the view from behind, you are tricked into thinking that the spacecraft might be manned. The heading was something like "The Air Force's Secret Space Plane."

I did not bother to buy the issue because a) I was hoping I could get the article online, and b) Popular Mechanics never ever has any information on this kind of stuff that is new. Both PopSci and PopMech are very general audience magazines, and their information is never original. That said, they have nice cover art and when this becomes available I will post it here.
 
The more I'm learning about the RCO, the more interesting it gets. I would not be surprised if the three major black program management organizations within USAF were consolidated into two, Big Safari and RCO.
Previously we had:
BIG SAFARI Program Office (645th Aeronautical Systems Group)
SENIOR YEAR Program Office (this did much more than U-2 related work)
Classified Programs Office (not it's real name, was under USAF Acquisition )
 
Byeman said:
RCO is not a black program management organization.

They seem to be doing some things, with some organizations, that have historically fallen under that umbrella. Persons who have a long history in that world have recently migrated to RCO. RCO is very, very interesting.
 
quellish said:
Byeman said:
RCO is not a black program management organization.

They seem to be doing some things, with some organizations, that have historically fallen under that umbrella. Persons who have a long history in that world have recently migrated to RCO. RCO is very, very interesting.

Not different than DARPA.
 
Byeman said:
Not different than DARPA.

DARPA does not do acquisitions or manage the fielding of new systems.
DARPA also has it's own section of the DoD budget.

This and many other things make DARPA very unlike RCO. RCO is at it's heart an acquisition office, and one that does not advertise how it is spending money. RCO's original mission statement was "to expedite development of selected DoD systems". Their previous projects include the integrated air defense system around Washington, DC. That project alone involved a lot of interesting personalities.

Boeing and a division of L-3 are working on something for RCO and NRO, with L-3 managing day to day operations. I wonder what that could be.


RCO's director is an interesting guy:
http://www.af.mil/information/bios/bio.asp?bioID=7782
 
Here's the Popular Mechanics cover. I cannot find a better image. Note that this is NOT the X-37B. It has two engines (X-37B has one) and the wings are different. The wings on this vehicle are more angular, and the wings on the X-37B have more curve on the leading edge.
 

Attachments

  • PopMech.jpg
    PopMech.jpg
    44.6 KB · Views: 528
From today's AvWeek,

"A U.S. Air Force Space Command flight test of the X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle, scheduled to launch April 20 from Cape Canaveral AFS, Fla., atop an Atlas 501, will serve as an “on-orbit” demonstration of space vehicle technologies as well as pioneer reusable spacecraft operations."

:)
 
Has the Air Force paid a PR firm to pimp this thing? Its coming at me from every imaginable media outlet. I don't watch Cartoon Network or anything but I am dying to know how they are pitching it to the kids....
 
Actually, I think the launch date has now slipped to April 21.

As for all the publicity, some of that is due to the fact that it is partially classified. It has a lot of people intrigued. USA Today was/is working on a story, prompted in part by the AP story a week or so ago. These things tend to gain momentum and reporters all jump on the bandwagon. Plus, it's got wings. That makes it interesting to people.
 
blackstar said:
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.

Cost didn’t stop the US from rapidly building several dozen new silos for GBI; the last couple are still being worked on in Alaska. GBI only costs about IIRC 30 million dollars too, and yet this was seen as worthwhile to do. An X-37B orbital booster is bound to be more expensive, and thus more worthy of passive protection.

A new silo doesn’t have to be hardened as much as an ICBM silo, the GBI silos sure aren’t, and are tightly grouped together so one nuke can kill them all out of hand. A new silo can just be a concrete lined hole in the ground with a roof strong enough to prevent a cheap kill by a small UAV or a anti tank missile or a mortar round landing on it. No complicated suspension system to withstand nuclear earth shock or high end 11,000psi concrete required. Changes like that make for a lot cheaper of a structure, and frankly if the US military is going to field anything like conventional weapons this expensive then no one is going to care how much it costs to base it.

It’s also possible that a semi hardened surface structure could be used, in which the rocket rolls out and then elevates to fire. This was used for the earliest Atlas missiles, and proposed repeatedly as a means of basing MX. By being above ground but mounded over with earth not only makes construction much cheaper, maintenance is also much cheaper since water doesn’t try to leak in so much. The only downside is many booster rocket designs may not be able to be stored horizontally in a fueled condition, so the firing cycle would be more protracted. So some kind of low end silo is a lot more likely.
 
http://www.af.mil/news/story_print.asp?id=123199790

Photo caption says that it is in the "encapsulation cell." I'm guessing that this is for acoustic testing to simulate launch. It looks like this is the shape of the fairing, but is NOT the actual fairing.
 

Attachments

  • 100413-f-0000x-102.jpg
    100413-f-0000x-102.jpg
    20 KB · Views: 116
blackstar said:
http://www.af.mil/news/story_print.asp?id=123199790

Photo caption says that it is in the "encapsulation cell." I'm guessing that this is for acoustic testing to simulate launch. It looks like this is the shape of the fairing, but is NOT the actual fairing.

That is the actual fairing. The "encapsulation cell" is the part of the facility where the fairing is placed around the spacecraft. The silver material with donuts is FAP (fairing acoustic protection)
 
I stand corrected.

Hope the photographer got out before the two halves closed...
 
For your viewing pleasure - links to full size (2 meg+) images:

http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/100413-f-0000x-102.jpg

http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/100413-f-0000x-101.jpg

http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/100330-O-1234S-001.jpg

Funny thing - the acoustic protection protection tiles kind of look like overgrown Lego blocks to me...
 
aim9xray said:
Funny thing - the acoustic protection protection tiles kind of look like overgrown Lego blocks to me...

Could be cooking tins for cupcakes.
 
Here's a couple of shiny graphics from SPACE.com's two most recent writings on the X-37B.
 

Attachments

  • otv1-cutaway.jpg
    otv1-cutaway.jpg
    67.8 KB · Views: 143
  • X37b-graphic.jpg
    X37b-graphic.jpg
    144.2 KB · Views: 171
It ignores that the propellants were changed to MMH and NTO years ago.
 
The new Space.com article is up:

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/secret-x-37b-details-revealed-100417.html

"The X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle (OTV) is capable of supporting a flexible range of experiments, Blair said. "The first mission will emphasize proving technologies necessary for long duration reusable space vehicles with autonomous reentry and landing capabilities."

"It's a developmental effort," Blair said, and it's standard practice with many Department of Defense development efforts, "specific details of the OTV capabilities, limitations and vulnerabilities" are classified."
 
"While there's a high-level of hush-hushness surrounding the flight, what could the X-37B flight imply and what's behind the project?

There could be a trio of rationales, suggested military space specialist, Roger Handberg, Professor and Chair in the Department of Political Science at the University of Central Florida in Orlando.

The X-37B appears to be a vestige of the 1990s push by the Air Force and NASA for reusable vehicles, Handberg noted. He advised that the project may signify continued U.S. Air Force interest in a rapid response vehicle along the lines of the long-proposed space maneuver vehicle and the X-37B is their best shot for that type program.

"The second explanation is that of bureaucratic inertia in military programs which is why the justifications and cost estimates are so obscure and mysterious," Handberg said. "Once started, programs are difficult to kill especially when the proponents speak of marvelous capabilities analogous to aircraft style operation down the road."

A third reason, Handberg continued, is to think of this effort "as the logical extension of the push into unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) where vehicles used for observation have moved into weapon carriers and various of other missions, many classified." Indeed, one could build an architecture linking UAVs and such vehicles to give you truly global reach, he added."
 
aim9xray said:
For your viewing pleasure - links to full size (2 meg+) images:

http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/100413-f-0000x-102.jpg

http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/100413-f-0000x-101.jpg

http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/100330-O-1234S-001.jpg

Funny thing - the acoustic protection protection tiles kind of look like overgrown Lego blocks to me...

Can someone download those images and upload them to some filehosting? (rapidshare.com, mediafire.com ...) I still have the problems to open the .mil URLs.
 
Yeah. Took me ages to download them as well. Had to refresh the link many times!
Well at least one of them can be uploaded here, so here goes:
 

Attachments

  • 100330-O-1234S-001.jpg
    100330-O-1234S-001.jpg
    311.5 KB · Views: 89
If you can suffer a 10% compression JPEG factor, here are the other two pics:
 

Attachments

  • 100413-f-0000x-101a.jpg
    100413-f-0000x-101a.jpg
    981 KB · Views: 87
  • 100413-f-0000x-102a.jpg
    100413-f-0000x-102a.jpg
    908.5 KB · Views: 49
Byeman said:
It ignores that the propellants were changed to MMH and NTO years ago.

I've sent them a correction. The USAF fact sheet does not list the propellants. Do you have a source I could cite for them?
 
some nice Atlas V OTV shroud hi-rezes at ULA site - cool logo they have on it!
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/PhotoGallery/Photo_gallery.shtml
 
A reporter today asked Payton what the propellants were onboard the X-37B. He was told that hydrazine is the only thing onboard.
 
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/x-37b-robot-space-plane-launch-100420.html
 
Second X-37 under construction - From Air Force Association

A Second X-37B: Boeing is already on contract to supply a second X-37B orbital test vehicle to the Air Force, and the service anticipates its maiden space mission sometime in 2011, Gary Payton, top space official in the Air Force Secretariat told reporters Tuesday. He said the Air Force would send this second X-37B into orbit only after the first X-37B has returned from its inaugural space flight (slated for today, see Putting Reusability to the Test) and service officials have incorporated the lessons from that mission. Payton said the true value of these reusable space vehicles would be their ability to carry new technologies into space for testing and then bring them back to Earth. They could also be invaluable for the rapid deployment of small-sized satellites, he said. But they must prove to be affordable to operate and maintain to justify their widespread use, he said.
—Michael J. Sirak
 
Hi everyone,

The new X-37 B USAF spaceplane is taking-off this evening from Cape Canaveral if all goes well.

The webcast of it will be retransmitted here:

http://ulalaunch.com/site/default.shtml

It was initally announced to be launched yesterday:

http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/news/2010/4/19/mysterious_boeing_x37_set_to_launch.htm

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20100418/sc_space/somedetailsofsecretivex37bspaceplanerevealed

Stephane.
Stratosphere Models.
Website: http://www.picturetrail.com/stratospheremodels
Email: stratospheremodels@yahoo.fr
 
And away we go. Oh, it's on now:

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/x-37b-robot-space-plane-blastoff-100422.html

Moonbat
 
Desert Dawn said:
Hi everyone,

The new X-37 B USAF spaceplane is taking-off this evening from Cape Canaveral if all goes well.

The webcast of it will be retransmitted here:

http://ulalaunch.com/site/default.shtml

Anybody have any luck with this?
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKKgmqxjCM8&feature=player_embedded

YouTube, anybody?

Moonbat
 
sferrin said:
Anybody have any luck with this?

Didn't work for me. Learned a trick: go to www.spaceflightnow.com I think they have more bandwidth.
 
It is nice from time to time to be reminded about the complexities of rocket flight in videos such as this. Your see a picture of a rocket and it appears to be just a pointed tube you forget sometimes that every flight is a marvel of science and engineering.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom