X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle (OTV)

Those look like some pretty extreme positive pressure hazmat suits those guys are wearing. Whats with that? Leftover hydrazine?
 
Obviously speculation on my part but was the landing filmed in IR? And if so was the landing done in total darkness?
 
bobbymike said:
Obviously speculation on my part but was the landing filmed in IR? And if so was the landing done in total darkness?
Click to expand...

Sigh. Check page 18, and everything will be clear for you...
 
sublight said:
Those look like some pretty extreme positive pressure hazmat suits those guys are wearing. Whats with that? Leftover hydrazine?
Click to expand...

SCAPE or PHE suits and hydrazine and N2O4, just like the shuttle
 
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/photos-x-37b-robot-space-plane-landing-101203.html

Probably the same video, but some nice stills, too.
 
X-37B Test Mission Called Big Accomplishment
By SCOTT FONTAINE
Published: 6 Dec 2010 17:00

Seven dents and a blown tire. Not bad for eight months in space

THE X-37B ORBITAL Test Vehicle landed at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., Friday. It spent more than 244 days orbiting the planet and guided itself to Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., without the help of human navigation. (Air Force)
The X-37B – the Air Force's experimental, unmanned spaceship with a classified mission – ended its maiden voyage Friday. It spent more than 244 days orbiting the planet and guided itself to Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., without the help of human navigation.

And while Air Force personnel are studying the ship and analyzing the data, the service's top official for space programs called the X-37B's mission a "tremendous accomplishment."

"For the first flight, we're extremely pleased with the outcome of the entire mission of the X-37B," said Richard McKinney, the deputy under secretary of the Air Force for space programs.

The only physical damage seen so far has been seven areas where space debris collided with the aircraft. It also blew out a tire upon landing. McKinney, meeting with reporters at the Pentagon on Monday, said he wasn't sure if that stemmed from a collision on the runway, a problem with the tire itself or something else.

The X-37B, with its possibility to stay in orbit for 270 days, could give the Air Force an ability it lacks: to send a satellite into orbit for months, see how it operates and return it to Earth for more thorough analysis.

The Air Force had remained largely quiet on the X-37B's mission since it launched earlier this year. That led to rabid speculation online and from foreign countries, with theories ranging from a sophisticated surveillance craft to a satellite-killer that could paralyze hostile countries' space programs.

McKinney effectively shot down those ideas during the hour-long discussion.

"This is a test vehicle to prove the materials and capabilities, to put experiments in space and bring them back and check out the technologies," he said. "My words to others who might read anything else into that is 'just listen to what we're telling you.'"

"This is, pure and simple, a test vehicle so we can prove technologies and capabilities."

Still, the experiments placed on board the spacecraft and the program's budget remain classified.

The 29-foot-long spacecraft has a cargo bay about the size of the bed of a pickup truck, and a solar array to keep it powered. Its landing was totally autonomous: the spacecraft folded up the solar array, thrust toward the earth, flew a zigzag pattern to burn off the energy the tiles absorbed from the friction of the atmosphere and landed on the runway at Vandenberg.

No human was at the control to possibly override the spacecraft's controls, said program manager Lt. Col. Troy Giese. The only such possibility was a kill switch to abort the landing procedures in case of an emergency.

The program began in 1999 and has involved the Air Force, NASA and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Boeing built the first X-37B and is building a second craft, which should launch in spring 2011.

McKinney stressed the X-37B remains an experimental aircraft – and it's still too early to draw too many conclusions about the program.

"Test aircraft have hundreds, if not thousands of test flights," he said. "We've had one flight. We are really at the very beginning of this."

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5176376&c=AME&s=TOP
 
Second X-37B Prepared For Launch

Dec 7, 2010

By Guy Norris

LOS ANGELES — The U.S. Air Force says the second planned mission of the X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle (OTV) will “expand the operating envelope” of the autonomous space vehicle, potentially increasing the orbital cross-range and capability of landing in stronger crosswinds.

Richard McKinney, Air Force undersecretary for space programs, says the second test X-37B – OTV-2 – is being prepared in Boeing’s California space facilities for transfer “soon” to Cape Canaveral. From there it will be launched on an Atlas V in the March-April 2011 time period.

Lt. Col. Troy Giese, X-37B program manager from the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office (Afrco), which manages the X-37B program, says OTV-2’s mission will focus on “expanding the operating envelope of what its capabilities are. This time, we put more restrictions on landing winds and on orbiting cross-range. We picked an orbit that was well within its ability to get back to Vandenberg Air Force Base,” he adds. The next flight may have a more exaggerated orbit to test the cross-range recovery characteristics and may end up with an attempted recovery in more marginal weather.

McKinney and Giese commented on the Air Force plans for OTV-2 following the successful autonomous landing and recovery of OTV-1 at Vandenberg in the early hours of Dec. 3 after a 244-day mission.

But the landing, which was the first successful runway recovery of an autonomous space vehicle since the 1988 demonstration launch and landing of the former Soviet Union’s Buran unmanned space shuttle, was not without incident. McKinney says the vehicle’s left main landing gear tire blew out on touchdown—a mishap not easily spotted in initial photos released by the Air Force. However, program officials say the fact the X-37B continued to roll down the runway centerline without deviation following the blowout of the 300-psi. dinner-plate-size tire is a testament to the integrity of its control system.

Shreds of ruptured tire caused some damage to the belly of the vehicle, which also was pitted in several places by unidentified space debris. “Where it came from we don’t know,” McKinney says, adding that initial inspections have revealed damage in “about seven” places to the thermal protection tiles and vehicle body. However, McKinney says evidence of impacts and tire burst does not diminish the overall performance of the vehicle or its test accomplishments over an almost eight-month space mission. “The purpose of this particular mission was the vehicle,” he adds.

Stressing the use of the OTV as a test platform, McKinney downplays the possible role of the X-37B itself as a reusable vehicle for responsive space roles. “It’s a test vehicle. We want to be able to put objects into space and test them out, and exercise them.” As such, OTV “does not replace the other [responsive space] capabilities such as TacSat, but it gives us another dimension. We have the ability to research technologies, do experiments in space and return them to Earth. That’s a capability that’s been severely limited in the past. We have a very serious and important business in providing national security space capability, and our ability to examine those technologies before deployment is a big sought-after capability.”

OTV-1 primarily was aimed at checking out vehicle systems and design features, with a secondary emphasis on the more advanced sensor technology likely to be featured more prominently in follow-up missions. Vehicle technology test targets for OTV-1 included advanced guidance, navigation and control; thermal protection systems; avionics; high-temperature structures and seals; conformal reusable insulation, and lightweight electromechanical flight systems.

Giese says the flight also was a successful test of the vehicle’s ability to open its payload doors and deploy a solar array that provided onboard power for the duration of the mission. On command, the X-37B autonomously folded the array, closed the doors (which contain radiator panels to dissipate heat into space), commenced a re-entry burn, and performed a series of S-turns to bleed off energy like the space shuttle during its descent through the atmosphere.
 
Byeman said:
sublight said:
Those look like some pretty extreme positive pressure hazmat suits those guys are wearing. Whats with that? Leftover hydrazine?
Click to expand...

SCAPE or PHE suits and hydrazine and N2O4, just like the shuttle
Click to expand...
Trying to download the NRTS report cited but.... (My USUAL luck with NRTS after 9am in the morning... They just hate me...I know it! ;) )

Guess that means they scrapped the H2O2/JP-8 main motor for that puppy...

Randy
 
RanulfC said:
Guess that means they scrapped the H2O2/JP-8 main motor for that puppy...

Randy
Click to expand...

from http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20060004795_2006003679.pdf
 

Attachments

  • x-37 prop system.gif
    x-37 prop system.gif
    76.5 KB · Views: 204
http://www.af.mil/photos/media_search.asp?q=x-37b&btnG.x=14&btnG.y=2
 
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2010/12/how-to-tow-a-top-secret-military-space-plane.html
 
From Spacedaily.com:

Russian Answer To US Reusable Robotic Spacecraft In The Offing
by Staff Writers
Moscow, Russia (RIA Novosti) Jan 28, 2011

Russian researchers are working on an unmanned spacecraft similar to the U.S. Boeing X-37 Orbital Test Vehicle, Space Troops chief Oleg Ostapenko said on Thursday. He said, however, it was not clear as yet how it would be used. "Something has been done along these lines, but as to whether we will use it, only time will tell," Ostapenko said. The Boeing X-37, used for orbital spaceflight missions, has a length of over 29 ft (8.9 m) and features two angled tail fins. The spaceplane's first orbital mission was launched on April 22, 2010 with an Atlas V rocket.
 
From Aviation Week

Second X-37B Set To Launch March 4

Mar 2, 2011

By Irene Klotz iklotz@rocketmail.com
CAPE CANAVERAL

Three months after the U.S. Air Force’s experimental Orbital Test Vehicle (OTV) returned from a debut spaceflight that spanned 224 days, its sister ship is being prepared for liftoff March 4 on a follow-on mission.

Like its predecessor, OTV-2 will launch aboard an Atlas V booster from Cape Canaveral AFS. The 2-hr. launch window opens at 3:39 p.m. EST.

Exactly what the vehicle, also known as X-37B, will do in space is classified, as are any cargo or payloads that it may carry. The two spacecraft, built by Boeing Phantom Works, resemble diminutive space shuttles. They are intended to test technologies and processes for low-cost, quick-turnaround, reusable space vehicles, as well as serve as orbital testbeds for instruments that could be incorporated into future satellites.

“Once placed in an operational status, the X-37B could have applications to support missions such as technology maturation/validation; space situational awareness; intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; on-orbit servicing and repair; satellite deployment and/or retrieval; or orbital debris mitigation,” the Air Force writes in an email to Aviation Week.

The winged vehicles, which are 29 ft. long and 14 ft. wide, are designed to remain in orbit for up to 270 days. OTV-1 returned from flight in good condition, paving the way for launch of OTV-2 with few modifications (Aerospace DAILY, Dec. 6, 2010). A more detailed inspection and analysis of OTV-1 will be undertaken as part of its refurbishment.

OTV-1 has not yet been scheduled for a second launch, but the Air Force anticipates it will return to orbit.

“Because of the short timeframe between the OTV-1 landing in December and the launch of OTV-2 in March, focus was turned to getting OTV-2 ready for launch after the quick-look assessment of OTV-1’s re-entry and landing data and exterior inspection,” the Air Force says. “We will do a more detailed assessment after [the] OTV-2 launch to prove the objectives for a quick, low-cost turnaround.

“OTV-2 builds upon the OTV-1 on-orbit demonstration and expands the test envelope of the X-37B,” the Air Force adds. “This second test mission furthers the development of the concept of operations for and fine-tunes technical parameters of an affordable, reusable space vehicle.” That includes keeping OTV-2 in space longer than OTV-1.

Still, not everyone is a fan of the OTVs. “Because of its weight and relative lack of maneuverability, the spaceplane is not well-suited for a number of missions,” says Laura Grego of the Union of Concerned Scientists. For instance, due to extra structure to withstand repeated re-entries, the vehicle ostensibly would have a harder time carrying payloads to orbit, let alone maneuvering in space, rendezvousing with satellites, and releasing multiple payloads, she said March 2. “Yes, the spaceplane may offer more flexibility and is potentially reusable, but that comes at a very high price compared with the alternatives. We have not seen an analysis that shows why it is worth that high price.”

Officials have said no significant changes were made to OTV-2 as a result of the OTV-1 flight. Minor tweaks include a reduction in the vehicle’s main landing gear tire pressure by about 15% to help avoid repeating the blown tire that OTV-1 experienced upon landing at Vandenberg AFB, Calif., on Dec. 3. The reduced pressure should better accommodate imperfections in Vandenberg’s 15,000-ft.-long runway, the Air Force says.

“Also, based on the demonstrated ability of the electromechanical flight control and autonomous landing algorithms, we’ll place less restrictions on the cross-range and wind conditions required for landing,” the Air Force says.
 
Last months I received really a lot of questions related to the X-37 demonstrator, so despite a very little free time that I currently have, I decided to write the complex article covering all the MSP, SOV, ReFly, SMV, X-37 -40 -41 -42 stuff. Till the time it will be finished, enjoy at least some of the material.
 

Attachments

  • MDD MSP.jpg
    MDD MSP.jpg
    45.3 KB · Views: 71
  • MSP_X-33.jpg
    MSP_X-33.jpg
    356.1 KB · Views: 50
  • modular_insertion_stage.jpg
    modular_insertion_stage.jpg
    71.7 KB · Views: 50
  • Orbital_SMV.jpg
    Orbital_SMV.jpg
    200.9 KB · Views: 56
  • Lockheed_SMV.jpg
    Lockheed_SMV.jpg
    41.4 KB · Views: 134
  • Boeing_SMV.jpg
    Boeing_SMV.jpg
    103.4 KB · Views: 135
The Boeing designed X-40A vehicle landed seven feet left of the runway centerline at Holloman AFB, N.M. Following on the 1998 test, a full-scale SMV center fuselage has been constructed for structural tests. The X-40B is also being built using an F-104 aircraft engine. The X-40C will use the more powerful engine.
Click to expand...

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6712/is_42_206/ai_n28774964/
 
http://aviationheritage.blogspot.com/2011/06/secret-satellites-over-burgh.html

Very fresh, posted yesterday.
 
Ok so I'm ignorant...

Is the combination of an x-37b and a pegasus booster a capability that was lost as the concept matured?
 
Well, back when the Pegasus arrangement was proposed, it was still REFLY; X-37B as we know it now was still years off.
 
Indeed, most likely we've all seen the art work with an X-37B type craft mounted on the back of an X-33 (and that was never going to happen) so I understand how concepts inevitably become more realistic as time passes.

However, just to be sure the numbers don't add up..... (I'm sure that they dont but hey, the most stupid question is the unasked one) using a pegasus booster as the intermediate stage in a 3-stage to orbit system, this combination wouldn't get an X-37B up high enough would it?

Thanks
 
Note that the system in question wasn't an actual Pegasus, but rather a Pegasus *type* booster that would have been an new development: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=1021

Martin
 
martinbayer said:
Note that the system in question wasn't an actual Pegasus, but rather a Pegasus *type* booster that would have been an new development: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=1021
Click to expand...

There was a recent internal NASA study of a booster launched off the back of a 747. Big rocket with wings. I've seen two variants in model form.
 
Yess!

http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=eQ4fAAAAEBAJ&dq=refly

The final step now is to find anything more about the X-40B and X-40C.

Matej said:
The Boeing designed X-40A vehicle landed seven feet left of the runway centerline at Holloman AFB, N.M. Following on the 1998 test, a full-scale SMV center fuselage has been constructed for structural tests. The X-40B is also being built using an F-104 aircraft engine. The X-40C will use the more powerful engine.
Click to expand...

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6712/is_42_206/ai_n28774964/
Click to expand...
 
Matej said:
Yess!

http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=eQ4fAAAAEBAJ&dq=refly
Click to expand...

Interesting, described in claim 1 of this patent... "twin canted tails for allowing attachment to the underside of a carrier aircraft in an unobtrusive manner".

I had never considered this as the origin of the X-37b's ruddervator design... evidently Rockwell did as they deemed this feature important enough to include it in the first claim of their 1993 patent.

Remarkable really that this ruddervator design has persisted all this time....
 
I know that presentation and its not that simple.

flateric said:
Click to expand...

There is a significant chaos in the designations, so we should divide it into the three timeframes:

Timeframe 1

X-40A is a 85% scale atmospheric demonstrator of the ReFly
X-40B is the full sized SMV prototype
Future X Pathfinder from NASA is starting and becoming X-37

Timeframe 2

Because of the Clinton veto, X-40B SMV cant proceed and the development is stopped.
After only one flight under USAF, X-40A is transferred to the NASA
X-37 is going to be orbital technology demonstrator for the advanced reusable space vehicle technologies.
Development and manufacturing of the powered atmospheric demonstrators X-40B (new) and X-40C begins.


Timeframe 3

X-40B (new) and X-40C were never finished.
X-40A is after eight (? I am not sure just now) flights abandoned.
X-37 under the NASA control is going to be cancelled, but before that because the X-40A collected not enough data, the development is divided into full scale atmospheric demonstrator X-37 ASLV and X-37B OTV.
USAF takes control, X-37 ASLV is tested under the White Knight and two examples of the X-37B are manufactured.


It means that original full scale X-40B SMV prototype is not the same as the jet powered atmospheric X-40B demonstrator.

And yes, recently posted patent finally explains the origins of the design and can answer a lot of questions, why the X-37B OTV looks how it looks


Update: there are some yet unsolved gaps in my expectations, so expect a revised table soon.
 
LowObservable said:
"F-104 engine" is the Rocketdyne AR-2 peroxide/JP rocket from the NF-104A.
Click to expand...

Thats new information for me. Does it mean that the new X-40B and C was something like suborbital demonstrator with the comparable flight profile like SpaceShipOne?
 
Matej said:
LowObservable said:
"F-104 engine" is the Rocketdyne AR-2 peroxide/JP rocket from the NF-104A.
Click to expand...

Thats new information for me. Does it mean that the new X-40B and C was something like suborbital demonstrator with the comparable flight profile like SpaceShipOne?
Click to expand...

No, the orbital manuvering system was original the AR-2 but it was but was changed early in the X-37 to a hypergolic system
 
blackstar said:
There was a recent internal NASA study of a booster launched off the back of a 747. Big rocket with wings. I've seen two variants in model form.
Click to expand...

Was it different from the circa 2000 Boeing/Thiokol "AirLaunch" concept?

Higher rez: http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=11633
 

Attachments

  • airlaunch.jpg
    airlaunch.jpg
    55.6 KB · Views: 678

Attachments

  • x37inarms.jpg
    x37inarms.jpg
    16.4 KB · Views: 676
Research moved forward and here are the results for the further discussion. What do you think?

Boeing (Rockwell) ReFly, 1x XLR-132, monomethylhydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide
Boeing/USAF ITTB (X-40A), unpowered
Boeing SMV, propulsion system unknown (yet) to me
Boeing/NASA/USAF X-37 Future X Pathfinder (X-37ATV (Advanced Technology Vehicle)), 1x AR2-3, 90% hydrogen peroxide/10% JP-8
Boeing/USAF X-40B SMV, propulsion system unknown (yet) to me
Boeing/USAF X-40C SMV, more powerfull rocket engine
Boeing/NASA/USAF X-40A (in fact USAF X-40A demonstrator transferred to NASA), unpowered
Boeing/NASA/DARPA X-37 ASLV, unpowered
Boeing/NASA X-37 OV (Orbital Vehicle), if build, it should have designation X-37A, 1x AR2-3, hydrogen peroxide/JP-8
Boeing/NASA OSP (Orbital Space Plane)
Boeing/USAF X-37B OTV-1, 1x Marquardt R4D installed out of axis (!), MMH/N2O4
Boeing/USAF X-37B OTV-2, 2x Marquardt R4D, MMH/N2O4

Last update: 25. September 2011
 
Matej said:
Yess!

http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=eQ4fAAAAEBAJ&dq=refly

The final step now is to find anything more about the X-40B and X-40C.

Matej said:
The Boeing designed X-40A vehicle landed seven feet left of the runway centerline at Holloman AFB, N.M. Following on the 1998 test, a full-scale SMV center fuselage has been constructed for structural tests. The X-40B is also being built using an F-104 aircraft engine. The X-40C will use the more powerful engine.
Click to expand...

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6712/is_42_206/ai_n28774964/
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

This might be the result of a confusion from the fact an Air Force test version of the F-104 also had a rocket engine, the AR2-3:

Lockheed NF-104A.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_NF-104A


Bob Clark
 

Attachments

  • 300px-NF-104.jpg
    300px-NF-104.jpg
    16.7 KB · Views: 412

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom