X-37B Processing at KSC
NASA Partners with X-37B Program for Use of Former Space Shuttle Hangars
“NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida has entered into an agreement with the U.S. Air Force’s X-37B Program for use of the center’s Orbiter Processing Facility (OPF) Bays 1 and 2 to process the X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle for launch.”
Y’know, this annoys me. People on the ‘Net keep on insisting that the X-37 is ‘only a test vehicle’. If that’s the case, why does it need processing sites to allow two or more units to be serviced in parallel? Okay, I get the whole ‘classified’ thing but at least say: “Yes, it is a classified spacecraft and for that reason we aren’t going to tell you why we’re using it!” Don’t blankly say: “It’s only a test vehicle so any suggestion of an operational use is ridiculous!”
Well, they are test vehicles. their purpose is pretty obviously to test hardware in space, and then return it to Earth for evaluation. that’s about the only mission profile that makes sense.
they need two bays to process them because there are two of them, and they might not always have one in orbit. between OTV missions 1 and 2, both OTVs were on the ground for 4 months. between OTV missions 2 and 3, both OTVs were on the ground for 6 months.
“at least say: “Yes, it is a classified spacecraft and for that reason we aren’t going to tell you why we’re using it!””
um. that is essentially what is said at every press conference about the X-37B spacecraft.
Agreed. I would not be surprised if after several flights that they took the “lessons learned” and built a follow-on vehicle that was significantly improved.
This is one thing that was not quite done with the space shuttle. After the Challenger disaster, a proposal was made to NASA to build two improved orbiters instead of just one from the “spares”. NASA didn’t pursue this because they didn’t want to support multiple versions of the shuttle. But, the X-37B test program is small enough that I could see building a couple of improved vehicles to replace the two “test” vehicles.
X-37C (lust)
Get this man some emoticons, lol
I agree, however the astronauts were not very positive on the X-37C since its narrow fuselage forced them to sit in single file and in the simplest design variant there was no way for even one of them to sit in the nose behind a windshield. They would have to fly by TV or land on autopilot (which it could of course do perfectly well). The DC was more popular since two crewmembers could sit side by side in the front and hand-fly the craft, although its higher touchdown speed and steeper descent made the landing a little dicier. Ultimately there was no way Boeing was going to compete with its own much safer bet on the CST-100.
There has been talk at the AF of a small fleet of X-37’s provided they can find a way around current financial constraints.
“talk” huh?
by who?
and what purpose would this “small fleet” serve?
“by who?”
The Air Force
“what purpose would this “small fleet” serve?”
The exact same purpose they are serving now, fielding advanced technologies and sensitive cargo while expanding flight envelopes, cross range capabilities as well as higher multiple orbital planes.
In other words, it’s a good test truck!
yeah, you said Air Force already. Who. When. maybe post a link of someone in the Air Force talking about building more X-37Bs.
let me rephrase my question. if they are just testing technology for future satellites, as would make the most sense given their capabilities, then why would they need more than the two they have? let alone a “fleet”?
also, cross range on reentry is not exactly crucial for most spy satellites.
and the military already operates satellites in many orbital inclinations and altitudes. the X-37B isn’t giving them anything special in that regard.
it’s a great test truck, i agree. but i don’t see any need for more than the two that there are.
The Air Force has said they’re testing more than technology for future satellites. They’re also testing the vehicle.
“The primary objectives of the X-37B are twofold: reusable spacecraft technologies for America’s future in space and operating experiments which can be returned to, and examined, on Earth,” states an X-37B fact sheet produced by the Air Force. http://t.space.com/all/2527…
Why is the X-37 designed to stay aloft so long? Testing sensors makes a good story, and it may be true. But, if you’re thinking of weaponizing space, a vehicle that can linger in orbit for years and then using it’s cross range ability guide itself with precision back to Earth, makes a pretty good weapon. And if you’re putting something really nasty in orbit, you’d probably want to bring it back home to check it occasionally.
“cross range” just means that it can alter its trajectory after reentry. you don’t need a spaceplane to do that, and the warheads we have on ballistic missiles are already capable of doing this.
there is no weapon that could be on the X-37B that wouldn’t be easier and faster to deliver with an ICBM
and if you had something “really nasty” it’s much easier to control and and keep it secure on the ground.
In this case “cross range” means that a X-37 type vehicle could maneuver left or right of its orbital path around a 1000 miles during entry. That means from polar orbit, 1/6th of the Earth could be reached from any given orbit.
As for the need for such a vehicle, I agree with you, other means are more effective. However that doesn’t mean the Air Force wouldn’t do the research on operating such a spacecraft in orbit for long periods of time. From their perspective, they need to be prepared for whatever some other country might do.
In the end, I was simply pointing out that there’s more to the X-37 than a “truck” hauling test payloads to orbit and back.
Try googling “x-37b weapons platform”
i’ve looked at a number of crackpot claims that the x-37B could be used as a weapons platform.
the fact of the matter is it would be a terribly limited weapons platform, and that other means of delivering weapons are superior.
Agreed and another reason why is that if it was even suspected that the U.S. military was parking weapons in space it would invite a firestorm of international criticism. Whereas if they just keep them sitting quietly in silos and submarines there is nary a whimper from anyone.
Agreed, I don’t see it as any kind of weapons platform, more of a plug and play test bed for NRO toys, but still damn expensive to get it up there.
it has a payload bay of 7′ by 4′ about the size of a large refridgerator. If it was a electronics weapon it would require a lot of power.. even if it was just a laser pointer to “tag” russian and chinese sats it would still require quite a bit of power. I just do not see how you could have much weapons capability with such a small payload bay and limited by weight restrictions… only 11,000 pounds fully loaded.
Thanks for clearing up my cross range reference.
or park a boomer 12-200 miles off a coastline.
“cross range on reentry is not exactly crucial for most spy satellites”
I realize that’s tongue in cheek since currently they all burn up on reentry. But if they start bringing things back especially classified payloads they would want to have as much control as possible over where it comes down, to avoid some country with sticky fingers getting their hands on it before they do.
Also I would guess that the military would still like to have abort once around capability for polar launches, which was the reason they insisted on 1,000 mile cross range for Shuttle.
good point on the abort once around idea. that does make sense. whatever they’re putting in the X-37B’s payload bay, if there is a problem right after launch they can recover it that way.
Doug, there’s not always a hyperlink associated with “talk”. When I referred to “fleet” I’m talking 5. I am not sure if there is a minimum number designated to use the word fleet (like battalion or regimen that have established numbers)
I though I may have misspoke the reference of “cross range ability” but DrBoyd confirmed what I was trying to say.
The USAF has been grappling with this since the 60’s. Their aspirations for space always seem far grander than what they can actually afford (e.g. Dyna-Soar, MOL, Blue Gemini, space shuttles flying from Vandenburg, and etc.).
Doesn’t every news article contain the word “secret” in the headlines?
Even though the X-37 is an X vehicle the “test” in this test vehicle has been more associated with its payloads than the vehicle itself. Although if more vehicles were to be brought online they would lose the X designation.
Then again there may be more budget in the X category these days.
R&D never sleeps!
What letter do you think it would it be then? It seems like it could fit under a lot of existing ones or they could make a new letter.
My guess is “RC”, as I’m betting any operational role would be tests of space recon sensor pods and deployment of intelligence-gathering cubesats.
Great, two more buildings I can’t get into.
At least it’s for a good cause (there is WORK being done in them). 🙂
Agreed any new work at KSC is good news.
At KSC this past weekend.
Lets see,
Boeing leases OPF-3 to assemble CST-100
Income stream helps keep OPF-1 and OPF-2 viable
Boeing CST-100 gets an oversized award for human crew
Boeing leases OPF-1 and OPF-2 to support X37
move along, nothing to see here.
It looks like Boeing built a nice ship. Very long-term duration and autonomous landing. I don’t know if or how much it is short of contracted performance specs, or if it came in on budget and/or time, but from what I see its a good job.