X-37B

[tater]

Speculation about the nature of X-37B should be here, not the SpaceX thread, IMO.

(& I don't see the utility as a nuclear bomber I could see them characterizing the behavior of fissile materials in space for a number of reasons (nuclear propulsion, for example))

[darthgently]

Wasn't there a rumor/report that it was testing resistance of its own systems or some payload to Van Allen belt radiation and so the increasingly higher orbits and longer durations?   Any way, I don't think it was radiation of the payload, but of the environment

Edited December 21, 2023 by darthgently

[kerbiloid]

On 12/21/2023 at 6:14 PM, tater said:

I don't see the utility as a nuclear bomber

37B is not a bomber itself, it's a prototype of 37C, which is scaled up by 165..180%, so 5 times bigger, and thus will be able to carry a sixpack of the 37B cargo.

So, it's a potential prototype of a maneuvering orbital aeroballistic sudden strike glider, used to place warheads in space on a custom orbit, and return them back if they weren't needed.

On 12/21/2023 at 6:14 PM, tater said:

behavior of fissile materials in space for a number of reasons (nuclear propulsion, for example))

You don't need to test the reactor fissiles launch-by-launch, every time with integer month duration and integer month interval.

Because you dont store the reactor in space, you just use it, so such experiments are irrelevant for the reactor needs.
Several tens of the Soviet nuke-powered sats were flying in space, and the USA could definitely make their own, if they wanted.

It's a test of a pack of fissiles which are not to be used in space, but to be stored in space for years.
You need a clear picture, how will the multi-layer pack of fissiles feel after years of being exposed to the space factors of all kinds.
Including but not limited with long-term unpredictable solar and extragalactic radiation events, vacuum degradation of the materials, electromagnetic fields affecting the circuits and the conducting layers, dust and water particles inside the pressurized hull in zero gravity, etc.

Unless it's a planned control headshot for DimorphosDidymos, it's a physical prototype of a space-storable warhead, able to survive a high-speed re-entry.

Certainly, the SDA  _{Space Development Agency} and PWSA  _{Proliferated Warfighter Space Architecture} initiatives are declared as purely defensive, but 

Quote

The neoconservative think-tank Heritage Foundation called the Space Development Agency a model for the military. In their 2025 Mandate for Leadership, they call to develop new offensive space capabilities to "impose [American] will if necessary".

, and the X-37 warhead petting looks like a logical part of it.

Edited December 22, 2023 by kerbiloid

[Arugela]

In these two pictures it looks like the engine is in slightly different positions. It could be the angle, but I wonder if they have a way to move the engine from side to side to balance the payload or something. the first picture appears to be directly under the circle on the back of the vehicles surface. The second is appears to be closer to the middle and slightly inside the from the hole above it. Or are these pictures from the same location and time? At minimum the plane is farther forward then the round object embedded in the runway in the first photo. And the shadow in the first picture appears to be almost straight back indicating it's aimed at the sun. While the second is almost parallel to the sun with a long shadow to the side.

Edited December 31, 2023 by Arugela

[mikegarrison]

Might be just the angle the picture is taken at. But there are two test vehicles.

As I understand it, it was initially designed to accommodate two engines, but when the decision was made to only use one engine, they just left it off-center. Maybe for the second one they knew that there would only be one engine, so they relocated it closer to the middle? The 3-view on wikipedia indicates that it is for vehicle #2, and it looks a lot like that second picture.

[tater]

Would be cool to see a large version of this vehicle.

[monophonic]

Could be just the angle. Zooming in especially the first image it becomes clear the black "plate" behind the nozzle is actually conical in shape, and its rim is clearly some distance off the backplate of the airframe. (Spaceframe?) Parallax from this offset could explain the apparent difference in engine position at these viewing angles.

On 12/31/2023 at 6:53 AM, tater said:

Would be cool to see a large version of this vehicle.

So the planned X-37C? Could probably still happen if a customer is found, but it might be tough competing with the Dream Chaser in the space plane category and CST-100 on the Boeing line up for commercial uses.

[tater]

 

https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/02/us-militarys-elusive-spaceplane-apparently-found-by-sleuthing-enthusiast/

Quote

Amateur observations of the spaceplane indicate it is flying in a highly elliptical orbit ranging between 201 and 24,133 miles in altitude (323 and 38,838 kilometers). The orbit is inclined 59.1 degrees to the equator.

 

[Shpaget]

Makes you wonder about the point of classifying orbital parameters.

If Tomppa can go to their garden and take multiple pictures of you super secret spaceplane, then post the info for all the world to see, imagine the capabilities of those you are actually hiding the info from.

[StrandedonEarth]

Don't want to make it too easy for them now...

I wonder how the re-entry will work, if it can handle a direct re-entry or if they'll aerobrake the apogee down to a more reasonable level with multiple passes...

[darthgently]

11 hours ago, Shpaget said:

Makes you wonder about the point of classifying orbital parameters.

If Tomppa can go to their garden and take multiple pictures of you super secret spaceplane, then post the info for all the world to see, imagine the capabilities of those you are actually hiding the info from.

Maybe Tomppa is seeing the inflated mylar distraction left in the prior orbit before the X-37B was rotated stealth side to earth and slow-burned into another orbit.   Hey, it isn't impossible

[StrandedonEarth]

40 minutes ago, darthgently said:

Maybe Tomppa is seeing the inflated mylar distraction left in the prior orbit before the X-37B was rotated stealth side to earth and slow-burned into another orbit.   Hey, it isn't impossible

Especially since inclination changes are fairly cheap at apogee, although argument of perigee would be similar…

[tater]

 

[mikegarrison]

Very interesting! This reconciles the claims that have been mentioned before about this being a capability with the observed fact that the X-37 has never done it. Apparently it has only been a potential ability up to now, but now they will test it.

Of course, it has limitations. You can't gain energy in this way, only lose it. So I'm not sure I see a lot of utility for it. Maybe it could have some military uses for making the orbit temporarily unpredictable.

[darthgently]

3 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

Very interesting! This reconciles the claims that have been mentioned before about this being a capability with the observed fact that the X-37 has never done it. Apparently it has only been a potential ability up to now, but now they will test it.

Of course, it has limitations. You can't gain energy in this way, only lose it. So I'm not sure I see a lot of utility for it. Maybe it could have some military uses for making the orbit temporarily unpredictable.

Iirc they were doing some pretty high apoapsis missions, this would be a way to lower that apoapsis to segue into a different mission closer to the planet maybe?  Or maybe just testing that it can do this as designed

[AckSed]

It's a definite possibility. I read an old sci.space.tech post on space-launch guns, and one paper said you could launch several thousand kilometres straight up (like strapping all the boosters to a rocket and blasting through the atmosphere before you blow up), burn a bit at apoapsis to circularise the periapsis to 50-70km, then aerobrake down until your apoapsis is where you want it, then burn again to circularise it up to desired periapsis.

Edited October 11, 2024 by AckSed

[darthgently]

1 hour ago, AckSed said:

It's a definite possibility. I read an old sci.space.tech post on space-launch guns, and one paper said you could launch several thousand kilometres straight up (like strapping all the boosters to a rocket and blasting through the atmosphere before you blow up), burn a bit at apoapsis to circularise the periapsis to 50-70km, then aerobrake down until your apoapsis is where you want it, then burn again to circularise it up to desired periapsis.

My gut says the math would not work out favorably in most cases doing it this way unless the initial high AP was useful for part of the mission.   Must try this in KSP to be certain, ha

[tater]

Every time I read new X-37B news I wish they had scaled it up as their Commercial Crew vehicle.

(a sort of better, flight-tested Dream Chaser)

[darthgently]

3 hours ago, tater said:

Every time I read new X-37B news I wish they had scaled it up as their Commercial Crew vehicle.

(a sort of better, flight-tested Dream Chaser)

I think I called this one when I guessed they might be going for lowering AP over multiple passes many posts back.  Can’t remember now.  I hope this is also tried at Mars and lunar returns with other missions and craft to save fuel and ablative mass

Edited November 2, 2024 by darthgently

[AckSed]

Gunther's Space Page (great and comprehensive resource BTW) says that X37B is a reusable unmanned satellite.

Honestly, I see the point. It stays in orbit for a year or more, does experiments for the DoD then lands again. Only this time it's conducting aerobraking tests.