Second Boeing-built unmanned space plane set to launch Friday - Polidicks

[quote] The Air Force is scheduled to launch its second Boeing-built X-37B unmanned space shuttle Friday. The X-37B is the first U.S. unmanned vehicle to return from space and land on its own and the only space vehicle other than the space shuttle that is capable of returning to earth for reuse. The first X-37B completed its first mission in December, landing at Vandenberg Air Force Base, in California, after 220 days in space. The X-37B has been in development for about a decade, involving the Air Force, NASA and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. A 2006 Air Force article said the vehicle is intended to allow government scientists to test advanced technology in orbit, but the Air Force has since been silent on its purpose. The nonprofit [URL="http://www.ucsusa.org/"]Union of Concerned Scientists[/URL] argued Tuesday that the vehicle has no real use. “Because of its weight and relative lack of maneuverability, the space plane is not well-suited for a number of missions,” Laura Grego, a senior scientist with the group’s Global Security Program said in a news release. “For example, it would have a harder time carrying payloads into orbit, maneuvering in space, rendezvousing with satellites, and releasing multiple payloads. Yes, the space plane 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.” The space plane does not make sense as a space weapon or for deploying space weapons, Grego added, refuting some darker suspicions about the vehicle.[/quote][URL]http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/2011/03/02/boeing-built-unmanned-space-plane-set-to-launch-friday/[/URL] [img]http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/files/2011/03/X-37B-landing.jpg[/img] I hope there's a stream we can watch it on, should be pretty interesting.

Here's the picture. [media]http://i56.tinypic.com/2iieu02.jpg[/media] If he refuted darker suspicions, then he's reached the consensus the space plane isn't worth the money they payed to design and build it. And due to lack of maneuverability, it can't replace the space shuttle, or rather, it probably won't. They claim it's for more testing of devices in space, but they don't want to do the research on the ISS and want to keep it secret? What gives.

Probably an orbital bomber, it makes sense since the space shuttle's design partly came from a possible need to bomb the soviets and since they're being retired, they're making this just in case. Or like they said, it's for testing devices [editline]2nd March 2011[/editline] My guess is proof of concept. This does have a scramjet engine right?

What a 'space' of a plane.

[QUOTE=Dr.C;28396580]Probably an orbital bomber, it makes sense since the space shuttle's design partly came from a possible need to bomb the soviets and since they're being retired, they're making this just in case. Or like they said, it's for testing devices [editline]2nd March 2011[/editline] My guess is proof of concept. This does have a scramjet engine right?[/QUOTE] Poor maneuverability rules it out as a functional bomber. I guess I don't really see the point of this. A standard rocket (non-reusable) would be simpler and cheaper. This vehicle just means the payload must be smaller and lighter and expensive maintenance will be needed to get it ready for new flights.

[QUOTE=Dr.C;28396580]Probably an orbital bomber, it makes sense since the space shuttle's design partly came from a possible need to bomb the soviets and since they're being retired, they're making this just in case. Or like they said, it's for testing devices [editline]2nd March 2011[/editline] My guess is proof of concept. This does have a scramjet engine right?[/QUOTE] It's pretty obvious from the lack of a vent that it's not a scramjet.

so what will replace space shuttles in manned flight? this thing looks fabulous, even if no one is inside.

[QUOTE=seano12;28396707]What a 'space' of a plane.[/QUOTE] You're trying too hard.

[QUOTE=keroba2;28398709]so what will replace space shuttles in manned flight? this thing looks fabulous, even if no one is inside.[/QUOTE] Nasa invested into making pod like crafts like in the Apollo missions, just bigger more advanced versions of it. What I don't understand is why they don't invest in research into alternative methods of getting into space rather than launching people on the back of fuel buckets.

[QUOTE=deathstarboot;28398996]What I don't understand is why they don't invest in research into alternative methods of getting into space rather than launching people on the back of fuel buckets.[/QUOTE] They do. Problem is that nobody came with really generally satisfying solution. We apparently don't have tough enough strand for space elevator, scramjets are very delicate and need more research. Using rockets is just still most reliable and economical solution so far.

[QUOTE=deathstarboot;28398996]Nasa invested into making pod like crafts like in the Apollo missions, just bigger more advanced versions of it. What I don't understand is why they don't invest in research into alternative methods of getting into space rather than launching people on the back of fuel buckets.[/QUOTE] Main reason we still use "fuel buckets" is because all the other options to get a man into low earth orbit would either cost trillions of dollars or are only theoretically possible(i.e. space elevators, launch loops. etc.).

[QUOTE=deathstarboot;28398996]Nasa invested into making pod like crafts like in the Apollo missions, just bigger more advanced versions of it. What I don't understand is why they don't invest in research into alternative methods of getting into space rather than launching people on the back of fuel buckets.[/QUOTE] Because fuel buckets are cheap and easier to make that some theoretical project that will take 10 years and will therefore be cancelled by the next administration. See: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_dumb_booster[/url] We build rockets because those are less affected by politics that a GLORIOUS LAUNCH LOOP or something.

Keep in mind that the military would probably like to keep what ever research they do a secret, that's why its not on the ISS or uses conventional rockets that may rely on international companies to help construct. plus space planes are fucking cool The annoying thing about this one though is that NASA paid out most of the expenses for the RnD and development and the DoD came and swooped it up and made it classified.

Looks like a bigger version of John Chritons module...

Does any one remember the video that popped up on you tube? It was like a guy with the camera in his jacket? I thought it was fake. But now! Guess its real

[QUOTE=deathstarboot;28398996]Nasa invested into making pod like crafts like in the Apollo missions, just bigger more advanced versions of it.[/QUOTE] like this? [img_thumb]http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn9825/dn9825-2_700.jpg[/img_thumb]

[QUOTE=Eudoxia;28399927]Because fuel buckets are cheap and easier to make that some theoretical project that will take 10 years and will therefore be cancelled by the next administration. See: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_dumb_booster[/url] We build rockets because those are less affected by politics that a GLORIOUS LAUNCH LOOP or something.[/QUOTE] I might add that single-stage-to-orbit is also a set a concepts that have been thought up several times but there is usually a technical issue (like the fuel must be stored at such great pressure that the tank's walls must be too thick and heavy thus the ships overall tare weight increases past the theoretical maximum). Sometimes cost alone isn't the deciding factor.

[QUOTE=HatredViral;28397836]It's pretty obvious from the lack of a vent that it's not a scramjet.[/QUOTE] I thought the x-37 had a scramjet engine but I guess I confused it with a different x-project

[QUOTE=seano12;28396707]What a 'space' of a plane.[/QUOTE] That was an astronomically terrible pun.

[QUOTE=Dr.C;28414047]I thought the x-37 had a scramjet engine but I guess I confused it with a different x-project[/QUOTE] X-43 or X-51

[QUOTE=ChristopherB;28413929]I might add that single-stage-to-orbit is also a set a concepts that have been thought up several times but there is usually a technical issue (like the fuel must be stored at such great pressure that the tank's walls must be too thick and heavy thus the ships overall tare weight increases past the theoretical maximum). Sometimes cost alone isn't the deciding factor.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I'm kinda on the fence about SSTO. Skylon looks rather feasible, even though I have heard an (Apparently) mechanical engineer friend of mine talk about how the design was flawed, I can't remember much besides "It's too complicated" and "They are really going through with this?". On the side of Nuclear SSTO, well, the thrust-to-weight ratio is shit, as it turns out, so a nuclear spaceplane, besides being horribly expensive and dragging behind itself the crowd of Greenpeace luddites, would probably not be much better than our canned primates riding fireworks. I have a source for this, somewhere. EDIT: Well, I do: [url]http://selenianboondocks.com/2010/06/ssto-ntr-bad/[/url]

There are so many SSTO concepts it is difficult to cover them all at once. As an aerospace engineering student SSTO is one of my favorite subjects in the field. The Orion project is an interesting as an SSTO concept.

Pretty cool to think that the rocket that caries an AirForce hush hush program is powered by russian engines. :D

[QUOTE=Boeing787;28465028]Pretty cool to think that the rocket that caries an AirForce hush hush program is powered by russian engines. :D[/QUOTE] That means it will probably fall apart halfway there.

[media]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Boeing_X-37B_inside_payload_fairing_before_launch.jpg[/media] I don't even care what it does

Launch nuclear missle bombs out of the back.

[QUOTE=ChristopherB;28397083]Poor maneuverability rules it out as a functional bomber.[/QUOTE] Having poor maneuverability isn't really too much of a problem when you can bomb your targets from 100KM above them and you can travel at many times the speed of sound.

[QUOTE=sltungle;28471817]Having poor maneuverability isn't really too much of a problem when you can bomb your targets from 100KM above them and you can travel at many times the speed of sound.[/QUOTE] If you have ordinance that accurate an ICBM or even a civilian booster rocket would be a much cheaper, more effective means of deploying the weapon. You don't need a minishuttle to deliver orbital bombardments.

The picture made it seem pretty big [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/92/The_X-37B_OTV_is_inspected_after_landing_at_Vandenberg_Air_Force_Base%2C_California.jpg/800px-The_X-37B_OTV_is_inspected_after_landing_at_Vandenberg_Air_Force_Base%2C_California.jpg[/img] it is tiny :saddowns:

Tiny spaceship for tiny baby team.