Secret USAF Space Shuttle!
Discussion
"Somewhere above earth is America’s latest spaceship, a 30ft craft so classified that the Pentagon will not divulge its mission nor how much it cost to build.
The mysterious X37B, launched successfully by the US Air Force from Cape Canaveral on Thursday, using an Atlas V rocket, looks like a mini-Space Shuttle — but its mission is top secret.
It is officially described as an orbital test vehicle. However, one of its potential uses appears to be to launch a surge of small satellites during periods of high international tension. This would enable America to have eyes and ears orbiting above any potential troublespot in the world.
The X37B can stay in orbit for up to 270 days, whereas the Shuttle can last only 16 days. This will provide the US with the ability to carry out experiments for long periods, including the testing of new laser weapon systems. This would bring accusations that the launch of X37B, and a second vehicle planned for later this year, could lead to the militarisation of space.
Related Links
US defence officials, who would not say how much the project had cost, insisted, however, that it was “just an updated version of the Space Shuttle activities”.
Thursday’s launch was more about testing the craft, a new generation of silica tile and a wealth of other advances that make the Shuttle look like yesterday’s space technology.
Nasa’s X37B programme began in 1999 and ran until September 2004 when it was transferred to the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency before being taken over by the US Air Force.
The flight of the X37B is being managed by the US Air Force Space Command’s 3rd Space Experimental Squadron.
“This bird has been through all of the shake, rattle and roll, the vibration tests, the acoustic tests that any spacecraft would go through,” said Gary Payton, Under Secretary of the Air Force for Space Programmes.
With all the focus on the launch of the secret X37B, another space launch by a Minotaur IV rocket from Vandenberg Air Force base in California received less attention.
It was carrying the prototype of a new weapon that can hit any target around the world in less than an hour.
The Prompt Global Strike is designed as the conventional weapon of the future. It could hit Osama bin Laden’s cave, an Iranian nuclear site or a North Korean missile with a huge conventional warhead."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and...
The mysterious X37B, launched successfully by the US Air Force from Cape Canaveral on Thursday, using an Atlas V rocket, looks like a mini-Space Shuttle — but its mission is top secret.
It is officially described as an orbital test vehicle. However, one of its potential uses appears to be to launch a surge of small satellites during periods of high international tension. This would enable America to have eyes and ears orbiting above any potential troublespot in the world.
The X37B can stay in orbit for up to 270 days, whereas the Shuttle can last only 16 days. This will provide the US with the ability to carry out experiments for long periods, including the testing of new laser weapon systems. This would bring accusations that the launch of X37B, and a second vehicle planned for later this year, could lead to the militarisation of space.
Related Links
US defence officials, who would not say how much the project had cost, insisted, however, that it was “just an updated version of the Space Shuttle activities”.
Thursday’s launch was more about testing the craft, a new generation of silica tile and a wealth of other advances that make the Shuttle look like yesterday’s space technology.
Nasa’s X37B programme began in 1999 and ran until September 2004 when it was transferred to the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency before being taken over by the US Air Force.
The flight of the X37B is being managed by the US Air Force Space Command’s 3rd Space Experimental Squadron.
“This bird has been through all of the shake, rattle and roll, the vibration tests, the acoustic tests that any spacecraft would go through,” said Gary Payton, Under Secretary of the Air Force for Space Programmes.
With all the focus on the launch of the secret X37B, another space launch by a Minotaur IV rocket from Vandenberg Air Force base in California received less attention.
It was carrying the prototype of a new weapon that can hit any target around the world in less than an hour.
The Prompt Global Strike is designed as the conventional weapon of the future. It could hit Osama bin Laden’s cave, an Iranian nuclear site or a North Korean missile with a huge conventional warhead."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and...
This was reported in The Register several weeks ago, wasn't it? The Times really need to keep up.
Edit: In fact, almost a month ago. See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/21/x37b_secre...
Edit: In fact, almost a month ago. See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/21/x37b_secre...
Edited by JonRB on Sunday 23 May 23:02
Old news.
It was launched a few weeks ago and at least two related threads were started on PH. The project is well documented and dates back to the early 1990s. It was originally funded as a civilian NASA project with a view to it becoming the basis of a Shuttle replacement. However, NASA as re-directed by President Bush into the capsule based Ares programme (since cancelled by Obama). The X-37 project was passed over to the US Department of Defense.
Not secret.
Not a mystery.
Not a genuine news article - apart from the actual launch a few weeks ago.
It was launched a few weeks ago and at least two related threads were started on PH. The project is well documented and dates back to the early 1990s. It was originally funded as a civilian NASA project with a view to it becoming the basis of a Shuttle replacement. However, NASA as re-directed by President Bush into the capsule based Ares programme (since cancelled by Obama). The X-37 project was passed over to the US Department of Defense.
Not secret.
Not a mystery.
Not a genuine news article - apart from the actual launch a few weeks ago.
The Hypno-Toad said:
The reason if Aurora did ever exist, it doesn't now.
I thought I read that you will always need spy planes of some description because there will always be a delay in using satellites whereas something like Aurora (if it exists) could be anywhere in the world inside an hour.Also, don't know if this is true, I'm sure someone on here will know but this was on the Wiki page about the Aurora plane:
"On April 23, 2010, the US Air Force carried out a test launch of an unmanned hypersonic glider, the Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2. The Falcon's reported ability to use sound waves to propel it up to speeds of Mach 20 (20,000km/h) have led aviation insiders to claim it may be the official use of the Aurora's technology."
It's probably BS but sounds interesting!
Gun said:
The Hypno-Toad said:
The reason if Aurora did ever exist, it doesn't now.
I thought I read that you will always need spy planes of some description because there will always be a delay in using satellites whereas something like Aurora (if it exists) could be anywhere in the world inside an hour.Also, don't know if this is true, I'm sure someone on here will know but this was on the Wiki page about the Aurora plane:
"On April 23, 2010, the US Air Force carried out a test launch of an unmanned hypersonic glider, the Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2. The Falcon's reported ability to use sound waves to propel it up to speeds of Mach 20 (20,000km/h) have led aviation insiders to claim it may be the official use of the Aurora's technology."
It's probably BS but sounds interesting!
Maintaining very high Mach numbers within the atmosphere is proving EXTREMELY difficult. The USAF and NASA have been trying out hypersonic technology for dercades but they haven't really been able top make it work properly yet. The Space Shuttle, of course, experiences hypersonic flight during re-entry but it only has to survive it for about ten to fifteen minutes - and even then it is an extremely dangerous part of the mission.
The space shuttle isnt "flying" during re-entry, its in little more than controlled falling. The software is also extremely tightly written around exact specifics. There is no/little deviation from the gameplan during, well actually pretty much all of the space shuttle mission params.
With the latest funky monkey stuff you are talking of much wider params, your software is infinitely more complex no matter which way round you do it. An open loop dynamic flight control system for prolonged mach 20 atmospheric flight? That is a budget NASA simply doesnt have at the moment, hence the rationalising of their progs over the last few years. NASA has had its funding slashed since their heyday, granted DARPA have taken significant portions of it, but still, they have been under pressure to make use and show returns on fewer platforms and projects. The X37B is seen by quite a few as a very commercially viable vehicle.
With the latest funky monkey stuff you are talking of much wider params, your software is infinitely more complex no matter which way round you do it. An open loop dynamic flight control system for prolonged mach 20 atmospheric flight? That is a budget NASA simply doesnt have at the moment, hence the rationalising of their progs over the last few years. NASA has had its funding slashed since their heyday, granted DARPA have taken significant portions of it, but still, they have been under pressure to make use and show returns on fewer platforms and projects. The X37B is seen by quite a few as a very commercially viable vehicle.
I'm a bit amazed by your definition of "flying". Granted, the Shuttle is not the most effecient aerodynamic vehicle ever invented but there is no doubt that it is being contraolled aerodynamically at high Mach numbers and it certainly is gliding in to a landing.
Obviously, at very high Mach numbers, even an unaerodynamic shape will create lift. The Apollo Command Module (and the Orion Capsule - which may yet be repreived) generate aerodynamic lift. By the end of the Apollo missions, the Command Mosule was being directed to spashdowns less than a mile from the recovery fleet. In fact, the astronauts used to joke that they could land the spacecraft on the carrier deck - especially the ex-navy pilots.
Obviously, at very high Mach numbers, even an unaerodynamic shape will create lift. The Apollo Command Module (and the Orion Capsule - which may yet be repreived) generate aerodynamic lift. By the end of the Apollo missions, the Command Mosule was being directed to spashdowns less than a mile from the recovery fleet. In fact, the astronauts used to joke that they could land the spacecraft on the carrier deck - especially the ex-navy pilots.
Gun said:
The Hypno-Toad said:
The reason if Aurora did ever exist, it doesn't now.
I thought I read that you will always need spy planes of some description because there will always be a delay in using satellites whereas something like Aurora (if it exists) could be anywhere in the world inside an hour.Also, don't know if this is true, I'm sure someone on here will know but this was on the Wiki page about the Aurora plane:
"On April 23, 2010, the US Air Force carried out a test launch of an unmanned hypersonic glider, the Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2. The Falcon's reported ability to use sound waves to propel it up to speeds of Mach 20 (20,000km/h) have led aviation insiders to claim it may be the official use of the Aurora's technology."
It's probably BS but sounds interesting!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_cook
It mentioned Aurora and an heat signature or exhaust (I really can't remember) that implied an aeroplane that was traveling at Mach 10 (I think) out of Area 51/Groom Lake.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b80z43IwWvI&fea...
had to find it and ad it since my powers of recall were so flakey
Edited by Halb on Monday 24th May 11:52
Not likely - to be honest.
Area 51 isn't big enough to contain the flight path of an aircraft travelling at Mach 10. At nearly 7,000 miles an hour it would get from one side of Area 51 to another in about 13 seconds. And it would need much more space top accelerate up to Mach 10 and then decelerate back down to landing speed. Area 51 is about 26 miles wide at its laregest measurement. Granted, there is an awful lot of desert around Area 51 but keeping an object travelling at those speeds within boundaries where its existence is hidden would be near impossible.
Area 51 isn't big enough to contain the flight path of an aircraft travelling at Mach 10. At nearly 7,000 miles an hour it would get from one side of Area 51 to another in about 13 seconds. And it would need much more space top accelerate up to Mach 10 and then decelerate back down to landing speed. Area 51 is about 26 miles wide at its laregest measurement. Granted, there is an awful lot of desert around Area 51 but keeping an object travelling at those speeds within boundaries where its existence is hidden would be near impossible.
Eric Mc said:
Not likely - to be honest.
Area 51 isn't big enough to contain the flight path of an aircraft travelling at Mach 10. At nearly 7,000 miles an hour it would get from one side of Area 51 to another in about 13 seconds. And it would need much more space top accelerate up to Mach 10 and then decelerate back down to landing speed. Area 51 is about 26 miles wide at its laregest measurement. Granted, there is an awful lot of desert around Area 51 but keeping an object travelling at those speeds within boundaries where its existence is hidden would be near impossible.
Sorry. Seen my edit? My post wasn't very clear. I meant it originated out of Area 51. I have no hard feelings on this, but like to read/watch aboot itArea 51 isn't big enough to contain the flight path of an aircraft travelling at Mach 10. At nearly 7,000 miles an hour it would get from one side of Area 51 to another in about 13 seconds. And it would need much more space top accelerate up to Mach 10 and then decelerate back down to landing speed. Area 51 is about 26 miles wide at its laregest measurement. Granted, there is an awful lot of desert around Area 51 but keeping an object travelling at those speeds within boundaries where its existence is hidden would be near impossible.
Eric Mc said:
I'm a bit amazed by your definition of "flying". Granted, the Shuttle is not the most effecient aerodynamic vehicle ever invented but there is no doubt that it is being contraolled aerodynamically at high Mach numbers and it certainly is gliding in to a landing.
Obviously, at very high Mach numbers, even an unaerodynamic shape will create lift. The Apollo Command Module (and the Orion Capsule - which may yet be repreived) generate aerodynamic lift. By the end of the Apollo missions, the Command Mosule was being directed to spashdowns less than a mile from the recovery fleet. In fact, the astronauts used to joke that they could land the spacecraft on the carrier deck - especially the ex-navy pilots.
The initial flight in the atmosphere is being controlled aerodynamically for sure, but it's a long way from what most would consider "flying", I think. 40 degrees AoA and 70 degrees of bank, specifically to avoid any lift from the wings.Obviously, at very high Mach numbers, even an unaerodynamic shape will create lift. The Apollo Command Module (and the Orion Capsule - which may yet be repreived) generate aerodynamic lift. By the end of the Apollo missions, the Command Mosule was being directed to spashdowns less than a mile from the recovery fleet. In fact, the astronauts used to joke that they could land the spacecraft on the carrier deck - especially the ex-navy pilots.
All semantics of course, but for the layman, "controlled falling" probably gives a better idea of the reality, IMO.
The Black Flash said:
Eric Mc said:
I'm a bit amazed by your definition of "flying". Granted, the Shuttle is not the most effecient aerodynamic vehicle ever invented but there is no doubt that it is being contraolled aerodynamically at high Mach numbers and it certainly is gliding in to a landing.
Obviously, at very high Mach numbers, even an unaerodynamic shape will create lift. The Apollo Command Module (and the Orion Capsule - which may yet be repreived) generate aerodynamic lift. By the end of the Apollo missions, the Command Mosule was being directed to spashdowns less than a mile from the recovery fleet. In fact, the astronauts used to joke that they could land the spacecraft on the carrier deck - especially the ex-navy pilots.
The initial flight in the atmosphere is being controlled aerodynamically for sure, but it's a long way from what most would consider "flying", I think. 40 degrees AoA and 70 degrees of bank, specifically to avoid any lift from the wings.Obviously, at very high Mach numbers, even an unaerodynamic shape will create lift. The Apollo Command Module (and the Orion Capsule - which may yet be repreived) generate aerodynamic lift. By the end of the Apollo missions, the Command Mosule was being directed to spashdowns less than a mile from the recovery fleet. In fact, the astronauts used to joke that they could land the spacecraft on the carrier deck - especially the ex-navy pilots.
All semantics of course, but for the layman, "controlled falling" probably gives a better idea of the reality, IMO.
What the Shuttle does at high altitude is different to what it does at low altitude.
Its Angle of Attack at 40% is not relevant in any argument abouit whether it's flying or not. I have seen many military and aerobatic aircraft easilly exceed AoAs much higher than 40 degtrees.
It's rate of descent and angle of descent on approach to the runway is very steep by normal aircraft standards - 22 degrees as opposed to 3 degrees for a normal airliner. But many military fighter aircraft of the 1950s had steep angles of approach and the lifting body aircarft tested by NASA in the 1960s and 70s were even worse flyers than the Shuttle - but no one denied they were flying.
Much of the way the Shuttle is flown during its descent from orbit is not due to any shortcomings in its flying characteristics, but more to do with energy management and bleeding off speed and altitude at a controlled rate so that it arrives over the end of the runway at just the right speed and rate of descent to allow the final flare before touchdown.
Eric Mc said:
The Black Flash said:
Eric Mc said:
I'm a bit amazed by your definition of "flying". Granted, the Shuttle is not the most effecient aerodynamic vehicle ever invented but there is no doubt that it is being contraolled aerodynamically at high Mach numbers and it certainly is gliding in to a landing.
Obviously, at very high Mach numbers, even an unaerodynamic shape will create lift. The Apollo Command Module (and the Orion Capsule - which may yet be repreived) generate aerodynamic lift. By the end of the Apollo missions, the Command Mosule was being directed to spashdowns less than a mile from the recovery fleet. In fact, the astronauts used to joke that they could land the spacecraft on the carrier deck - especially the ex-navy pilots.
The initial flight in the atmosphere is being controlled aerodynamically for sure, but it's a long way from what most would consider "flying", I think. 40 degrees AoA and 70 degrees of bank, specifically to avoid any lift from the wings.Obviously, at very high Mach numbers, even an unaerodynamic shape will create lift. The Apollo Command Module (and the Orion Capsule - which may yet be repreived) generate aerodynamic lift. By the end of the Apollo missions, the Command Mosule was being directed to spashdowns less than a mile from the recovery fleet. In fact, the astronauts used to joke that they could land the spacecraft on the carrier deck - especially the ex-navy pilots.
All semantics of course, but for the layman, "controlled falling" probably gives a better idea of the reality, IMO.
What the Shuttle does at high altitude is different to what it does at low altitude.
Its Angle of Attack at 40% is not relevant in any argument abouit whether it's flying or not. I have seen many military and aerobatic aircraft easilly exceed AoAs much higher than 40 degtrees.
It's rate of descent and angle of descent on approach to the runway is very steep by normal aircraft standards - 22 degrees as opposed to 3 degrees for a normal airliner. But many military fighter aircraft of the 1950s had steep angles of approach and the lifting body aircarft tested by NASA in the 1960s and 70s were even worse flyers than the Shuttle - but no one denied they were flying.
Much of the way the Shuttle is flown during its descent from orbit is not due to any shortcomings in its flying characteristics, but more to do with energy management and bleeding off speed and altitude at a controlled rate so that it arrives over the end of the runway at just the right speed and rate of descent to allow the final flare before touchdown.
What the Space Shuttle can and cant do are very very tightly defined. The reason for this is very very simple...the software wont allow it. The params of the descent are set, the job of the pilot is not to "fly" the aircraft in the given sense, but to keep the craft to within those sets of params to follow that flight plan. They are in a very very controlled and tightly regulated fall, that if they they get it right, pretty much lets them put it down smack on an X painted on the runway. They have f'all fuel to get themselves out of trouble, the aircraft is in such an aero state that there is very very little they can actually do to *force* it to do anything different until the few minutes of flight. The skill in their "flying" IS in keeping the aircraft within the rigid flight prog. because all the damn thing wants to do is kill you. If the aircraft does anything else except what has been determined for it, it will kill you. The pilots have a massively small window of slack to work with, they are trying to keep it within that small margin, the aircraft just wants to depart from it, every step of the way till the last thou of foot.
"Controlling a space shuttle is almost the opposite of flying. Thats why you have to be a damn good pilot to fly one." An almost word for word quote from a gentleman who knew a thing or two about putting shuttles wheels down and who I had the priveledge of working with for a while. He knew more about flying and taught a cocky little twit of an engineer more than the rest of his first decade in the game altogether.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff