X-37B military spaceplane launches |
Post Reply |
Author | |
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: 23 Apr 2010 at 9:23am |
A prototype spaceplane developed for the US military has been launched into orbit from Florida.
The X-37B, which has been likened to a scaled-down space shuttle, blasted off from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station at 0052 BST (1952 EDT). The military vehicle is unpiloted and will carry out the first autonomous re-entry and landing in the history of the US space programme. The spacecraft can return experiments to Earth for inspection and analysis. At 9m long (29ft), 4.5m (15ft), the reusable spaceplane is about one quarter the size of the shuttle, with a large engine mounted at the rear of the ship for orbit changing. And while the space shuttle uses a fuel cell power system; the military vehicle is powered by a solar array and lithium-ion batteries. The precise objectives and cost of the programme are secret. But the first few flights will allow officials to evaluate the vehicle's performance and ensure components and systems work the way they are supposed to. More here... |
|
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Second plane The USAF has requisitioned a second experimental plane from the prime contractor Boeing; this is being targeted for launch sometime in 2011. Speculation about the craft's purpose has led to accusations that the project could move us a step closer to the weaponisation of space. It will then autonomously navigate its way to the 4.5km (15,000ft) -long primary runway at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. |
|
VulcanB2
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 13365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Would be a bit dangerous, trying to send a nuclear warhead up there.
More likely to be a way of disabling hostile satellites or even capturing them and bringing the technology back for examination, or to position yourself in front of a hostile satellite to block its communications, or to even knock it out of orbit. Not bad for a remote controlled robot in space, and that is before it carries anything. Imagine being able to pull alongside any satellite you wished, and tamper with it (or repair it) remotely, mini Space Shuttle style. With it being autonomous, its profile would be much lower, too. Launching a Shuttle with 7 crew is a bit in-your-face when you really want to examine that hostile satellite quietly to see what it is packing. Best regards, Vulcan. |
|
Magic Man
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Location: South Wales Points: 5336 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
That cargo bay looks large enough to carry a couple of Space Marines too...
Why do these things still take off vertically, using all that fuel and thrust requirement. Stick it on a launch sled - first step towards Buck Rogers/Battlestar Galactica stuff!
Or even take it up under a 747 or B52...
|
|
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
That's a good point Magic.
They could drop that guy from the bottom of a larger aircraft, at altiude I would have thought.
For larger vehicles Rolls Royce's air breathing rocket engine was consdiered some years ago, in regard to a runway take off. Pity they didn't continue the funding. [HOTOL]
When you consider that almost all of the loosing X-Prize contenders, who are still working toward viable vehicles, take off from runways, or are towed to higher altitudes, it would seem to make more sense. Especially considering this guy isn't much different in mass.
I guess they are sticking to the ''blast it into space'' strategy they know well. Like I've said before, if you want innovation, and cheaper access to space, then it's the private companies that will do it, not wastefull government.
To be fair though, this is a prototype, I guess it would have cost many times more to design something totally new. Mind you, the X-Prize contenders aren't exactly spending billions are they?
|
|
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Would be a bit dangerous, trying to send a nuclear warhead up there.
Only in terms of radioactive material spread around, in the vent of an accident. No danger of detonation.
I guess it's going to do some of the stuff the shuttle used to do, when it retires for good.
Whatever that was. |
|
Slopey
Moderator in Command AirHauler Developer Joined: 11 Jun 2008 Points: 8280 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
But then they'd need to carry more propellant to get it into orbit on the vehicle itself. Using the current staged process, they blast it up there using the rocket and then insert it into orbit without having to carry a load of fuel. So you get more payload and onboard space/weight for your buck than you would if you had to fire it up there by other means. Launching from a vehicle isn't necessarily better - you still need more power/fuel on the vehicle itself, or again, a staged process with a rocket - that's easier to assemble and fly from the ground. You're only going to get 30-40k feet from an airborne launch which the ground based launch will attain very quickly, accelerating all the time to escape velocity, so it's not that much of a win given the infrastructure you need to launch airborne, for now anyway. |
|
AirHauler Developer
For AH2 queries - PLEASE USE THE EA Forums as the first port of call. |
|
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
But then they'd need to carry more propellant to get it into orbit on the vehicle itself.
The advantage is that you get free lift from the aircrafts wings. Aerodynamic lift assist in raising the vehicle skyward, which is far more efficient than a rocket launch. With a direct rocket launch from the ground you don't get aerodynamic lift.
Better to have thrust from your engines, plus free lift from the wings for part of the launch, than thrust only and no free aerodynamic lift.
Launching from a vehicle isn't necessarily better
That depends, Rutan's Space Ship one relied on the method. There's an X-Plane contender thats using a towing system to reach altitude, and then the vehicles own power to orbit.
|
|
Post Reply | |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |