Jump to content

Talk:Boeing X-37: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Move sections 5 yr old or more to Archive 1 page
EmDrive: new section
Line 57: Line 57:
== What have Boeing said about X-37C since 2012 ==
== What have Boeing said about X-37C since 2012 ==
What have Boeing said about X-37C since 2012 ? Have they ever applied for US govt funding for the development ? Has NASA or anyone expressed interest in it ? - [[User:Rod57|Rod57]] ([[User talk:Rod57|talk]]) 11:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
What have Boeing said about X-37C since 2012 ? Have they ever applied for US govt funding for the development ? Has NASA or anyone expressed interest in it ? - [[User:Rod57|Rod57]] ([[User talk:Rod57|talk]]) 11:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

== EmDrive ==

Interesting that they "are not pursuing this". Did Boeing find something unusual during testing?
I have some ideas suggesting that the whole thing might have been as others have said a measurement error
however during testing a genuine effect of a different type was found. If so then the technology may still be useful but in
terms of producing more thrust using a different construction. Other scientists notably Shawyer have
developed alternative tests involving optical analogs and microcavities driven by a laser rather than the
earlier microwave generators and these may work by leveraging the Casimir effect or something related.

Revision as of 10:29, 28 February 2020

Mission goals (Development - Origin)

Under the sub-section of Origin: ' As part of its mission goals, the X-37 was designed to rendezvous with satellites to refuel them, or to replace failed solar arrays using a robotic arm. Its payload could also support Space Control (Defensive Counter-Space, Offensive Counter-Space), Force Enhancement and Force Application systems. ' which cites a paper from the U. S. Air University. From that source, it seems to come from the sub-section "Exploring the military potential of the X-37" (P. 14) ' Under the second mission area of Space Support the X-37 can be used to carry out a variety of tasks that support space through deploying satellites, recovering damaged or malfunctioned satellites, or re-fueling or repairing satellites already in orbit. ' IMO, that was the opinion of the author of the paper, rather than the objective of the USAF/project. Thoughts? ---Now wiki (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The project and its objective is a top secret. I don't think we should start listing all educated guesses, and so, I would delete that entry. CHeers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely agree. Until something firm comes about, everything is speculation, which is not acceptable in the article. Huntster (t @ c) 04:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do we know that these are actual capabilities and not author conclusions? That was the question put forth by the OP, and one which I agree with. For that matter, I'm not really comfortable with including a thesis paper as a citation. Huntster (t @ c) 19:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In this case: an educated guess, however scholar and competent, is still speculation. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, WP:SCHOLARSHIP specifically addresses this by stating that "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." I think they're talking about stuff like Claude Shannon's thesis, not this one. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PDF Rendering Download of Boeing X-37 has been Blocked by forces outside Wikipedia

PDF Rendering Download of Boeing X-37 has been Blocked by forces outside Wikipedia as well as sister article USA-226 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.121.47 (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the "Download as PDF" link to the left of the article? Works find for me on both articles. Other than that, I'm not sure what you're referring to. Huntster (t @ c) 21:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... by—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Engine, thrust, propellant and delta-V

What has been revealed or conjectured about the engine details and capabilities ? - Rod57 (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What have Boeing said about X-37C since 2012

What have Boeing said about X-37C since 2012 ? Have they ever applied for US govt funding for the development ? Has NASA or anyone expressed interest in it ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EmDrive

Interesting that they "are not pursuing this". Did Boeing find something unusual during testing? I have some ideas suggesting that the whole thing might have been as others have said a measurement error however during testing a genuine effect of a different type was found. If so then the technology may still be useful but in terms of producing more thrust using a different construction. Other scientists notably Shawyer have developed alternative tests involving optical analogs and microcavities driven by a laser rather than the earlier microwave generators and these may work by leveraging the Casimir effect or something related.