Talk:Boeing X-37: Difference between revisions
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
Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Boeing X-37 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I disagree. The wording just needs to be adjusted to state them as general capabilities, not official design requirements. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- 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)
- A master's thesis is generally reviewed the author's committee and can be used with proper care per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The text in that section is largely supposed to cover original goals/info before the transfer to DoD. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- In this case: an educated guess, however scholar and competent, is still speculation. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- The thesis has multiple sources cited throughout it. The satellite repair quote seems to originate in a 1999 NASA press release and is repeated in some later sources. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- 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)
- In this case: an educated guess, however scholar and competent, is still speculation. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
External links modified
- Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
... by—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
- Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
- B-Class spaceflight articles
- High-importance spaceflight articles
- WikiProject Spaceflight articles
- B-Class aviation articles
- B-Class aircraft articles
- WikiProject Aircraft articles
- WikiProject Aviation articles
- B-Class military history articles
- B-Class military aviation articles
- Military aviation task force articles
- B-Class intelligence articles
- Intelligence task force articles
- B-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- B-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- B-Class Robotics articles
- Mid-importance Robotics articles
- WikiProject Robotics articles
- B-Class Rocketry articles
- Mid-importance Rocketry articles
- WikiProject Rocketry articles