Talk:Boeing X-37

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Template:WPSpace

old comments

(edit: Actually this change was due to the high cost of shuttle flights, and predated the Columbia disaster by several YEARS. The X-37 program tried to qualify as a "secondary payload" to get a discounted rate, but that idea was scuttled since it would take up more than half the payload bay.)

To 24.52.222.16: Can this be verified? Seems like speculation. Also, please integrate future edits in a more proper manner. Thanks. -Joseph (Talk) 15:54, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)

Purpose?

So the LRO are being delayed because of this craft. At least it is a spacecraft and not some goofy UAV fighter. What is the purpose of the X-37? What would the Air Force use this technology for? What would it be able to do? Act as an Space Shuttle replacement? Put satellites into orbit? What? --83.89.0.118 (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, the answers to most of my questions apppear under "History", of all places. --83.89.0.118 (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out-of-Date Propulsion

I removed the propulsion (Rocketdyne AR2-3) claim becuase out of several sources, only one mentioned it, and it's not present (or at least not verifiable in any model yet). If someone wants to add it back in, we should probably have good source for it, as well as information about the engine itself, which is sorely lacking about the AR2-3. Teyrana (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable. Provide an edit summary with your edits and this message would probably not be needed though. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

Why is the separate X-37B OTV-1 article needed? The content is largely covered here now. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This article should cover the vehicle itself, whilst the OTV-1 article should cover the specific details of the mission. It's the same as having separate articles for Soyuz and Space Shuttle missions. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 21:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote, just asking why since there's nothing on the talk pages of either article. That's fine. The OTV-1 article looks like it is covering the X-37B itself to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The OTV article was adjusted to make its purpose clear. It should have been done well before this.. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

120%?

Article currently says this is 120% of the size of the Boeing X-40, but that article says it's an 85% size model of the X-37. The math doesn't add up. Which is correct? (Crossposted to the other article) Tempshill (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are close. 1/1.2 = 0.8333 or 83.3 %. The NASA X-37A fact sheet says 120% of X-40. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why no passengers?

The Shuttle is scheduled to be retired this year. Why isn't this going to be used to carry passengers to/from the ISS? Does the military have an exclusive on this?173.58.251.147 (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The X-37 is just a test vehicle and has to ride on a launch vehicle. It is not that big anyway. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was originally intended to carry passengers - until the Air Force took over. Why aren't they using this to ferry crew to/from ISS?173.58.251.147 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Not the X-37 itself. There was a proposed scaled up spaceplane that would have carried a crew (see Orbital Space Plane and Crew Exploration Vehicle). -Fnlayson (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

possible spec source

There is an article about the upcoming launch of the X-37B with some vehicle specifications – maybe someone can review them? See: http://www.physorg.com/news189528362.html --62.214.200.22 (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I believe the page X-37B OTV-1 would be better off worked as a section of this page. There's not much there that isn't here, and it's unlikely, IMHO, that there'll be much more information specific to OTV-1 that couldn't simply be added to the main page. - The Bushranger (talk) 03:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this article will focus primarily on the actual mission of this vehicle (at least as much as is released) in a greater detail than what would be allowed per WP:SUMMARY for the main X-37 article which should focus more on the big-picture of the entire program, development, etc. This is a common occurrence among spacecraft. For example: H-II Transfer Vehicle and HTV-1, Automated Transfer Vehicle and Jules Verne ATV. Plus, if this vehicle itself ends up flying more than once (since it is capable of doing just that, and I mean OTV-1) than this article will start to flesh itself out like the articles on the individual space shuttles. -*MBK₀₀₄ 04:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MBK and earlier discussion. --G W… 06:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per nom, but with qualifications. Thie article's creation before actual launch was highly premature. However, since its launch is eminent, I'd support putting the proposal on hold until a couple of months after the first launch, and see how the page looks at that point. As as unmanned test vehicle, I really cant see much encyclopedic info being added that couldn't be covered in the main article, but we'll see. - BilCat (talk) 08:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that after two flights (I believe that at least two are planned), the need for separate articles will more clearly manifest itself than after one. Nevertheless, as long as irrelevant information is kept out of this article, there should be sufficient information in each. It is fairly normal to create articles for missions and spacecraft before they are launched, for example STS-133 already exists, so I fail to see why it was "highly premature". Finally, it is as encyclopedic as other articles on spacecraft and missions, and in the past there has been a de facto consensus that such articles are individually notable. Any orbital launch is currently considered notable enough for listing on the main page per WP:ITN/R. --G W… 08:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. Depends on how much information becomes available on the mission. If there's not enough info to make X-37B OTV-1 much more than that a long stub, then I think it should be merged to here, in an operational history section or other. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. Per MBK, GW and Fnlayson. Nothing else for me to add.Aalox (talk) 12:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the merge tags since there does not appear to be a consensus to merge for now. --G W… 21:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The program cost

Can someone tell what was the development cost?--Gilisa (talk) 07:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claim to be the first automated space vehicle

I found this claim, which is repeated in the press, very dubious: that the X-37 will be the first fully automated space vehicle to take off and land on its own. I think the Soviets accomplished this feat in 1988, with a much bigger spacecraft: the (Buran first flight) 72.219.156.34 (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]