Jump to content

Talk:Boeing X-37

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.228.24.97 (talk) at 23:54, 11 May 2011 (→Claim to be the first automated space vehicle). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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]
Because it's a lot cheaper to use a simple rocket for ferrying duty than this.99.152.112.91 (talk) 20:36, 4 December 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 (2010)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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. --GW… 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. --GW… 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]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The program cost

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

I'm sorry, that's classified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.75.253 (talk) 17:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The full cost of the program's not been disclosed. But taking into account the known funding, included in the article:
  • NASA - $109million
  • USAF - $16 million
  • Boeing - $67 million
  • 2002 Boeing build contract - $301 million
  • Total - Atleast $493 million (Unadjusted for inflation)
Nigholith (talk) 16:17, 24 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]

If we qualify it as the first American etc., then it's correct. Otherwise, you're quite right. - The Bushranger (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just fact-tagged it over at the X-40 article, not because of the Buran, but because I find the term "fully autonomous" to be technically true for Sputnik 1, also. The term needs explaining. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This nasaspaceflight.com article (on the Remote Control Orbiter) states: "To record, the only orbiter that has completed an unmanned landing came during the one and only flight of the Soviet Shuttle orbiter Buran, although her flight – which was fully unmanned from launch to landing – employed a very complex style of remote control, unlike the AORP." (AORP = Autonomous Orbiter Rapid Prototype.) Also, Sputnik did not land on its own. -- 124.157.254.112 (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
plus, the "take off and land" is kind of incorrect. no space craft takes off on its own, someone is in mission control launching it.

Image Update

For the X-37b image I've replaced it with a higher resolution, more recent photo as acquired by the USAF. Spacegizmo (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mach 25?

Towards the beggining of the article, it is claimed that it can reach speeds of up to "Mach 25". Since this is a spaceplane it seems a bit inappropriate to express speed as a Mach number, unless it specifically refers to the atmospheric flight phase. Some clarification on that would be appreciated--I have tagged the relevant part as needing references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.153.85.254 (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd presume that would be the reentry speed - the same as the Space Shuttle. Technically it's an atmospheric speed, but... - The Bushranger (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, its speed should be listed somewhere in the article. I was going to add it under the performance specifications, but the Project Aircraft template is a little confounding to me (not so much the code as which figures and units are appropriate and where they should be listed). If someone else wants to tackle this, Boeing puts it at 17,500 mph: http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/ic/sis/x37b_otv/x37b_otv.html Col. Sweeto (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Air Force contributions

Would someone in authority at the Air Force please provide updates for this article? It received 64,000 views yesterday.[1] Wikipedia policy recommends that editors with a "conflict of interest" declare themselves, both on the discussion page here, and on their own user page. WP:COI. It's understandable that the Air Force might not want to get into a discussion about this article, but Wikipedia is WP:NOT intended to be a forum for open discussion. The facts here, as the Air Force sees them, would be most helpful. Thank you, Piano non troppo (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the current X-37B program is not public, so any USAF people could not comment on those aspects. But there has been several media articles put out recently with public info. Look them over.. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For information released to the public contact the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force (Public Affairs), 1690 Air Force Pentagon, Washington D.C. 20330-1690; commercial 703-695-0640. Sergeant Wiggity (talk) 07:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Payloads

As I noted in the edit summary, saying that the X-37's payload bay is for payloads "of an unknown origin" smells of WP:CRYSTAL, seeing as it's only flown once so far and we know very little about future plans at this moment. Also, their origin is quite well known (the USAF/DOD), saying "of a classified nature" would be better phrasing, but would still run into WP:CRYSTAL issues, I believe. - The Bushranger (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True. Also the bay is a cargo area. There's no hard restriction on the bay carrying something classified, secret or anything like that. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of Purpose?

The article currently tells us absolutely nothing about the purpose of this vehicle. What exactly is it supposed to do? What is it for? Ok granted, it's all "Classified", but we must know something about the intended use of the craft, there must be at least some media speculation. It's run as a military project and is described as a "Military Spaceplane", but what exactly does that mean? Is it designed to carry some sort of weapons systems? Is it an Anti-Satellite weapon? Is it just for reconnaissance and observation? Is it designed to attack targets on Earth? What!? From reading some of the cited articles and external links, many of the News stories do indeed mention all sorts of military possibilities, but none of this is mentioned in the article, why? --Hibernian (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is just an orbital test vehicle now. That's been clarified/expanded. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And here is the explanation: (We need to harvest their refs please)

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/New_Fact_Sheet_Details_Likely_Roles_Of_USAF_Secret_Space_Plane_999.html

http://www.swfound.org/images/X-37BOTVFactsheet.pdf

Hcobb (talk) 02:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's supposed to burn Moscow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.192.140.69 (talk) 09:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been up there for a month now

has anyone heard anything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.148.144 (talk) 02:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heavens Above have announced that "The US Air Force's experimental space plane has been found by the world-wide network of amateur satellite observers." Orbit data on Heavens Above. --Hautala (talk) 17:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Chinese sources have claimed..." - Ref may be unreliable

http://www.brahmand.com/news/US-new-spacecraft-to-trigger-arms-race-in-space/3723/1/11.html

Zhai Dequan - "The US has previously said that it would slow down the pace of developing the space plane project. But now with the launch, it shows the US has never really slowed down"

But he seems to ignore the fact that the program is about four years behind schedule.1--Craigboy (talk) 03:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, if they slowed down any more, they would have to just cancel to program. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over this particular reference, I see it nothing more than an unreferenced blog. Out of the several articles I have read, I wasn't able to find a link to a single reliable paper, aside from an occasional quote. I recommend that we go ahead and delete this passage. --Hourick (talk) 08:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Purely responding to the verify flag, I added the China Daily ref, and a Xinhua ref for balance. I take no position on the importance of these statements or their placement within the article. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps it would be better placed in a "reactions" section or state that it is a "Theory" from the Chinese since it is merely a speculation and not a (well known) fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hourick (talk • contribs)
A separate section here would give undue weight to this and probably be a magnet for speculation, imo. Thanks to User:AbbyKelleyite for finding and adding the 2 references. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added a separate line and reference to an article/poll from People's Daily Online, the Communist Party of China's main newspaper. David.aloha (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Online poll results are not WP:RS themselves, but the framing material cited should be fine as long as it is made clear that People's Daily is a reliable source for what the Communist Party of China is saying, not necessarily a reliable source for facts or even the government's official position (look to Xinhua for the last). This is basically true of any newspaper run by a political party, union, chamber of commerce, etc. Including links in the text to the publications allows the reader to determine who is reporting in each case and to navigate China's multiple shades of messaging from populist, to business-oriented to diplomatic, much like knowing the editorial stances of The Nation, The New York Times and Voice of America helps sort through news reports in the US. As far as undue weight WP:UNDUE, I am agnostic, but perhaps it would be best to create an international response section as a place to gather responses from allies, competitors, etc. What China, Russia and the European Union nations (and others) are saying about the program is of potential interest to a very large number of readers. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After all that, what I failed to realize was that the current reference is not to the People's Daily english website, but to some forum posting. I can't access english.peopledaily.com.cn right now (I have in the past) and don't know whether they've changed their url or are having server problems, so I am unable to verify. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I saw the first time was that the referenced article was selected by the forum administrator (szh) to be a "front page" article/poll on the forums section. It appears to be semi-professional with images, research, and background. It appears that the front page articles are typically from regular users and they are done in this semi-professional fashion, then they are selected by szh to be on the front page for that day. They also draw heavily on current events. I will leave the final decision to cut or keep it to someone else since I have a bit of a bias being the one who wrote it. I think you made a good point regarding having an international response section given the somewhat speculative nature of the project and foreign interests (for obvious reasons). David.aloha (talk) 10:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
www.peopleforum.cn has gone dead now too and wouldn't be a WP:RS source on English Wikipedia anyway. I'm going to remove the line for now but it will be in the history and we can recheck if English People's Daily comes back online in the future. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New references shed light on X-37 propellants

NASA has not been involved with the X-37 program in a few years. But the fuel details are not that important to me, personally. The references do little good here on the talk page. They need to be in the article, supporting relevant text. Start with WP:CITE and if needed look at Help:Footnotes and WP:Referencing for beginners. -fnlayson (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consider it done. NASA did continue to assist in engine recertification as late as 2009, but X-37 is not a NASA program, as you pointed out. I talked with AR2-3 project people at Rocketdyne where I used to work. They helped me clear up some of the confusion, which was not deliberate misinformation but just a mix-up w.r.t. X-37A vs X-37B in an airforce-technology.com article. [User:Magneticlifeform|Magneticlifeform]] (talk) 04:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)Magneticlifeform (talk) 06:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

X-37 now uses a hydrazine propulsion system, this was confirmed by Gary Payton, under secretary of the Air Force for Space Programs in a media teleconference. See page 8 of http://www.defense.gov/Blog_files/Blog_assets/PaytonX-37.pdf : "It’s just a regular hydrazine propulsion system. It’s not anything new and different in that regard." I adopted the article accordingly.Salyut (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heat shield

Is the heat shield comprised of AETB-8 tiles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.53.218.21 (talk) 07:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check this document: The Evolution of Flexible Insulation as Thermal Protection Systems for Reusable Launch Vehicles: AFRSI (Advanced Flexible Reusable Surface Insulation) to CRI (Conformal Reusable Insulation). I'm not sure how up to date it is, but apparently CRI, FRSI, AFRSI, AETB and some other materials are used. 129.247.247.238 (talk) 09:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Return date

I read on www.bbc.co.uk/urdu, a local version of BBC that space shuttle is planned to return this week. But article claims it has returned already on 30th of November, 2010.--Qasrani (talk) 09:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The X-37 is not a Space Shuttle. But the U.S. Air Force plans for Dec. 3-6, 2010. Aviation Week reports this also. -fnlayson (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, some sources ([2], [3]) do describe it as a "Space shuttle", and lots more describe it as a "mini-space shuttle". Mlm42 (talk) 01:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've seen media use son of Space Shuttle, and stuff like that. My point was the X-37 is not The Space Shuttle as implied. -fnlayson (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

120% derived?

I saw in the introduction that it was (and I quote) «120% derived from [some other sattelite or something]». I may believe that something is 90% derived, or if it is 100% derived, maybe it is just a simple update, but HOW IN the world can something be derived from something else 120%, It's probably an error so someone should check the source because it is physicly impossible for something to be derived 120% from something, suppose object A that has 120 part in it is dervied from the object B that has 100 part in it, you see the problem now? ok i fail it was wrote scaled derivative this is my fail —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.151.6.1 (talk • contribs) 12:14, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

The 120% is a scale factor compared to the X-40. Just mean it is 1.2 times the size of the X-40 (20% larger). There is nothing that complicated about this. -fnlayson (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the landing

If I understand the article, the vehicle returns to earth and lands as a glider, rather than controled propulsion. If I am right, perhaps this should be mentioned clearly in the intro. Since it is called a space-plane, some readers may think that like other planes it flies and lands under its own power. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you're coming from, but the Shuttle is the best known example of a space plane and it lands unpowered, as did two other well-known spaceplanes, the X-15 from the 1950s and '60s and SpaceShipOne, which flew to space three times in 2004. However, I agree that the fact that it lands unpowered should be mentioned. --Jatkins (talk - contribs) 17:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but most people think of the shutle as a shuttle not as a "spaceplane." My point is that callint the X-37 a spaceplane - I am speaking solely about the WP article - and not a shuttle, will lead many people to think that it operates under powered controled flight. Now whether NASA does or does not identify the shuttle as a "spaceplane" too is bside the point, because most pople think of it and have thought of it since its first flight as "the shuttle," not as a plane. The X-37 is not as well-known, and to my knowledge is not known opopularly or widely as a shuttle. Since our articl identifies it as a spaceplane I still think most readers will think this means it is different from the shuttle. The article makes it very clear that unlike ths shuttle it is unmanned. I am just saying that in this matter it needs to be clearer how it is like the shuttle. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the X-37 is first described as a spacecraft to be more general. Spaceplane is mentioned later. -fnlayson (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my problem is that in your answer to me on the talk page you provide a link to the article on lands unpowered - this is very informative to people who do not know anything about spaceplanes or even space craft, i.e. many of the people who will go to this article. I think this link should be in the first paragraph of this article (It should also be in the first paragraph of the "spaceplane" article - yet isn't). Surely if it makes your point clearly on th talk page, it is an elegant way to improve the article itself. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Payload: only 500 lbs.?

The payload is listed (as of 2010-12-04) as 500 lbs., but I could not find that claim verified in any of the several sources given above the spec claims. Does anyone have a good source?

On the other hand, 500 lbs. does also seem a rather lightweight payload, relative to the total size of the spaceplane.  ?!? N2e (talk) 00:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that another editor removed the payload weight claim in the past couple of days. So problem is fixed, since the article makes no claim. N2e (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1947? - vandalism

Er... 1947? Surely that should read "1997"? Reading the referenced document (x37-historical.pdf) it seems to indicate December 1998 as the actual date on which the contract was awarded...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dappelquist (talk • contribs) 09:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was some vandalism and it has been undone. 1999 is correct date for the contract award. The best approach is to deny recognition and not post about specifics. -fnlayson (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite required

Due to the nature of this being essentially a USAF project, shouldn't the article follow the standard formatting of the Wiki Aviation Project group for military subjects? Your comments. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably so. Since it was originally a NASA project, US date format seemed OK. -fnlayson (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skylon

Is there any (preferably U.K.) government information on whether the above spaceplane could be used similarly to the X-37?--Novus Orator 06:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure what you mean, they are two different types of vehicles. The primary design-driver behind Skylon is that it is a commercial SSTO, while the the X-37 is effectively a reusable payload. Being that Skylon is designed with very low turn-around times of a couple of days, similar (putatively) operations to the X-37 would be exorbitantly expensive for what it is doing. It would probably be much more efficient to launch a mini (folded-wing?) version of the X-37 on Skylon. ChiZeroOne (talk) 06:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting idea...Thanks for the help.--Novus Orator 06:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Design heritage

The article currently makes a brief mention to some design heritage from the Space Shuttle. This makes sense, as both are reusable VTHL spaceplanes, and it would be expected that whatever was learned from the extensive flight history and design history of the Space Shuttle would naturally be taken advantage of in subsequent spaceplane designs. But is that all there is? I think the article would be improved if its design heritage were to be more fully explicated.

The Orbital Space Plane Program article—which was recently renamed from Orbital Space Plane to Orbital Space Plane Program—claims that the OSP program included several space vehicles, including the X-37. Whatever is the case, we should improve both articles with what can be verifiably, sourced and cited on the design heritage of this increasingly important reusable spaceplane vehicle. N2e (talk) 06:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robotics attention needed

  • Assess per B class

Chaosdruid (talk) 05:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boeing_X-37&oldid=428668483"