Talk:Boeing X-37

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Payload mass?[edit]

The article contains a spec for the payload volume; has anyone seen a spec for payload (inside the X-37, payload delivery) mass? Also, if we have a spec for the mass, is the upmass the same as the downmass (return to Earth mass)? For the Dragon, the downmass is 50 percent of the upmass, 3000 kg down vs. 6000 kg up. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Units[edit]

As a reminder, we should all be aware of the WP:UNITS directives which specifies the units to use in the article. Here are some excerpts of the introduction which are applicable to this article:

In science-related articles: generally use only SI units and non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI. Some sciences use specialist units and these may be used.
All other articles: the main unit is generally an SI unit or a non-SI unit officially accepted for use with the SI.

In this article, the source used for spacecraft description uses US-customary units (or Fred Flintstone's units). Hence, these units should be used for the spacecraft description, at least until another valid source of information describes them in SI.

However, the orbital parameters (such as the speed of the spacecraft around the Earth) is calculated using the two-line elements format. This information is expressed in SI units. The calculation output is given in SI units as well. In addition, orbital speeds are always expressed in non-US customary units. Therefore, these orbital parameters should remain expressed in SI units.

Let's all cooperate with these rules. Thanks! Xionbox 10:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

This is not a science type article. Yes, there are some science-related aspects like orbital mechanics, but that's it. -Fnlayson (talk) 10:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Spacecraft and spaceflight-related articles, regardless of whether directly scientific or not, are generally considered to still fall under science and technology. Therefore, I would be strongly in favour of making SI the preferred units in this article for all measurements, although imperial units should also be present for all of them, as secondary units. --W. D. Graham 11:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
That might be pausable if the manufacturer, NASA or Air Force agreed. Their spec pages do not. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
W. D. Graham , I would prefer as well that all units be in metric. However, as Fnlayson pointed out, the source at our disposal describes the spacecraft using imperial units. Therefore, sadly, enforcing real units first would go against WP:UNITS. Xionbox 11:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

AR2-3 is NOT a hydrazine engine, NOR is it a monopropellant engine[edit]

Someone persists in claiming X-37B is powered by an "AR2-3 hydrazine monopropellant engine". That IS NOT POSSIBLE! AR2-3 is a Rocketdyne BIpropellant H2O2/kerosene engine. PERIOD. Gary Payton, AF deputy undersecretary for space systems, clearly stated in his 20 April, 2010 news conference that X-37B's on-board propellant is "ordinary hydrazine". The engine therefore is NOT an AR2-3, regardless of what the old 2001 briefing charts say about intentions to use an AR2-3. Get over it.Magneticlifeform (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The engines in OTV-1 and OTV-2 are both storable liquid propellant engines using hydrazine and built by Aerojet and have only 150-160 lb thrust. THERE IS NO SUCH ENGINE AS AN "AR2-3 hydrazine monopropellant engine", AND AS LONG AS SOMEONE CONTINUES TO REINTRODUCE THIS FANTASY NONSENSE INTO THE ARTICLE, I WILL CONTINUE TO REMOVE IT. AR2-3 was a hydrogen peroxide/kerosene engine and was NEVER capable of operating with hydrazine. AR2-3 was considered for use on X-37 when it was a NASA project, but that was a long time ago. FORGET IT!Magneticlifeform (talk) 04:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Reuse old shuttle facilities[edit]

http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1112703463/space-coast-mini-shuttle-x-37b-093012/ USAF Rapid Capabilities Offices representative Major Tracy Bunko said that officials were “looking at space shuttle infrastructure for possible cost-saving measures, including the potential for consolidating landing, refurbishment and launch operations at Kennedy Space Center or Cape Canaveral Air Force Station.”

The space coast to become the spook coast? Hcobb (talk) 01:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20121108/SPACE/121108033/Kennedy-Space-Center-could-house-secret-Air-Force-X-37B-program — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rs wrangler (talkcontribs) 18:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Unit 2 and Unit 1 designations?[edit]

Do we have designations for vehicle 1 and vehicle 2? With increasing missions, it would be useful to have a table listing missions carried out by each vehicle, and if we have designations for those vehicles, the labelling of the table will be better. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 01:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, this is going to get complicated if, by chance, they continue launching these (though I seem to recall only three were planned?). It's peculiar: no one, not even the Air Force, seems to have a good way to differentiate between craft. It's all awkward prose amongst the media. The "OTV-#" style (which makes no sense, IMO) needs to be retained as it is obvious this refers to missions instead of craft. I can only suggest "X-37B Vehicle 1" and "X-37B Vehicle 2" in the absence of any other designators. I need to figure something out so I can sort out the categorisation over on Commons. Huntster (t @ c) 07:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, this is a problem. I had thought that the two vehicles made were OTV-1 and OTV-2, and some media seemed to support that for a while. But Huntster is right, the "OTV-#" style seems to be the way they are now numbering missions, not vehicles. So there will be some cleanup work to get it all straightened out. N2e (talk) 14:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I've been unsure of this because the sources have seemed to state it both ways. "X-37B Vehicle 1" and shortened to "X-37B #1" on later works. I've used that on a couple aircraft articles on prototypes. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
In terms of on-Wiki (and on-Commons) usage, which do you think would be more appropriate..."Vehicle 1" or "#1"? I tend to think "Vehicle 1" simply so there's no misunderstanding as to what is being referred to...mission or vehicle. Huntster (t @ c) 13:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Probably Vehicle 1. I was suggesting the #1 for shorthand in the text. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Would 'Test Article 1', etc. be more appropriate nomenclature than 'Vehicle 1'? Doyna Yar (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Seems like it's just wordier, rather than more accurate, tbh. Huntster (t @ c) 20:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Ref formats[edit]

Is there a reason why most of the references are in an odd format with excess italics and colons, instead of the usual {{cite web/news/journal}} format? Every other article on Wikipedia uses the regular format, why is it different here? – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Manual formatting is valid. Wikipedia policies, such as WP:CITE list what data should be in the cites, but not that cite templates have to be used. There are many articles with manual formatted cites, mostly aviation related. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
It isn't the manual formatting I have a problem with, it's that one user decided to reformat all the refs (including ones that already had citation templates) for some vague bot-related reason. Scan back through the article history, you'll see what I mean. – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 00:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/boeing-x37/
    Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 12:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Mission goals (Development - Origin)[edit]

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)

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

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[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Boeing X-37. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Boeing X-37. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

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