Slashdot Mirror


USAF's Robotic X-37B Orbiter Launched For Test Flight

An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt: "The United States Air Force's novel robotic X-37B space plane is tucked inside the bulbous nose cone of an unmanned rocket that blasted off Thursday from Florida on a mission shrouded in secrecy. ... The unmanned military Orbital Test Vehicle 1 (OTV-1) — also known as the X-37B — lifted off at 7:52 pm EDT atop an Atlas 5 rocket on a mission that is expected to take months testing new spacecraft technologies. ... Key objectives of the space plane's first flight include demonstration and validation of guidance, navigation, and control systems – including a 'do-it-itself' autonomous re-entry and landing at California's Vandenberg Air Force Base with neighboring Edwards Air Force Base as a backup."

11 of 145 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Wasn't the Buran autonomous...? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Informative

    Buran flew in 1988. Maybe it was autonomous. And then sat in a warehouse until the building collapsed from lack of maintenance, destroying Buran. I guess this is no worse than spacecraft rusting out in museum parking lots in the U.S.

  2. Space without astronauts by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Here's the space shuttle we lost, OK at 1/4 scale, but without the triple redundancy because it doesn't have to carry people. It can do the missions.

    The future of space, at least in the near term, doesn't look so great for astronauts.

    I wonder if it would scale up to shuttle size?

    1. Re:Space without astronauts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Nope, there is no way to remotely deploy the landing gear on the shuttle. That is, unless it has been rigged for unmanned flight - known as RCO (Remote Controlled Orbiter) mode - beforehand, using the so called IFM (In-Flight Maintenance)cable. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-3XX#Remote_Control_Orbiter

      This wasn't developed until after the Columbia accident. So yes, the Soviets with their unmanned Buran flight were first.

      The Reason for not letting the computer control the landing gear deployment is simple: It's a one-way procedure. Once deployed, you cannot retract the gear and close the orbiter's underside - that can only take place on the ground. So, if a computer glitch would deploy the gear before or during the "hot" phase during reentry, there'd be no way to return the craft in one piece, with fatal consequences for the crew if it happened at a point where (re)docking with the ISS and waiting for a rescue shuttle is no longer an option.

      You know, folks, sometimes having a human in control isn't all that bad.

    2. Re:Space without astronauts by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Constellation wasn't taking astronauts anywhere. It was never going to be built and even if it arrived gift wrapped it would have cost so much that NASA would have to cancel it immediately. The entire thing was designed for a budget that NASA never had. It really was warmed over Apollo, but without the Apollo sized budget.

      Hopefully this time NASA will develop a heavy lift vehicle that is actually affordable, or learn to go beyond LEO without it.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    3. Re:Space without astronauts by Shihar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Obama did public space flight. It will not be missed. Our dear "socialist" leader also dumped a pile of money into private space flight. Obama didn't kill space flight. He killed a state welfare program and at the same time gave a boost to the people doing real innovative R&D in manned and unmanned lift vehicles in the private sector. This was long LONG over due. Having the US government design and fund a fucking spaceship by committee and legislation makes about as much sense as the US government designing by fucking committee and legislation cars. It is a really dumb idea and Obama did us a favor by killing it. NASA can now focus on stuff that the private sector can't do, namely, raw science. I'm not against NASA, I just want to see them fretting over stuff like how to detect life on another planet or the arcane working of some exotic stellar mass. Stuff that I want commercialized and brought to the public at large on the other hand needs to be kicked off to private industry ASAP.

  3. Re:Anywhere on earth in 2 hours by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The first re-usable nuclear missle :-)

    X-37 is, like the shuttle, meant to soft-land and be re-used. Nuclear missles are meant to get somewhere really fast and avoid anti-ballistic missles, and blow themselves up. Not really the X-37 mission.

    It's for spy satellites, among other things. Nuclear missles can get anywhere in two hours already.

  4. Re:Wasn't the Buran autonomous...? by toxygen01 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The two surviving are OK-GLI and OK-TVA.
    The former one was used for atmospherical tests, i.e. it had mounted 4 jet engines (from SU-27) and could take-off and land autonomously.
    Out of 25 flights, 14 were completely autonomous including landing.
    Last weekend we went to see OK-GLI locate in Speyer in Germany. Photos can be seen here:
    on picasa

  5. Re:Wasn't the Buran autonomous...? by rxmd · · Score: 5, Informative

    It was no coincidence that the Buran looks exactly like the Space Shuttle. It was a duplicate copy.

    Actually it was not. The two looked similar because at the time there were only so many ways to build an orbiter, but on the technical level they are pretty fundamentally different. The most important difference is that the Space Shuttle is basically its own rocket, while Buran only had small engines for maneuvering, while launch was done by an Energia booster. Since it did not have to be built around a big engine, Buran is completely different structurally.

    As a result, the Buran had a greater payload capacity (theoretical, as it was never tested with a payload) and a better glide number, but you needed a big rocket (theoretically reusable) every time you wanted to launch it. In other words, two fundamentally different approaches to the same technical problem.

    --
    As a state gets corrupt, its laws multiply; the most corrupt states have the most numerous laws. (Tacitus, Annales 3:27)
  6. Re:Anywhere on earth in 2 hours by flyingfsck · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yup. There is a foreign submarine bearing a nuclear bomb armed missile or three, off your coast right now...

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  7. Re:Anywhere on earth in 2 hours by OolimPhon · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yup. There is a foreign submarine bearing a nuclear bomb armed missile or three, off your coast right now...

    My country doesn't have a coast, you insensitive clod!

  8. Re:Anywhere on earth in 2 hours by flyingfsck · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hmm, but many people don't realize why the doomsday clock has been stuck at about 6 minutes to midnight for half a century. Its time is not quite as arbitrary as most would like to hope.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!