SpaceX Falcon 9 to Launch X-37B Space Plane
X-37B after landing at Vandenberg Air Force Base on June 16, 2012. (Credit: Boeing/USAF)
Reuters reports that SpaceX will launch the U.S. Air Force’s X-37B space plane in August.
Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson made the announcement during testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday, the news service reports.
Four previous X-37B missions have been launched aboard ULA’s Atlas V boosters.
The U.S. Air Force has two X-37B spacecraft, which are used to test new technologies on orbit. One vehicle landed in Florida on May 7 after spending a record 718 days in space.
27 responses to “SpaceX Falcon 9 to Launch X-37B Space Plane”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Size this up, fill it with propellant, give it a big payload bay that comes back empty and now it has a low ballistic coefficient, land it on a runway like the way Wilbur and Orville taught us, and you’ve got a re-usable last stage to orbit.
You are essentially describing Space Shuttle by that point. X-37B is a spacecraft that is carried as a payload to orbit.
Shuttle had a high density and high heating load on reentry as a result.
Only because the fuel for the orbiter was carried in a disposable external tank, not internal to the orbiter. Imagine an orbiter a bit bigger than the space shuttle external tank and it’s mostly empty space during reentry and landing.
We have come a long way since SpaceX was certified to carry toilet paper and Tang for the USG. With the surprise cheese wedge thrown in for good measure.
A long way, in a little time..
this is an amazing and interesting development in at least two wasy
it opens another customer for SpaceX and it indicates that the USAF is serious about small platforms reflown
More like low cost and making sure that they have more than one launch provider/vehicle to put their payloads into space.
There are probably very specific, berry secrut, reasons for the X-37 that have nothing to do with re-usability.
probably…but the notion of the X37 or X 37 like vehicles falls apart if the launch cost are high..meaning what makes building “battlestar galactica” vehicles that have 15-20 year life times is the high launch cost
smaller more numerous vehicles that create robust constellations only are worthwhile if the launch cost are lower SpaceX at least promises that and in fact might be delivering it
But launch costs will always favor the conventional “launch it and leave it” approach, because the mass for reentry gear could be spent on propellant etc. to extend mission life. Mostly a smaller RV lets you use whatever boosters you have laying around instead of having to develop or pay the premium for a specific heavy launcher.
While true, I’d imagine that Falcon Heavy will change that equation quite a bit due to its far lower cost than the other “heavy lift” alternative(s).
that equation might be changing somewhat particularly in terms of the reusability of the basic frame and peripherals…lets see
That would depend on the cargo it is carrying. For a satellite launch and leave it is fine. For a material science test where you have a board with 200 samples on it and you need to bring it back to earth after a year or two and analyze with paint is the best etc etc … https://uploads.disquscdn.c…
You don’t need a secrut squirel spaceplane for that.
You mean the super secret plane who’s picture is on every space blog on the planet and who’s launches and landings are all public knowledge.. that “spy” plane?
I hardly think we need Morocco Mole to decipher this … The plane is a test bed I can not imagine it isn’t used to test things.
You naive perspective is always appreciated Vlad.
There was already a report that a materials science package went up on one of them.
ULA continues to be in trouble. Brono is not doing what it takes.
Oddly enough, they have several years to develop a rocket that can land on it’s own, but are doing nothing.
So stupid.
And according to my sources, ula is still not going to bring out aces until much later. Well much later, will be too late.
There’s no way ULA will invest the time, money and expertise to build an affordable launcher, and even if they do, for just have then a much smaller profit than in the old monopoly. They have basically three choices: Liquidate the company after the current contracts are over. Invest more in lobbying and elections so they can stand as long as possible before liquidation. Or invest on a startup, buy the Electron, make it way bigger and put a parachute on it.
one smart idea would be to cut a deal with paul allen’s company. They could create a rocket for that quickly if they choose to.
Likewise, ACES is not that far from being ready.
Bruno simply is passing the profits up rather than electing to invest even SOME of the money back into the company.
Foolish. Very foolish.
I think your key assumption here is embodied in that word “electing.” Bruno isn’t an owner, Boeing and LockMart are. Bruno, unfortunately, lacks the power to do any “electing” on macro financial matters. So long as Boeing and LockMart continue to come through, even on a quarter-by-quarter basis, ULA has maneuvering room. There being no financial guarantees with a life longer than 90 days might even be an aid to Bruno anent motivating his team to produce. It ain’t over ’til it’s over.
He doesn’t have a choice. ULA is nothing but a holding company for Boeing and Lockheed Martin. The Board at ULA is stacked with the parent company it is not an independent company that make those kinds of decisions.
I think the thing is, Bruno can’t do anything without funding, and the parent companies have little to absolutely no interest in funding the development of anything that isn’t being paid for by a government contract.
Boeing has at least shown it’ll take a chance on a fixed price contract (and it does have its commercial aviation side, too), but Lockheed is all about cost plus. And in this case, there’s no government contract to develop anything anyway, so they ain’t spendin’. All of which leaves Bruno in more than a bit of a bind.
However, Boeing was lobbying Congress hard in the background to force NASA to down-select to a single provider and cost-plus development. If they succeeded, they needed to be the highest “scoring” contractor at that time in order to be the selected sole-provider.
(That’s a fairly standard Boeing practice of bidding on something they know they can’t deliver, then convincing the contracting agency (under pressure from Congress) to change the contract to suit Boeing.)
ULA has a LOT more money than you realize. Bruno is electing to pass all of the profits up so that they all get bonuses. That is also why they are back to being top heavy, and engineer light.
Stop this narrative of Bruno have a say in how much revenue he can re-invest in ULA. The parents of ULA (Boeing & LockMart) decided that they will fund the Vulcan in misery quarterly intervals. So ULA ULA was force into developing the Vulcan incrementally and in the wrong order due to geo-politics.
According to Bruno in various interviews. The ACES upper stage was suppose to replace the Centaur upper stage first then a new liquid engine selection follow by a new booster core. Instead they winded up developing the booster core first with the only liquid engine (the Blue BE-4) that was available at the time.
Right now the ULA board of directors have to make a call to either spend a lotta of money to develop the Vulcan or keep the bottom line up at ULA’s parents. With not much time left to decide since their engine supplier spring the Falcon Heavy equivalent New Glenn launcher design out. Seems likely the board of directors will just milked ULA for as long as they can without spending cash, IMO.
No Boeing and Lockheed Martin have more money sitting in the coffers at ULA than you realize, is a more correct statement. ULA is not an independent company.
They would both have to cough up money to keep ULA at 50-50 partnership. So if either one doesn’t want to nothing happens.