News & Analysis
Comment
DIDEFIXIT
tb1
The differences between a manned and an unmanned vehicle are enormous. The ...
U.S. space plane's mission remains a mystery
George Leopold
11/21/2012 12:01 PM EST
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Air Force is again preparing to launch its prototype space plane from Cape Canaveral on Nov. 27, but a science group that tracks the program said the space plane’s mission remains cloaked in secrecy.
The Air Force’s first unmanned X-37B space plane, which looks like a scaled-down version of the space shuttle, was launched in April 2010, remaining in orbit for seven months. A second prototype was launched in March 2011 and remained in orbit for over a year, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Next week’s launch marks the first prototype’s return to space.
Unlike other military spacecraft, the X-37B is the first that can return from orbit and land on a runway.
Given the high cost of returning spacecraft to Earth like the space shuttle, analysts are puzzling over why the Air Force is spending so much money on the program. “The ability to return to Earth carries a high price,” said Laura Grego of the science group’s Global Security Program. “Most space missions don’t require bringing a spacecraft back to Earth, and the space plane makes no sense for them.”
Grego said the Air Force has stated that the X-37B will allow it to carry out experiments in space over a long period of time and return them to Earth. “Thus far, however, the Air Force has not provided any cost or capability analyses that compare the space plane with simpler spacecraft that return by parachuting to Earth rather than landing on a runway.”
The Air Force X-37B space plane being prepared for launch.
Grego said she doubts the X-37B is being used as a space weapon or as a vehicle for deploying a space weapon. According to a briefing paper released by the science group, conventional spacecraft can carry payloads into orbit, maneuver in space, rendezvous with satellites, release multiple payloads and return to Earth for tens of millions of dollars less than the space plane.
Related stories:
Mars Curiosity gets down to science
Fuel injection, ECUs and the pressure of NASCAR racing
|
|
|
|
|
Navigate to related information
blue7053
11/21/2012 6:01 PM EST
Silly article! Crossing that boundary, both ways, is necessary for the future of the space industry.
Sign in to Reply
rwik78
11/23/2012 2:39 AM EST
I am not sure about the relevance of this to Electronics, but I wonder why they coudn't retry the Lockheed Martin X-33 with graphene hydrogen tanks?
Sign in to Reply
Oh Blah Dee Blah Dah
11/23/2012 1:00 PM EST
RE: “Most space missions don’t require bringing a spacecraft back to Earth, and the space plane makes no sense for them.”
REPLY: What? You mean we should continue to send numerous men in ships and aircraft, supported by enormous ground tracking stations, to locate and pick up a parachuted spacecraft?
A piloted or remotely controlled spacecraft that can make a normal, self-controlled landing on a typical runway is actually a momentous step forward. The Jetsons lifestyle must eventually arrive, otherwise we will continue to require huge, earth-bound resources and to depend upon the wind and gravity to retrieve spacecraft. Unfortunately, under these conditions, spaceflight will remain the province of the military or very large corporations.
Sign in to Reply
Duane Benson
11/24/2012 12:51 AM EST
Parachutes can be self-guided and GPS controlled. Not knowing what it's used for, I really couldn't say if it's really necessary to have a winged, wheeled vehicle, but I am confident that economical return to Earth missions without fixed wings are very possible. If missiles can land very close to the intended target, then any space vehicle could also do so. And then the GPS guided chute can get it to within a dozen yards or less of the touch-down zone.
Sign in to Reply
Oh Blah Dee Blah Dah
11/26/2012 12:44 AM EST
RE: "Parachutes can be self-guided and GPS controlled."
REPLY: The spacecraft and its cargo, and, most importantly, any passengers, remain at the mercy of local wind gusts and fast moving, unexpected weather systems. Parachutes may be a backup, recovery landing method in an emergency, however, for true progress in space flight a power-controlled, human-piloted spacecraft would need to be developed.
===============
RE: "If missiles can land very close to the intended target, then any space vehicle could also do so. "
REPLY: For many of today's current and near-term requirements, this is true. However, the general public is not interested in business transportation or recreational travel whose landing sequence resembles the drop zone of a clown fired out of a circus cannon. I'm thinking of a distant future, a world whose advancement and technology permit casual space flight, similar to how humans now enjoy recreational aviation, which is exploration and business and family travel in the atmosphere, a mobile activity analogous to how people came to enjoy recreational automobile driving, which led to further exploration and travel on the surface of the earth.
For recreational, close-orbit spaceflight to come about in the next level directly above the atmosphere, spacecraft will eventually require a human-piloted, powered-controlled landing on an airport runway, or to be more accurate, a spaceport runway.
===============
RE: "[…] the GPS guided chute can get it to within a dozen yards or less of the touch-down zone."
REPLY: This, still, requires numerous people and enormous air and ground resources to recover each and every spacecraft and is focused on the NOW requirements. Think, "Honey, I'm going to take our [spacecraft] into low-orbit tomorrow for a flight over Asia. I want to show the twins how the Tibetan plateau looks like for their geology mid-term exam that is coming up next week."
Sign in to Reply
Brutus_II
11/26/2012 11:22 AM EST
It wouldn't surprise me a bit if this "Unmanned" vehicle could quickly be configured to become a "Manned" vehicle(perhaps it already is). Despite the black hole this country seems to have fallen into, it's doubtful the U.S has left itself to be completely reliant on the Bolsheviks to get astronauts into space. This program must carry with it an enormous, yet undisclosed cost.
Sign in to Reply
tb1
11/26/2012 12:35 PM EST
The differences between a manned and an unmanned vehicle are enormous. The Russians were never able to get their space shuttle clone (the Buran) to be able fly manned. If a vehicle isn't designed for it, you can't just add it on later.
Besides, the Russians can carry astronauts to space for comparatively very low cost (shouldn't we take advantage of this?), and there are several commercial companies working on manned flight programs.
If the government is going to work on manned spaceflight again, it should be for deep space, not low-earth orbit.
Sign in to Reply
DIDEFIXIT
11/30/2012 12:18 PM EST
Ah... I see.
You believe in leading from behind.
Sign in to Reply