Talk:Boeing X-37/Archive 1

Archive 1

old comments

(edit: Actually this change was due to the high cost of shuttle flights, and predated the Columbia disaster by several YEARS. The X-37 program tried to qualify as a "secondary payload" to get a discounted rate, but that idea was scuttled since it would take up more than half the payload bay.)

To 24.52.222.16: Can this be verified? Seems like speculation. Also, please integrate future edits in a more proper manner. Thanks. -Joseph (Talk) 15:54, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)

Purpose?

So the LRO are being delayed because of this craft. At least it is a spacecraft and not some goofy UAV fighter. What is the purpose of the X-37? What would the Air Force use this technology for? What would it be able to do? Act as an Space Shuttle replacement? Put satellites into orbit? What? --83.89.0.118 (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, the answers to most of my questions apppear under "History", of all places. --83.89.0.118 (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Out-of-Date Propulsion

I removed the propulsion (Rocketdyne AR2-3) claim becuase out of several sources, only one mentioned it, and it's not present (or at least not verifiable in any model yet). If someone wants to add it back in, we should probably have good source for it, as well as information about the engine itself, which is sorely lacking about the AR2-3. Teyrana (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Understandable. Provide an edit summary with your edits and this message would probably not be needed though. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge? (2008-09)

Why is the separate X-37B OTV-1 article needed? The content is largely covered here now. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - This article should cover the vehicle itself, whilst the OTV-1 article should cover the specific details of the mission. It's the same as having separate articles for Soyuz and Space Shuttle missions. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 21:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• This is not a vote, just asking why since there's nothing on the talk pages of either article. That's fine. The OTV-1 article looks like it is covering the X-37B itself to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The OTV article was adjusted to make its purpose clear. It should have been done well before this.. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

120%?

Article currently says this is 120% of the size of the Boeing X-40, but that article says it's an 85% size model of the X-37. The math doesn't add up. Which is correct? (Crossposted to the other article) Tempshill (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Those are close. 1/1.2 = 0.8333 or 83.3 %. The NASA X-37A fact sheet says 120% of X-40. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• Oppose per MBK and earlier discussion. --GW… 06:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• Oppose for now. Per MBK, GW and Fnlayson. Nothing else for me to add.Aalox (talk) 12:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• I have removed the merge tags since there does not appear to be a consensus to merge for now. --GW… 21:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

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.

Program costs

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

"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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Return date of X-37B OTV-1 in 2010

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The usage of percentage in the article is inaccurate at best in certain sections. Specifically: "The X-37 Orbital Test Vehicle is a reusable robotic spaceplane. It is a derivative of X-40 and 120% larger" If the x-37 was 120% larger, it would be Two times + 20% larger. If I have two items and item B is 100% larger than Item A, it is twice the size of the first one, not the same size. Looking at the measurements of the x-40, it would appear that height, length and wingspan are all roughly 20% larger, but weight is significantly heavier. Either stay consistent and use 20% larger, or use 1.2 times larger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.20.17.241 (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Payload: only 500 lb ?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Interesting idea...Thanks for the help.--Novus Orator 06:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.24.97 (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

Robotics attention needed

• Assess per B class

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

Payload mass?

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

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

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

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 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Unit 2 and Unit 1 designations?

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

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

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 ^Notify_Online 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 ^Notify_Online 20:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Mission goals (Development - Origin)

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

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

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

External links modified

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

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

Engine, thrust, propellant and delta-V

What has been revealed or conjectured about the engine details and capabilities ? - Rod57 (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

What have Boeing said about X-37C since 2012

What have Boeing said about X-37C since 2012 ? Have they ever applied for US govt funding for the development ? Has NASA or anyone expressed interest in it ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Please remember that talk pages are not discussion forums

EmDrive Interesting that they "are not pursuing this". Did Boeing find something unusual during testing? I have some ideas suggesting that the whole thing might have been as others have said a measurement error however during testing a genuine effect of a different type was found. If so then the technology may still be useful but in terms of producing more thrust using a different construction. Other scientists notably Shawyer have developed alternative tests involving optical analogs and microcavities driven by a laser rather than the earlier microwave generators and these may work by leveraging the Casimir effect or something related. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.190.161.223 (talk) 10:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC) Long dreary list in intro Current the intro has this paragraph: The spaceplane's first mission, USA-212, was launched in April 2010 and returned to Earth in December 2010. A second X-37 was launched on mission USA-226 in March 2011 and returned in June 2012. The third mission was USA-240, which launched in December 2012 and landed in October 2014. The fourth mission, USA-261, launched in May 2015 and landed in May 2017. The fifth X-37 mission, USA-277, was launched on 7 September 2017, and was the longest X-37 mission to date, landing on 27 October 2019 after 780 days in orbit. The sixth X-37B mission (OTV-6), US Space Force-7, launched on an Atlas V rocket on 17 May 2020. To me this information is much better presented as a list as follows: Missions: The spaceplane's first mission, USA-212, was launched in April 2010 and returned to Earth in December 2010. The second X-37 was launched on mission USA-226 in March 2011 and returned in June 2012. The third mission was USA-240, which launched in December 2012 and landed in October 2014. The fourth mission, USA-261, launched in May 2015 and landed in May 2017. The fifth X-37 mission, USA-277, was launched on 7 September 2017, and was the longest X-37 mission to date, landing on 27 October 2019 after 780 days in orbit. The sixth X-37B mission (OTV-6), US Space Force-7, launched on an Atlas V rocket on 17 May 2020. It makes it much easier for the reader to scan and absorb the information. What do you think:? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 03:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC) References I entirely agree that this enumeration is long and dreary, but a numbered list would not be suitable for the lead. Probably best to drop all but first and current mission; the details are already in the body of the article anyway. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC) The summary text version seems fine. Thanks, -Fnlayson (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC) A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: X-37B 2020 1.jpg You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC) Latest sixth mission That means that there have been several that have all been the sixth. So I guess this want a comma or sixth placed between brackets. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:5191:5893:117E:6556 (talk) 12:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC) You must mean the text in the Lead. I adjusted this wording to clarify. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC) Naming conventions for missions What's the deal with articles for X-37 missions using the "USA-XXX" instead of an "OTV-X" naming scheme? I seldom see primary sources or media outlets using the "USA" designation. For the most recent mission, both "USSF-7" and "OTV-6" seem to have close parity in sources, yet the article is titled somewhat obscurely "USA-299." My understanding is that OTV's don't get the "USA" designation until they achieve orbit. The spaceflight MOS doesn't directly cover this question. Is this a clear case of WP:COMMONNAME? I see that these entries were written relatively recently, so perhaps updating the titles hasn't come up yet. Schierbecker (talk) 01:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC) Pinging User:Ultimograph5 and User:Garuda28. Schierbecker (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC) USSF seems to use the OTV-X convention (https://www.spaceforce.mil/News/Article/2177702/next-x-37b-orbital-test-vehicle-scheduled-to-launch/). I personally say we go with that. It also keeps the formatting consistent so we don’t have an AFSPC/USSF shift between missions 5 and 6. Garuda28 (talk) 02:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC) I think the guy who decided to skip Windows 9 must have been in charge of this naming scheme (or maybe the person who names successive iPhone generations). I see United Launch Alliance seems to use "USSF-7" and "OTV-6" almost interchangeably. [4] I haven't quite found a pattern. I do know that the CubeSat payload was designated USA-300 and that Space Force has used the USSF-X scheme for other launches. OTV-X is definitely fine by me. Hopefully they will explain this confusing naming scheme by the time OTV-7 launches. Schierbecker (talk) 07:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC) Article is mostly about X-37B - could be clearer Article is mostly about X-37B - could be clearer which parts are about x-37A and exactly what the differences are. eg Did X-37A ever fire its jp8/H202 engines ? Did an X-37B ever use JP8/H202 or was it hypergolics from the start ? Any changes to the thermal protection system/tiles, avionics, solar panels, undercarriage etc ? - Rod57 (talk) 12:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)