US Air Force Launches Secret Flying Twinkie 234
Spectrummag writes "One of the most secretive US Air Force spaceflights in decades, launched this month, is keeping aficionados guessing as to the nature of the secret. The 6000-kilogram, 8-meter X-37B, nicknamed the flying Twinkie because of its stubby-winged shape, is supposed to orbit Earth for several weeks, maneuver in orbit, then glide home. What's it for? Space expert James Oberg tracks the possibilities."
Speculation in the article (Score:5, Insightful)
So the article speculates that this is a testbed for on-orbit threat detection systems, which given the number of countries getting into the space gig seems like a reasonable thing to be working on.
So here's why bit I don't get: Why build it into a space plane rather than a regular satellite? Seems to me that you're adding an order of magnitude to the complexity of the mission -- do they really need the sensors back that badly, or is this maybe for something else?
Re:Nasa should reclaim this (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet reusables have proven to be the way to go with every other form of transport. Or, to put it another way, it's a really bad idea to draw sweeping universal conclusions based on a first generation system.
Re:What the X-37 is REALLY doing in orbit... (Score:5, Insightful)
few pounds? a single hand grenade would take out any satellite. Imparting the energy from a single grenade or even a C4 charge will spin it out of control that the bird will never recover from.
you don't have to destroy it, just make it useless.
Re:Nasa should reclaim this (Score:3, Insightful)
Right. Money pit.
That't why Scaled Composites http://scaled.com/ [scaled.com] and Virgin Galactic http://www.virgingalactic.com/ [virgingalactic.com] are all betting money on re-entry vehicles.
Come on guy! Just because government projects do not have a profit motive does not mean it can never be workable.
Re:Nasa should reclaim this (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, reusable have proven to be the way to go, but other forms of transport aren't going 17,500 miles an hour, getting up to 5,000 degrees and going millions of miles.
Being harder isn't an excuse unto itself. Supersonic jets are more difficult than subsonic jets, which are more difficult than prop airplanes, which in turn are more difficult cars, trains, and bicycles. Yet somehow, we have managed up until now, yet I'm certain the same argument has been made throughout history that the next step couldn't be made.
The issue isn't with the reusable portion of the reusable spacecraft, but with its non-reusable parts. Thermal tiles, booster rockets, etc. As well, with the added weight, for which spacecraft are more severely punished than airplanes.
Re:Nasa should reclaim this (Score:5, Insightful)
One that wasn't an orbital craft, and one that never flew at all. So, no, they aren't first generation craft in any useful sense.
Ok, so what? The shuttle goes fast and far, doesn't mean there cannot be a reusable orbital craft. Not to mention that 99.99999% of the 'far' is spent in almost no stress drifting around. It's nearly meaningless, even though it sounds impressive to the uneducated.
Re:Nasa should reclaim this (Score:3, Insightful)
You have to start somewhere.
Re:Nasa should reclaim this (Score:3, Insightful)
Supersonic jets are more difficult than subsonic jets
Interestingly, the useful speed limit of supersonic jets seems to have been exceeded decades ago, and they've abandoned the fastest designs. The B-58, B-70, SR-71, B-1A and Concorde are all defunct and have not been replaced with anything nearly as fast. They've given up. There are a few fast manned fighter planes, but the emphasis today is on gas mileage, not pure speed, and manned fighters may be on the way out in general.
Sometimes certain gee-whiz technologies just really don't turn out to be practical in the real world.
Re:Nasa should reclaim this (Score:3, Insightful)
have not been replaced with anything nearly as fast
That is just what THEY want you to think!
Thanks for playing,
Mr Tin Foil
maker of hats.
Re:Nasa should reclaim this (Score:3, Insightful)
Moderate it as a Troll if you will - but it's the truth. Yeah, it clashes with what 'everyone knows' about the Shuttle - buts that because most people know roughly nothing about the Shuttle beyond a haphazard collection of rumors, myths, and urban legends.
Re:Nasa should reclaim this (Score:3, Insightful)
Because you can't see it doesn't make it impossible or unlikely.
Look, the weight of fuel needed to get the shuttle up to the altitude where the white knight drops spaceship one exceeds the weight for the rest of the trip to orbit.
The rockets are expended and jettisoned, and the external tank is half empty.
For you to state that it fundamentally won't cut it with no credentials, no studies, no NOTHING, that, my friend, is what won't cut it.
By the time the Shuttle reaches the altitude at which the White Knight launches Space Ship 1, its already well past Mach 3 and rapidly accelerating - and its speed that counts when achieving orbit.