US 'Space Warplane' Spying On Chinese Spacelab 158
PolygamousRanchKid sends this excerpt from El Reg:
"The U.S. Air Force's second mysterious mini-space shuttle, the X-37B, could be spying on China's space laboratory and the first piece of its space station, Tiangong-1. Amateur space trackers told the British Interplanetary Society publication Spaceflight that the black-funded spaceplane seemed to be orbiting the Earth in tandem with Tiangong-1, or the Heavenly Palace, leading the magazine to speculate that its unknown mission is to spy on [the lab]. ... The lab is unmanned for the moment, so all there'd be to study is the technology of the craft and what experiments it's doing. Still, the U.S. is hugely suspicious of China's space endeavors, so it's more than possible that they'd want to get a look at Tiangong-1 just in case it's doing anything unexpected."
Update: 01/06 21:50 GMT by S : Further calculations have shown that this is not the case after all.
War Pigs (Score:1)
http://youtu.be/OGPD0ZBiMs0 [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Well now i know that they rhymed "masses" with "masses"
I always thought I was hearing it wrong.
Why would we spy on the SpaceRab? (Score:2, Interesting)
Is it spying on Tian-dong-1? I rearry don't think so. I think the fact that their orbits intersect every now and again - that's just a coincidence. If the US really wanted to observe Tian-dong, it has enough assets to do that without using X-37B.
Tian-dong-1 and the second X-37B both spotted something else in space and went to have a look at it. This is the real story here. 2012 will be the end of us all.
Re:Why would we spy on the SpaceRab? (Score:4, Informative)
I just checked heavens-above and they don't really seem to be all that close. Orbits are SIMILAR but not all that close.
Re: (Score:2)
"SpaceRab": A Scottish astronaut.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be impossible with the way international affairs are that Iran would do anything to the Middle Kingdom.
While the original concern of Iran launching missiles at China is pretty laughable, it's worth noting that there are plenty of other reasons for China to keep an eye on Iran, for example, to learn of supply disruptions of oil (such as a fire at a refinery) immediately.
Makes sense... space is the ultimate high ground (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyone who has read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Heinlein knows that being able to own space means an unparalleled strategic advantage.
Re:Makes sense... space is the ultimate high groun (Score:4, Interesting)
The operative word here is "ground", and even that is not much use without a suitable energy source. In Heinlein's book, the earth is pummeled by "cargo" loads of moon rocks launched from a giant rail-gun on the moon. There would be little advantage in "pre-launching" a space station full of ordnance over the more traditional method of using ICBMs for delivery. Unlike an airplane, you can't just "drop" a bomb from a space station.
Re:Makes sense... space is the ultimate high groun (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, if you could gain even one second over your enemy there would be a reason. If it's in LEO then one of those things loaded up with tungsten rods would have a devastating conventional attack with just a slight push in the right direction. Kinetic energy weapons would work like that. Nukes, I don't see why they would really do that and either way it's not something that has to be manned.
I would also say that bringing foreign countries satellites back for inspection was why Nixon went with the shuttle which could never go high enough to fulfill that mission but now the Air Force has a relatively cheap space plane that could do that and bring it back. On a coolness scale from 1 to 10 it's an 11.
Re: (Score:2)
I would also say that bringing foreign countries satellites back for inspection was why Nixon went with the shuttle which could never go high enough to fulfill that mission but now the Air Force has a relatively cheap space plane that could do that and bring it back. On a coolness scale from 1 to 10 it's an 11.
A wet dream that won't achieve more than soiled pants.
Even if the satellite/craft won't have a self-destruction charge (soviet satellites were known to have these) grappling and storing anything that isn't prepared for that and will have fuel and RCS engines is just madness. And then the payload capacity of this puny spaceplane isn't enough for more than a microsat even without thinking of what the grappling, storing and securing devices would take up.
Re: (Score:2)
Well it is a test plane. The next one will be larger. I think the Chinese are watching us since we launched first. We could just use this thing to put a bomb on every potential enemy satellite. It's currently large enough for that, but who cares if you bring all of it back. This thing could easily have a saw in the back. The next one will open from the front an swallow. It will be just like it disappeared. Maybe it has lasers?
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is, it costs on the order of $5k-$10k to put a single kg of payload into LEO. A Mk82 500 lb bomb costs $270 and delivers 440 MJ of energy. To get that much energy out of a similar-cost tungsten rod weighing 50 grams, it would have to be moving at 132 km/sec, nearly 20x faster than LEO veloc
Re: (Score:2)
Well it would probably only be for very deep bunkers. OK put one higher up and give it a push. The moon would be the perfect place for something like this. A Mk82 with a laser JDAM kit would even be cheaper probably. Isn't China planning to go to the moon? Also, if we fought a worthy opponent GPS may not help us.
We really haven't had anyone capable of beating us in an all out war for over 60 years now even though we lost a few for political reasons, it wasn't because our military capability but more to do w
Re: (Score:3)
There would be little advantage in "pre-launching" a space station full of ordnance over the more traditional method of using ICBMs for delivery. Unlike an airplane, you can't just "drop" a bomb from a space station.
Actually you can, for sufficiently large definitions of "space station." A SLICBM does sessionally that - launches a bus into orbit containing some bombs - that it then aligns with its target and drops one. if you had some in relatively stable long term orbits you could launch a strike with very little warning - is it a meteor or is it a bomb. The down side is it could lead to an accidental counter-strike if someone thought a meteor was a bomb re-entering. IFIRC, the idea of orbiting bombs was bandied about
Re: (Score:2)
is it a meteor or is it a bomb. The down side is it could lead to an accidental counter-strike if someone thought a meteor was a bomb re-entering
Today's injection of culture into Slashdot: Icarus Allsorts, by Roger McGough [hearle.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike an airplane, you can't just "drop" a bomb from a space station.
Duh, you blow up planets with your giant freaking laser beam from you airquote Death... Star... airquote.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with what you say somewhat but one nuclear space weapon would take the whole thing out. So it doesn't seem like a threat to us, but hey the Chinese need to get ready to police the world now that we no longer can due to corporate welfare. Let them waste some time and money doing that AFAIC.
Re:Makes sense... space is the ultimate high groun (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with what you say somewhat but one nuclear space weapon would take the whole thing out. So it doesn't seem like a threat to us, but hey the Chinese need to get ready to police the world now that we no longer can due to corporate welfare. Let them waste some time and money doing that AFAIC.
If you think the Chinese mentality is to Police the world, then I'm afraid you are in for a rude awakening.
Conquer (militarily, culturally, monetarily), is more in line with the predominant cultural beliefs than police.
Re:Makes sense... space is the ultimate high groun (Score:5, Informative)
Conquer (militarily, culturally, monetarily), is more in line with the predominant cultural beliefs than police.
Umm, isn't that exactly what the USA has done since WW2? The cultural and economic conquest of the world by the US is pretty obvious. Militarily is only slightly less obvious when one observes the plethora of American military bases around the world and the 11? floating armadas which are incredibly powerful mobile military bases.
Besides, if you can police something, doesn't that sort of imply that you've already conquered it?
Re:Makes sense... space is the ultimate high groun (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm, isn't that exactly what the USA has done since WW2?
Funny you should ask. "No" would be the correct answer to that question.
But I'll check with our colonies in what used to be Germany and Japan, just to be sure. Our viceroy in South Korea or our Puppet Leaders in eastern Europe may also have some comments, of course. Oh, righ, none of that's actually the case.
You're confusing "the USA" with "everyone who didn't want to live under totalitarian regimes."
Re:Makes sense... space is the ultimate high groun (Score:4, Insightful)
If you think the Chinese mentality is to Police the world, then I'm afraid you are in for a rude awakening.
Conquer (militarily, culturally, monetarily), is more in line with the predominant cultural beliefs than police.
And I thought Chinese mentality/culture was to build high walls around your country and hope nobody gets in and disturbs you.
Re:Makes sense... space is the ultimate high groun (Score:4, Insightful)
From LEO, high surface-area/mass objects can deorbit within a couple orbits or so
A couple of orbits or so along a predictable trajectory is a lot easier to shoot down than a low-altitude cruise missile. It might make sense to put something like a massive laser in space, but getting it into the right orbit for a strike and providing it with enough power to punch through the atmosphere and do more than give people on the ground a mild sunburn would be nontrivial.
And a big benefit of on-orbit munitions is that they may have a good chance of surviving a first strike in a nuclear war
Not really. Both the USA and China have tested ground-to-space missiles for shooting down satellites and laser systems that can disable or destroy satellites from the ground. Creating an orbital weapons platform that can survive missile and laser strikes from the ground would be a massive engineering challenge. In any modern nuclear first strike scenario, these things would be the first to be launched, because you want to destroy the enemy's ability to track your launches.
Re: (Score:2)
You can only shoot down satalites that you have a line of sight on quickly. And really only ones right above you.
If you want to knock out satalites from the other site of the globe you need to get something into orbit which will take time. More than enough time to repond.
Re: (Score:2)
In that book they drop rocks from the Moon to the Earth.
1. Turn the chemical energy in rocket fuel into kinetic energy using rocket engines.
2. Turn kinetic engine into gravitation potential energy by orbiting.
3. Turn gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy by deorbiting and falling.
4. Turn kinetic energy into heat et. al. by colliding with target.
That's pretty inefficient. It's the equivalent of shooting a bullet by aiming upwards and getting the bullet to fall on your target. You can just skip s
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless, MAD makes this all kind of pointless. Shooting moonrocks at someone does little to prevent them
Re: (Score:2)
The advantage of being in space in Heinlein's books comes from the fact that it's hard for people to shoot back. If you're on the Earth's surface, almost anywhere, with modern weapons it's as easy for the enemy to strike at you as it is for you to strike at them. If one side is on the moon and the other side is on Earth, then it's asymmetric because it takes a lot more energy to move a rock from the Earth to the Moon than vice versa (compare the first stage of the Saturn V to the LEM).
Having a moon bas
Re: (Score:2)
If it's hard for people to shoot arrows back at people who have the high ground at the top of a hill, it's hard for people to get their bows to the top of the hill in the first place. Ain't gonna happen, ever. See how easy it is to completely mock the Space Nuttery troll(s) with their own fallicies?
Just to be clear, I'm not saying that the moon would be an impregnable fortress the way Heinlein described it (actually, it wasn't really all that impregnable in the book). Realistically, with modern technology,
Just imagine (Score:4, Funny)
After doing the first fly-around to see if it had any titanium orbital bombardment rods or nuclear missiles strapped onto it, they've since been watching it carefully to see if the empty space station module will transform into some kind of giant gun or fighting robot..or at least unfurl a communist flag or something.
When it takes off for Jupiter (Score:5, Funny)
is when I get interested
Re: (Score:2)
When it takes off for Jupiter
is when I get interested
Tsien would have left a few years ago. :-)
Re:Just imagine (Score:4, Insightful)
This would also allow the US to monitor uplink communications to the satellite as it crosses over China, which would otherwise be impossible (especially if the Chinese are using very directional ground-based equipment). Note that the satellites only cross paths every so often. It's not like they are sitting side by side in orbit or something.
Re: (Score:2)
What if they unfurled a lightning machine or something to control the weather? Nah, I don't think so.
Re: (Score:2)
The world we live in is dominated by people who love power. We would all enjoy a better life if they loved people instead. http://youronline.biz/ [youronline.biz]
Great. The sixties are coming back. What's next? Nixon? Bellbottoms?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm racist? You're the one assuming the Chinese are inherently incapable of transforming fighting robot technology.
Ho-hum... (Score:5, Interesting)
Rival countries spying on each other's technology... what else is new? According to TFA the X37-B launched before Tiangong, and later shifted its orbit to track the Chinese station. If true, that would be an impressive trick.
Re:Ho-hum... (Score:5, Informative)
The more impressive trick is that it's way, way past it's total mission time, and was scheduled to come down around thanksgiving. It's now almost 2 months past it's original planned mission. And yeah, it did change it's orbit, back in May or so. Pretty much everyone wants to know what's going on in North Korea and Iran, and apparently you can photograph both from the orbit that Tiandong is in.
More info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37 [wikipedia.org] skip down to the operational history part.
Re: (Score:2)
The more impressive trick is that it's way, way past it's total mission time, and was scheduled to come down around thanksgiving. It's now almost 2 months past it's original planned mission.
That's only impressive if it's deliberate... otherwise it has become just another piece of space junk.
Re: (Score:2)
otherwise it has become just another piece of space junk
Or Taapon [wikipedia.org].
Re:Ho-hum... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Mad Magazine... (Score:3)
Spy vs. Spy. Cool. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From the summary: "Still, the U.S. is hugely suspicious of China's space endeavors"
They may actually want to spy on us! Shame on them!
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
not point a finger on X37 spying on Tiangong
Whenever there is an article pointing out an obvious spy mission, there is always the apologist who chimes in with "the U.S. isn't spying on so-and-so." Sometimes I wonder what the hell you apologists think that all those CIA staffers and operatives do all day. Do you think everyone just shows up at the CIA and stares at a wall until it's time to go home?
Re: (Score:3)
No, they have better things to do than stare at an empty space station - like the Middle East for example.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they have better things to do than stare at an empty space station - like the Middle East for example.
Hard to imagine that the USA doesn't already have a purpose-build spy satellite in geostationary orbit above the Middle East.
Or a dozen.
Re:Ho-hum... (Score:4, Insightful)
We may very well have a satellite in geostationary orbit over the middle-east, but what good would it do? Spy-sats typically fly at an altitude of a couple-hundred miles... geostationary orbit is roughly 100 times farther away, which makes it practically useless for most "spy" applications.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they have better things to do than stare at an empty space station - like the Middle East for example.
Hard to imagine that the USA doesn't already have a purpose-build spy satellite in geostationary orbit above the Middle East.
Or a dozen.
The interesting thing about the XB-37 compared with, say, the Keyhole, is that it can launch with a mission specific imaging package instead of a generalized set of sensors that may not be in an optimal condition for what you want to look at. Want to use a newly developed multispectral camera to tease out Iranian suicide boats? Rack it up and boost it.
Hell, you can launch it completely empty to amaze and confuse your enemies.
Re: (Score:2)
Whenever there is an article pointing out an 'obvious' spy mission, I wonder what they are trying to distract attention away from. If we know what those CIA staffers are doing all day (spying on incomplete space stations...poor bothans) and we can see it's quite transparent and not so nefarious after all, then we don't need to worry about them anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Whenever there is an article pointing out an 'obvious' spy mission, I wonder what they are trying to distract attention away from. If we know what those CIA staffers are doing all day (spying on incomplete space stations...poor bothans)
Or posting to Slashdot with "we're not spying on incomplete space station" replies.
Re: (Score:2)
an article pointing out an 'obvious' spy mission
Why do we need space assets to keep tabs on obvious spies?
If they are obvious, a pair a cheap binoculars should do the trick.
Nobody has looked at the orbits very well (Score:5, Insightful)
Not going to get into too many details, but if you look at the orbits of the objects, they are not in the correct positions for OTV to get a good look at Tiangong. Why not get into details? Because the folks that understand this already know. And the people that don't understand what an RAAN is will probably just continue to believe these stories.
Re:Nobody has looked at the orbits very well (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly. TFA puts it thusly:
"The X-37B is in a much lower inclination which means it can only see a very narrow band of latitudes, and the only thing that's of real interest in that band is the Middle East and Afghanistan.
There's nothing the US would want to look at in the Middle East, right? If it catches side glances at a Chinese space station, that's just gravy.
The article does end on a winner:
Wilder theories have also reared their heads, such as that both Tiangong-1 and the second X-37B spotted "something else" in space and went to have a look at it - but that seems a little bit like wishful thinking from ET-loving dreamers.
Yup, that's totally it. I can see Michael Bay's next screenplay forming...
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, that's totally it. I can see Michael Bay's next screenplay forming...
Quick, grab a spoon (tablespoon) and gently push it under your eyeball as you pull your eyelid away. once you are in just pop the sucker out, then just cut the optic nerve. Repeat on your other eye.
Whew! Now you don't have to see horrible things like that anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
And the people that don't understand...
Or, hopefully if not eventually, they will disbelieve b/c the Drama Theater speculations projected by our entertaining news sources is a broken record and has a track record for baselessness and inanity. Fear this! Watch them! The sky is falling!
The US could use another space race right now (Score:3, Interesting)
For a plethora of socioeconomic reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
As it exists right now, countries are just trying to keep pace with each other. The first space race bankrupted the U.S.S.R. Are you sure you want to be involved in a second one?
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, the rose-tinted glasses of nostalgia... Powerful stuff. Why not another Industrial Revolution? Or how about another WWII?
Space race is cheap. Environmentally friendly (compared to the Industrial Revolution or a major war). Not so many deaths. If the US isn't secretly bankrolling the Chinese space effort, it should be.
Re: (Score:3)
Secretly? You've seen where all our jobs and manufacturing goes, right? I'd say we were overtly bankrolling it.
suspicion is justified (Score:4, Interesting)
Keep in mind that China's recently launched aircraft carrier was ostensibly purchased from the Ukraine to be a "floating casino" in Macau. For an entertaining recap of how they got the ship, see the wikipedia article here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_aircraft_carrier_Varyag [wikipedia.org]
While public deception is certainly not unique to China, I think most people would agree that their military aspirations are more opaque than most people think.
Best,
Re:suspicion is justified (Score:4, Funny)
If you have one missile cruiser with carrier capability and your enemy has 10 super carriers, you have zero carriers.
Re: (Score:2)
Aside from the US, there are a couple medium and a few smaller carriers and no large carriers in the world (last I checked, the carrier-borne combat force of the US Marine Corps was larger than every carrier-borne force outside the US combined, without even looking at the US Navy proper.) This makes medium -- and even smaller -- carriers extremly useful for power projection against any nation
Re: (Score:3)
You should probably have a closer look [bbcimg.co.uk] at the thing. Pretty damn close to a Nimitz, isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Cool a casino in space with rich Chinese funding trips to play "Texas Hold Em". Maybe they are getting into space tourism. I just wanna see the cards dealt.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that would remove the money and the face to face that you would get. Poker is much different without a server. Real high rollers wouldn't go for that option.
Cold war / Detente: Saber rattling, not spying. (Score:5, Interesting)
If the US is following the Chinese station using X37-B, this may be to observe it. On the other hand, it may be a demonstration that we could destroy their station with a precision strike, thus they should not expend any more satellites in an attempt to shotgun our station.
This is an episode in our cold war with China.
Re: (Score:2)
Or it just could be, as The Register suggested, a way to keep an eye on Iran and Afghanistan and WTFistan, given it's orbit. If you wanted to observe the Chinese Golden Spittoon or whatever their box is called, you could do it much cheaper without using the fancy new space vehicle.
Bogus Headline (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not sure why this keeps getting posted around the internet as spying on China... the article makes it pretty clear that:
a) There's plenty of other ways to spy on China's station.
b) The space station was launched well after the X-37B.
c) The orbit and inclination of the X-37B implies that it is testing sensors over the Middle-East.
d) Is it really that important to have a dedicated satellite to spy on China's space station? It's not even manned right now.
Why would we need something in orbit for this? (Score:3)
One would think ground based telescopes would be just as good and more stealthy. These things are designed to look at distant stars. One would think they could get excellent resolution on a satellite.
Maybe I'm wrong... I won't claim to be an expert. It just seems we have a lot of hardware pointed skyward and collectively it should be able to keep tabs on anything in low earth orbit.
It's not spying (Score:3)
It's NASA's creative workaround for R&D budget cuts.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, NO, from TFA, even (Score:5, Informative)
"Is it spying on Tiangong-1? I really don't think so. [Emphasis mine.] I think the fact that their orbits intersect every now and again - that's just a co-incidence. If the US really wanted to observe Tiangong, it has enough assets to do that without using X-37B," he added. "
Jeez, would it hurt the submitter too much to actually read to the END OF THE FREAKING ARTICLE? Headline-hunting much?
Re: Orbital mechanics (Score:2)
That's not a coincidence. That's how orbital mechanics work. Every orbit intersects every other orbit at exactly two points. Imagine the orbital plane as an elliptical disk. One of it's foci will coincide with the earth's center. An intersection of two planes containing two orbits is a line. This line will go through the two intersections between the orbits, at which both orbiting objects will pass through the same
could be false positive (Score:2)
other way around? (Score:2)
Seriously, though... (Score:2)
Corrected that for you... (Score:2)
Should read
That's what happens when you let the terrorists scare you into giving up your rights and letting the war-drum beaters take over the country.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
By that logic is Tiangong 1 also an orbital weapon platform?
Each modular the Chinese launch will mysteriously disappear as the ISS mysteriously gains a new one...
Re: (Score:2)
nasa would need more "steely eyed missile men" to make those square chinese pegs fit into round iss holes
And a lot more duct tape and underpants. (rips front cover off flight plan, tosses it away)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Space Warplane? (Score:5, Funny)
Load photon torpedoes, standby phasers.
Re:Space Warplane? (Score:5, Funny)
At least finish the full quote:
"Oh bother said Pooh. Load photon torpedoes. Lock phasers on the Hephalump. Piglet, meet me in Transporter room 1." :P
Re: (Score:2)
Nice.
Re:Space Warplane? (Score:4, Funny)
Oh... oh my. You've just opened the floodgates.
I can totally see an alternate continuity where Rabbit is Bones, Pooh is Kirk, Tigger is Scotty, and Eeyore is Spock...
Scotty/Tigger: She cannuh take anymore captain! Hoo hoo hoo HOO!
Re:Space Warplane? (Score:5, Funny)
As long as the shark has a laser, we're good!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but those laurels get a little uncomfortable to rest on after a while don't they?
Re:Space Warplane? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or it's the other way around the Chinese are there to spy on X-37B, since it was there first :p
You say toe-may-toe I say toe-mah-toe
Re: (Score:3)
I find Occam's Razor ever so useful.
Was the X-37B put there to spy on the Chinese? No.
Will the American government pass up the opportunity to spy on the Chinese when the X-37B does a flyby? Hell no.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you listed to any U-2 Songs? I'd call that munitions.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you listed to any U-2 Songs? I'd call that munitions.
"How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb"
There, fixed that for you
Re:Isnt it more likely (Score:4, Informative)
The altitude of these craft is related to the energy they expend getting to orbit. In that sense, the altitudes are correlated by the rocket type.
The orbital plane has to do with the launch location and time, as well as maneuvers made to change the plane.
Re: (Score:2)
The orbital plane has to do with the launch location and time, as well as maneuvers made to change the plane.
When you say "orbital plane", do you mean the orbital plane or the orbital plane's orbital plane?
Also, does the orbital plane's orbital plane have its own orbital plane, too?
Re: (Score:3)
The United States like every other country out there is going to serve its own self interests.
Having China Spy on the United States isn't in the United States Interests.
United States to Spy on China is in its own self interests.
I wouldn't want to vote for anyone in power who goes. Well it is only fair for China to spy on us because we spy on them. What would be more of an outrage if we Spied on China
Re: (Score:2)
Have I said too much?
Yes
That's you in the corner
That's you in the spotlight