X-37B Space Plane Marks One Year In Space 75
S810 writes with an excerpt from an article on the X-37B in at Discovery News: "The military won't say what it has been doing with its experimental miniature space shuttle, but the pilotless spaceship, known as the X-37B, has been in orbit for a year now. The 29-foot robotic spacecraft, also known as the Orbital Test Vehicle, or OTV, was launched on March 5, 2011, on a follow-up flight to extend capabilities demonstrated by a sister ship during a 244-day debut mission in 2010. 'We are very pleased with the results of ongoing X-37B experiments,' Tom McIntyre, with the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office..."
It's harmless. Watch TV. (Score:4, Funny)
You guys are paranoid. Without a tracking mirror they could never even aim a laser from space, much less use it to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists and start World War III.
Hey, did you guys hear that a new season of "The Real Housewives of Miami" started last week? We should all watch it and talk about that. How about that Adriana, huh?
Re:It's harmless. Watch TV. (Score:4, Funny)
You should know, he's from the US Department of Defense, Social Disinformation Division. It's how the government misdirects you from important things like the fact that they have an on demand weapons deployment system still in orbit. An ICBM that they can launch any time, and drop anywhere within 90 minutes, with no possibility of traditional launch detection.
They start planting little seeds of doubt here and there, so you'll begin to accept the fact that everything our government does is perfectly harmless ... and ... hey, check out Adriana [google.com]. What channel was that? Do I have time to run to McDonalds to get a extramegasupersize BigMac meal with a double side of carcinogens? Oh, I don't subscribe to that channel? Sign me up! Extra FCC fees? No problem.. I need my Adriana..
Wait.. what? ... oh shit, they're in my mind ... Vote Republican ... Happily pay the tax man ... Live the American dream of taxation with no representation.
Re: (Score:3)
"and drop anywhere within 90 minutes"
oh, thats much better then the 27 minute from launch to arrival from the midwest. Less for some Nuclear capable Sub weapons.
Re:It's harmless. Watch TV. (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, if it has the same speed of a shuttle, a full orbit is 90 minutes.
27 minutes from launch to impact depends on being able to detect the launch. With no launch detection, because it's just dropped, means they have to hope to pick up a 2m x 1m deorbiting.
Look for "hypervelocity rod bundles", and "Project Thor". This appears to be the initial implementation of that project.
Officially, we've agreed to not weaponize space. I'd be willing to be they'd say "It's not space, it's a high altitude aircraft."
Re:It's harmless. Watch TV. (Score:4, Insightful)
If launch detection n is a concern, we have better stealth capabilities. We have a plan that can deploy bombs at supersonic speeds, and stealth. Not that it matter. What happen after it detonates? every country will know, and there would be serious issues.
so, again, putting weapons in space is stupid. You can't maintain it, you don't have complete control over it, and if it deorbits you have a political and military nightmare.
Plus it's not large enough to hit all the enemies launch capabilities. SO they will still retaliate.
A don't even pretend to lecture me on Project Thor. which, by the way, would be 6.1 meters long, not 2 meters.
And a 2 meters, even if it was lead, would be about 225Kg worth of energy. And you would only have a few of them. Awfully expensive.
Re:It's harmless. Watch TV. (Score:4, Insightful)
Simple answer for your complex question. "X-37C or X-37D".
It wouldn't necessarily *have* to be a kinetic weapon, that was just an example. How about a titanium cased nuclear warhead? What about, the contents of a XM1028 would make a pretty nasty impression on a populated area. Titanium rain, falling at Mach 10 doesn't sound like somewhere I'd want to be standing.
Not all strategic strikes are made to level an entire country. Sometimes you just need to put a meteorite through the bedroom of a world leader.
Snipers can be captured, and interrogated. A piece of rebar in the destroyed floor of a room is just another piece of rebar.
Remember, humans are really great at one thing, finding new ways to kill each other. I have no reason to believe the agency who owns the biggest weapon in the world would be doing something secretively for a humanitarian mission. That kind of conflicts with their job description.
Re: (Score:2)
A kinetic weapon would be the best option because it would eliminate any radiation hazards after a nuclear strike. It would also be cheaper.
Re:It's harmless. Watch TV. (Score:4, Insightful)
A piece of rebar in the destroyed floor of a room is just another piece of rebar.
I'm sure a piece of metal dropped from orbit would have some identifying characteristics due to the forces that would act upon it during transit and impact.
Re: (Score:1)
The question would be, would anyone look for that? Consider the crime scene. El Presidente's bedroom. Witnesses heard a loud explosion. There may or may not have been witnesses who saw a light moments before impact.
Inspection of the room would show damage from an explosion. I haven't worked with objects smacking into each other at mach 10, so I don't know what kind of heat energy would be released. It's likely some would. At very least, the rod would likely be hot, an
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, it's not the talking. I talk more shit than facts. Those attempting to filter the difference will find a wealth of useless trivia and a lot of entertainment, or end up with a massive headache. .. and vile glassware is no where near as much fun as dry ice bullets. :)
Re: (Score:2)
It seems unlikely they would be stupid enough to put weapons up there. China and Russia would not be happy, and China has already demonstrated the ability to shoot down satellites at will. It would break several treaties and start a new cold war.
More likely it is a complex spying system that for some reason needs to return to earth when it is done. Either that or a system designed to intercept satellites in-orbit.
Re:It's harmless. Watch TV. (Score:5, Interesting)
27 minutes from launch to impact depends on being able to detect the launch.
Actually it turns out that it takes an ICBM 27 minutes from launch to impact regardless of whether anyone detects the launch! Amazing, I know.
This appears to be the initial implementation of that project.
Uh, no it doesn't. This would be a terrible way to get large masses into orbit.
If you're going to be paranoid -- an endeavor I fully support -- then at least do it right. You should be looking at any of the many shuttle and other heavy-lift rocket launches carrying spy satellites from the last 40 years, any of which could have been carrying a payload of tungsten rods.
Re: (Score:2)
For arguments sake, you have an early warning of 27 minutes from launch to impact, if you detected the launch.
If you didn't, but you spotted it at the apogee, then you have roughly half the time.
And if you didn't detect the launch nor approach, your early warning time could be damned close to 0.
As the package isn't all that big, it may register as a flash on someone's radar.
Early warning is all about getting the target out of the way
Re: (Score:2)
The 27 minutes was in comparison to the 90 minutes of the X37B to orbit the earth you were saying was an advantage.
As far as detection -- the X37B's orbit is already known to amateur stargazers. If hostilities were possible, then you can be assured it would be tracked continuously for any sign of it releasing ordinance -- assuming it isn't already, which I'm not inclined to do.
For difficulty of detection and rapid-strike capability, nuclear submarines have been filling that role far more effectively than a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if it would be possible to mechanically eject your payload in the right direction, pushing your spaceplane into a higher orbit, and your payload into a lower orbit that will eventually decay....
Probably difficult to generate enough force to make that happen, or to accurately predict where it'd come down.
Re: (Score:2)
Or even heat up pop-corn...
I look forward to reding the details (Score:5, Funny)
on wkileaks~
Re: (Score:2)
You're confusing NASA with DoD. This is a DoD project as of 2004, so there are no tightening of the purse strings at all.
Re: (Score:3)
It's been notorious in the aerospace industry for decades that the best way to get classified information is to read Aviation Week and Space Technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So do I
Questions (Score:1)
* Any speculation on the amount of payload it can take up? Could people go up?
* Any speculation on the cost of the plane itself?
* The cost of a launch?
* Is it reusable?
In short, would it be a replacement, if only partially, for the Space Shuttle?
Re:Questions (Score:5, Informative)
1. No idea, payload bay is 2.1 × 1.2 m and its launch weight is 5000 kg
2. Hundreds of millions to billions - "Details on the funding level remain within the Air Force's classified budget request"
3. Launch vehicle is an Atlas V (~$13,000 per kg to LEO - $65 million per launch)
4. Yes, supposedly, OTV-1 came back, has not launched again yet, OTV-2 is still up there
http://www.space.com/8239-details-secretive-37b-space-plane-revealed.html [space.com]
Re: (Score:2)
... payload bay is 2.1 x 1.2 m ...
So a modern satellite reconnaissance camera/sensor package is about 2x1m?
Re: (Score:1)
Yep, that or the hardware to leech off Russia, French, Israeli and Chinese recce satellites is 2 x 1m now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is re-usable and they are working on a manned version. A lot of the tech involved in it's creation was gathered from the original shuttle program. That program went on for over 20 years so it provides a great deal of information for building future vehicles. One interesting mission for this type of craft would be attacking another countries satellites. They don't even need missiles they can just alter it's orbit. The really funny thing is how everyone has been moaning about the US giving up on their spa
Re: (Score:2)
Think of it as the UAV of Spacecraft . . .
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't say it was manned. I said they were working on a scaled up manned version. Working out the kinks out on the unmanned version before creating a manned version makes a lot of sense.
X-37? No thanks... (Score:2)
Control Codes (Score:3)
Re:Control Codes (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
No Secret (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't you know... (Score:3, Funny)
They're defending us from Space Nazis [youtu.be]
In Soviet Russia (Score:1)
Comrade Cosmonaut been in space for over 50 years!
Re: (Score:3)
Comrade Cosmonaut been in space for over 50 years!
Is the pod Laika was in still in orbit?
Re: (Score:3)
No target yet (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps whatever it is designed to target doesn't need to be targeted just yet.
"In your face from outer space" - motto of the USAF Space Warfare Center
Is it just me? (Score:5, Funny)
I keep reading "Orbital Test Vehicle" as Orbital Testicle
Re: (Score:2)
Been a while since psych, but Hmm... "The space program is a phallic symbol"? or maybe I'm worried about my testicular
Re: (Score:3)
I really hope Freud would say nothing. He's been dead for 72 years. I'm fairly sure that's beyond the period for him to be a viable zombie. Well, that and the fact that he was cremated. I would think being a pile of ash would make it hard for even a zombie to say "bbrrraaiiinnnsss....."
Re: (Score:1)
I thought Freud would come back from the dead saying "mmmmmmmooooooooottttttttthhhhhhheeeeeeerrrrrrsssss......" :)
Re: (Score:1)
Now you're just talking bollocks.
It's a secret plot by NASA (Score:2)
The secret military mission is really a cover for further NASA cutbacks. It's just cheaper to keep it up there all the time than it is to bring it down.
Re: (Score:2)
The surest way to get funding is working on projects that might have military uses.
Obvious (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
And its just one step to get back home!
Re: (Score:2)
Ya, I guess it is safer in orbit than say in Modesto, CA (2010 highest per capita vehicle theft rate). Now I want to go steal it, just to ruin that stat. How bad would it skew the numbers, with a population of 0 and 1 theft.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, those are the exact some advantages the guy at the Ferrari dealership pointed out when it turned out the only car in my price range was one already in space. He forgot to mention how awesome it is to own a car in space! I'm so smart.
Hey Air Force... (Score:1)