After a Year In Orbit, US Air Force's X37-B Will Conclude Its Secret Mission 243
SomePgmr writes "The U.S Air Force's highly secret unmanned space plane will land in June — ending a year-long mission in orbit. The experimental Boeing X37-B has been circling Earth at 17,000 miles per hour and was due to land in California in December. It is now expected to land in mid to late June. And still, no one knows what the space drone has been doing up there all this time."
Given that this is slashdot... (Score:5, Funny)
...I'm guessing most here will believe that its mission was one of unmitigated evil.
It's probably designed to shred the Constitution — from space!
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Given that this is slashdot... (Score:5, Funny)
Missiles will be fired from it on copyright violators. Hail our Hollywood overlords.
Re: (Score:2)
Senator Hatch, is that you [techdirt.com]?
Re:Given that this is slashdot... (Score:5, Funny)
"...I'm guessing most here will believe that its mission was one of unmitigated evil."
Damn political polarisation!
I favor Centrist, Mitigated Evil where all Americans can share the benefits.
Re:Given that this is slashdot... (Score:5, Funny)
But in a liberal libertarian society everyone gets their fair share of evilness plus the opportunity to contribute as much evil as back as they like. In such an environment, shared projects such as OpenEvil are free to flourish and take over the universe.
Re:Given that this is slashdot... (Score:5, Funny)
I won't lie -- I'm a fan of Commuevilism, where the means of evil production are owned by the people. From each according to their villainy, to each according to their vulnerability.
Re: (Score:2)
But in a liberal libertarian society everyone gets their fair share of evilness plus the opportunity to contribute as much evil as back as they like.
I thought everyone got as much evilness as they earned.
Secretly sponsored by the airline industry... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Secretly sponsored by the airline industry... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
The Constitution authorizes the creation of a military to defend against non-U.S. enemies.
Only an army, navy and coast guard, with limitations.
"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for call
Re: (Score:2)
yes. as opposed to manned robots in space. the Japanese beat us to that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazinger_Z [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltron [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gundam [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Nah, Google was just pretending to be helpless. If you look carefully at photos of this craft over the year you'll see one of Google's Streetview Vehicles constantly within standard wi-fi range of this craft. You know Microsoft and Facebook can't secure anything.
2000km high club? (Score:2, Funny)
If this secret spy drone is rocking, don't come a knocking...
Or maybe the 2000km high club
'NO ONE KNOWS" ???? (Score:5, Funny)
Not even the people who launched it?
Re:'NO ONE KNOWS" ???? (Score:5, Funny)
Welcome to the world of military intelligence...
Re:'NO ONE KNOWS" ???? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe people didn't launch it? It could have built itself in an automated factory. Skynet has reached for the sky!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll bet Skynet had planned to cut its losses and abandon earth.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't Rupert Murdoch own Skynet?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:'NO ONE KNOWS" ???? (Score:5, Interesting)
I have a suspicion. It's a simple one too.
This is a drone that is designed to land. When a craft exits orbit and enters our atmosphere there have been three three styles of entries. There are those which burn up. There are those like the Soyuz, Dragon, and Apollo capsules. There was a space shuttle. The drone is obviously meant to reenter like the space shuttle in some fashion.
One thing that has been desirable has been to keep surveillance drones in flight for as long as possible. The longest shuttle mission was 17 days and 15 hours. This drone has been up there for a year before coming down.
The Chinese have demonstrated that they have the ability to shoot down satellites so a drone spy satellite that has good maneuverability in orbit would be a plus.
I think they're aiming to replace spy satellites with these drones and this was a test to see if a drone can stay up in space for a long duration and still arrive back on ground intact for repairs or to upgrade its system.
Re:'NO ONE KNOWS" ???? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think they're aiming to replace spy satellites with these drones and this was a test to see if a drone can stay up in space for a long duration and still arrive back on ground intact for repairs or to upgrade its system.
That's exactly what I think. Whatever is onboard the ship is almost irrelevant at this point, the cargo is a red herring (and it can change). The impressive capability of the ship, the "new thing" that it brings to the table, is that it is essentially a multi-purpose satellite that can return to earth and be launched again. Like you said, returning to earth would allow people to refuel, repair, offload whatever it collected in space, or upgrade it. If you have a refuelable satellite then you can afford to be less frugal with the maneuvering thrusters, meaning you can avoid anti-satellite weapons more effectively and move to different orbits. The one vehicle can support many missions, it could go up with optical equipment and do some surveillance, land again and get a new electronics package for a different mission, land again and get a weapons package. This is probably why the NRO just gave NASA two spy satellites. They don't need single-purpose satellites any more when they have one that they can land and upgrade.
Sorry, doesn't make a lick of sense. (Score:5, Interesting)
One thing that has been desirable has been to keep surveillance drones in flight for as long as possible. The longest shuttle mission was 17 days and 15 hours. This drone has been up there for a year before coming down.
Yeah, because it was essentially a satellite in orbit around the earth. We already have spy satellites, and have had them for a lot longer than we have had drones.
The reason why we're using a lot of drones now, despite already having satellites, is because the drones can maintain a lengthy continuous presence over a specific location, rather than passing over that location at regular intervals in an orbit which can be discovered and then worked around. In terms of amount of time continuously observing an area of interest, this space plane has vastly lower numbers than any UAV -- just like all spy satellites.
If you are picturing this being used for surveillance, then what they showed is not a drone with an extremely long loiter time. It's a satellite with an extremely short orbital life span.
I think they're aiming to replace spy satellites with these drones and this was a test to see if a drone can stay up in space for a long duration and still arrive back on ground intact for repairs or to upgrade its system.
If the military has upgraded equipment they want to put in a spy satellite, they just launch a new one. They have no need to recover old ones (unlike back in the day when spy satellites used film), so they just let the old one deorbit.
To figure out what the X37 is for, we need to figure out why the military would need it back. Spy satellite doesn't fit the bill at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It was a quantity issue - even with drastically reduced electrical consumption, there was only so much available onboard. To overcome this limitation, they did develop a set of "buddy tanks [wikipedia.org]" that could be carried in the cargo bay.
Actually (Score:2, Informative)
Someone probably knows, I'd bet several people. Just not yet us.
Occam's Razor (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Occam's Razor (Score:5, Funny)
The only solution is to build a bypass, I hear the Vogons do really good rates these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Fast (Score:2, Funny)
17,000 miles per hour, I guess that's something like 30,000 km/h? That seems pretty fast to me. How much fuel did that consume, and how did they provide it with fuel for a whole year?
Re:Fast (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh be nice... that 7-figure UID can be a heavy burden to bear sometimes!
In other news: Positioning engines for course corrections due to space debris, other satellites and getting a better view of yo momma's house require plenty of energy so albeit a bit mis-guided his question is not completely without merit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I am not sure if you are being sarcastic, so if you are, I apologize.
If it is orbiting at 17,000 mph, the only fuel it would need after it is in that orbit is for course corrections and landing and possibly to correct for any drag.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, looks like I missed the "SPACE plane" part in the article description. I was thinking about flying through air.
Re: (Score:2)
Go away.
Re: (Score:2)
This object has been followed on the seesat-l list, and IIRC from the observations there it did perform a good number of orbital maneuvers, including the possibly fuel-intensive plane change. This required more than needed for mere station-keeping.
Otherwise, you're of course correct.
Re: (Score:3)
how did they provide it with fuel for a whole year?
From TFA
The 29-foot, solar-powered craft had an original mission of 270 days.
The Air Force said the second mission was to further test the technology but the ultimate purpose has largely remained a mystery.
So -- I'm guessing solar power. Also, the folks in the picture are wearing hazmat uniforms and carrying what appears to be a geiger counter, so maybe nuke as well.
Re:Fast (Score:5, Insightful)
nah, the geiger counter is no indication of radioactive material / nukes on board. You see, it turns out, most of the visible objects in outer space are actually humongous balls of radiation-emiting nuclear plasma. spacecraft are routinely dusted by bits of nuclear material. it's also possible (at least theoretically) for atoms bombarded by radiation to transmute into radioactive isotopes themselves. it's probably a good idea to wear a hazmat suit when approaching any spacecraft recently returned from long periods away from atmoshperic shielding.
Re: (Score:2)
"it's also possible (at least theoretically) for atoms bombarded by radiation to transmute into radioactive isotopes themselves."
It's a little more than theoretically possible. If you've got an older smoke detector or have ever had a PET scan, you've taken advantage of transmutation to a radioactive isotope.
Re:Fast (Score:4, Interesting)
The hazmat suites are for hydrazine. Nasty stuff.
If you've ever watched a Shuttle landing to the point where they're letting the crew out, the first people to arrive are the fire trucks, then folks in Hazmat suites to make sure that there is no unreacted hydrazine (from the Reaction Control System) leaking around. It's very, very volatile. The XB-37 Wikipedia article describes shifting the main engine off the hydrogen perioxide (which at the concentrations used is pretty nasty stuff in and of itself) but they may still have hydrazine for the control thrusters.
Besides, they look cool and let you know that the Air Force means business.
Re: (Score:3)
it was orbiting. how much fuel does the moon need to burn?
the point is that usa military has something that can go to orbit, stay there for a year and come back.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It used wind power, obviously.
Re: (Score:2)
Some guy named Newton wants to have a few words with you.
Re:Fast (Score:5, Funny)
17,000 miles per hour, I guess that's something like 30,000 km/h? That seems pretty fast to me. How much fuel did that consume, and how did they provide it with fuel for a whole year?
Travelling through orbital space ain't like dusting crops, boy! It doesn't take any fuel at all. Look at the Moon, for example. It's been in orbit an awfully long time, but how long has it been since it was fuelled up?
Re:Fast (Score:4, Informative)
It consumed roughtly 737,400lbs of fuel, minus the weight of the Atlas V rocket (so 500,000 lbs of fuel?) to get it in orbit. To orbit the earth at an altitude above the non-negligible atmosphere, you need to travel at around 17,000mph or more. This is roughly the same speed the Shuttle, ISS, Dragon capsule, Hubble, et all are moving. The rocket puts it in orbit at that speed. I think once in orbit, about 6 months in to it's mission, it did an orbital course correction, which if done at the correct time, requires surprisingly little fuel to do.
Re: (Score:2)
It consumed roughtly 737,400lbs of fuel, minus the weight of the Atlas V rocket (so 500,000 lbs of fuel?)
Way more than that. The fuel fraction of a rocket has to be on the order of 90% to have a useful payload.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
love this.
testing remote nuke silo... (Score:2)
or
the could be part of an missile intercept program to take down ICMB's...
or
they just wanted to get free Pay Per View.
Re: (Score:2)
Nukes in space has been possible for 50 years. We don't do it because there are treaties against it, treaties that have remarkably been followed by all involved. It's not a a boat that anyone involved really wants to start rocking.
Re:testing remote nuke silo... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nukes in space has been possible for 50 years. We don't do it because there are treaties against it, treaties that have remarkably been followed by all involved. It's not a a boat that anyone involved really wants to start rocking.
It's not so much that there has been any great restraint on the part of the nuclear armed space powers as that there is no point to having them in orbit. ICBMs get anywhere in the world in 30 minutes, SLBMs are even quicker since they are closer. Silos are very well hardened and subs are hard to find- orbiting satellites have limited maneuverability, so you always know where the warhead is. A good chunk of the time orbital dynamics is going to say you're out of position to even hit your desired target. Plus, stuff in space can't be maintained easily and warheads need occasional maintenance to do things like replace the tritium boosters and check the electronics.
It's basically just not necessary
Re: (Score:2)
It's not so much that there has been any great restraint on the part of the nuclear armed space powers as that there is no point to having them in orbit. ICBMs get anywhere in the world in 30 minutes
AHA! This is the meat of the matter. The countries actually capable of deploying an ICBM (or a missile sub) don't need nukes in space — we have ICBMs. The other countries can't get out from under our thumbs sufficiently to put nukes in space; if they could put a nuke in space, they could build an ICBM.
Secret? (Score:5, Interesting)
How secret can it be if we know it happened? What we really have to worry/consider are the things that we never even know happen, not just "don't know their purpose."
If the general community know that this 'secret' spaceplane was up there doing stuff, then you can guarantee that it wasn't doing anything sensitive, though possibly classified. When they do really important and secret things, you can guarantee that we never even know it happened at all.
Re: (Score:2)
"...guarantee that it wasn't doing anything sensitive, though possibly classified... "
you just might not quite understand the meaning of classified.
Re: (Score:2)
I think he does.
Classified, means just that classified.
It may be classified noforn in which case only US citizens may see the whatever it is.
It may be classified secret, or top secret, or TS<codeword>.
In all the above cases it is also sensitive.
It could also be classified as unrestricted (like NASA pictures of the deep cosmos), still classified, but not sensitive.
There is material that is born secret, and there is material that is classified secret, but classification is just that, putting the materia
Re: (Score:3)
No, it's not. In this context, "classified" is not the same thing as the generic English word classified, "to put something in a class." In the context of US Government vernacular, classified means FOUO, secret, or above. It is NOT to be disseminated and explicitly carries with it the idea that leaking it will cause harm to someone or something relating to the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah but you're missing the fact that in the ops world Sensitive has its own meaning.
i work on machines all the time that are labeled quite clearly "Sensitive But Unclassified". It would seem by your definition those machines (or more importantly their contents) had been Classified 'Sensitive' BUT the words tell you quite the opposite. Feel free to explode in a cloud of logic now...
By at least the 3-letter acronyms that I work for anything that has been "Classified" is above the level of "Sensitive", "Sensi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They tried keeping spy satellites secret in the past. Unfortunately, solar panels and Summer evenings are a bit of a giveaway. Once somebody sees that flash of light, next thing they are taking out their telescope, camera and taking photographs.
Re: (Score:3)
How secret can it be if we know it happened?
1. It's really hard to hide a rocket launch.
2. Amateur astronomers like to make a game out of "spot the spy satellite"
The price of technology is coming down and the processing power of computers has going up.
More than enough to allow the hobbyist to spot "secret" satellites.
Give it another generation and the words "secret satellite" will no longer be used together.
Re: (Score:2)
Looking at it doesn't mean you know what it does.
Re: (Score:2)
There are only a very limited number of things that a satellite can do:
1) Look up at the sky
2) Look down at the ground
3) Relay data
4) Come back down again (i.e., as a weapon, perhaps with a warhead)
Seeing as that first category is pretty innocent and will most likely be non-secret (science is for bragging rights as much as anything else), that only really leaves three varieties of sinister purpose. It's also probably pretty much a given that every space-faring government does items 2 & 3 in large quanti
Re: (Score:3)
5) drop something, like a crowbar
6) fire a directed energy weapon at another satellite
7) maneuver and rendezvous with another orbiting body
8) detonate and spread debris throughout orbit
I bet there's a few hundred possibilities I'm missing, but doubling the length of your list without even getting fanciful (like directed energy weapon pointed at the ground, or orbital mind control lasers or something) was trivial.
Re:Secret? (Score:5, Insightful)
it's in the DoD's best interest for people to believe they are in posession of secret and unimaginable technological wonders. I think it's highly dubious (and optimistic, in my experience in this industry) to subscribe to the (conveniently non-falsifiable) notion that the U.S. military keeps all their most impressive toys 100% hidden from view. in fact, i suspect the opposite is closer to the truth.
Re: (Score:3)
"conveniently non-falsifiable"
The secret stuff generally gets declassified, so the hypothesis is not non-falsifiable. In fact, it's easily testable. Just look back thirty years at what was commonly available, what the government was thought to be up to, and what they actually had. It turns out they probably didn't have magic UFO technology, but they did have things like stealth that were quite a bit beyond what was commonly available. Extrapolating, the US military probably has some interesting capabili
Re: (Score:3)
It's been 35 years since I got out of the USAF, and there were things about the SR-71 that are still secret, and rightly so. Stuff that will make your skin crawl. God only knows what they have now.
No, I'm not going to describe the stuff to you. You wouldn't believe it anyway.
Re:Secret? (Score:4, Funny)
JP-7 is made of people!
Re: (Score:2)
What we really have to worry/consider are the things that we never even know happen, not just "don't know their purpose."
Obligatory Rumsfeld quote:
[T]here are known knowns; there are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don't know.
Just how far are you willing to take the paranoia?
Peace,
Andy.
Re: (Score:2)
Just how far are you willing to take the paranoia?
Lem gives you levels to choose from.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memoirs_Found_in_a_Bathtub
CC.
Re: (Score:3)
That's just stupid, space is empty. It's about as hard to hide a spacecraft as it is to hide a supercarrier, it's not that it's there which is a secret but what it can do. The military isn't ostrich stupid, they don't stick their head in the sand and pretend nobody else can see it either. Just like you can't hide a nuclear detonation anymore, anything that doesn't happen in a simulator will get picked up by seismographs. And yes, they register different than earthquakes.
Re: (Score:2)
How secret can it be if we know it happened?
Just because you know that a spy exists and is doing something does not mean that you know what they are doing. That's how it can still be secret and why it still is secret. Yes, we know it's up there, but we have no idea what it's actually doing while it's up there.
Re: (Score:2)
Was the Manhattan Project secret?
Those people in Los Alamos and Oak Ridge are doing something. Are they related? What are they doing?
There was a bright flash somewhere in White Sands. How did they do it? Did it have something to do with Los Alamos?
Something spectacularly bad just happened at Hiroshima. What was it, and how did they do it?
X37-B is landing. What was it doing? And if you ever find out what it was doing, will you know how they did it?
Re: (Score:2)
What we really have to worry/consider are the things that we never even know happen, not just "don't know their purpose."
I think people have better things to do than worry about the infinite number of possibilities that "things that we never even know happen" implies.
I just love journalists... (Score:2, Insightful)
From the Article......
"At launch, the space plane was accompanied by staff in biohazard suits, leading to speculation that there were radioactive components on board. "
Why cant journalists that actually have an education in science cover science subjects?
Really? a BIOHAZARD suit for RADIOACTIVE protection?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they launched The Hulk into space. Or the Fantastic Four. Etc, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the last time photos of technicians working on a spacecraft, wearing Hawaiian shirts, shorts and flip-flops was leaked, Congress thought they weren't taking their job seriously and threatened to cut funding.
Same reason aircraft carrier crews paint over the mini golf course on the deck before returning to port.
Re: (Score:3)
Really? a BIOHAZARD suit for RADIOACTIVE protection?
While you jab at journalists is certainly reasonable, you don't sound all that smart yourself.
Yes, people wear hazmat-type suits for nucular stuff all the time. Look at all the Fukashima pictures. The reason for that is that alpha particles are often attached to dusts and other floaty particles and one should avoid internalizing them. While you could potentially deal with that with just a gas mask (breathing being the most likely route) it's typically felt that swathing the person in Tyvek or whatnot is
Biohazard suits.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny comment in the article: "At launch, the space plane was accompanied by staff in biohazard suits, leading to speculation that there were radioactive components on board."
I'd wear protective suits if it is fueled with hypergolic propellant since it's extremely toxic, so the comment about radioactive components is just bs IMHO.
Re: (Score:2)
Radioactive Hydrazine :oooooooh:
In that case I'd want a lead biosuit.
Seriously, biosuits and cleanroom suits are the norm in space related activities.
It's no different than the (don't know the official name of the position) guy who dumps fuel in the race cars wearing a full nomex suit and protective gear. There is a well above non zero chance of exposure to flammable liquid or fire, so you protect against it.
-nB
Re: (Score:2)
... don't know the official name of the ... guy who dumps fuel in the race cars ....
If it were the space program, he'd be the Propellant Installation Engineer.
If he were in a union he'd be a Flammable Fluids Expert.
In the military, he'd be a Motorcraft Refueling Technician.
But this is auto racing we're talking about, so we just call him the Fueler.
space plane testing near Denver (Score:3)
No one knows what it's been doing all this time... (Score:5, Funny)
Not even the air force, or DARPA, or the NSA.
Government Spokesperson:
"It just kinda launched itself and seemed to be having a good time up there so we let it be."
Re: (Score:2)
That would be creepy to hear.
Also, if it really had launched its self I think we all know it would be shot down ASAP.
-nB
Re:No one knows what it's been doing all this time (Score:5, Funny)
Do not taunt happy fun shuttle.
Re: (Score:3)
Should be obvious (Score:2)
The US military has had an open goal of expanding its capabilities to kill targets selectively with as little delay as possible. All the gadgetry to achieve real-time eyes-on intelligence on a potential target (like the late UBL) can be worthless if it takes an hour or more to mobilize a strike against it and the target slips away. Having a potential weapons platform already up in the air 24/7 for a year at a time can cut the response time significantly. And if you are hindered by the fixed orbit, like spy
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is the whole point of the space-plane is that it can easily land, refuel, reload, and get back in orbit. Therefore they can afford to have a larger fuel reserve for orbital maneuvers and you need fewer total craft in the sky to have strike-anywhere capability. Satellites could afford much more maneuvers if they were only expected to stay up for a year at a time rather than the decade(s) that many do now.
Actually, the biggest reason for being able to maneuver on orbit is stealth. It is much hard
Re:I would guess... (Score:4, Funny)
this is ground control to X37-B (Score:2)
Either that, or the original flightplan was for a three hour cruise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
1 year in orbit, 1 year to mars. Seems like a trial of whether the thing can stay sealed up and functional that long.
You're suggesting that the US Air Force is planning on invading Mars?
Look, I know they have mission plans for all sorts of unlikely things, but I believe you're pushing the envelope here.