Boeing Moving X-37B Operations To the Kennedy Space Center 35
schwit1 writes "A spy plane used by the U.S. Air Force is about to get a new home: a garage at Kennedy Space Center that once housed NASA orbiters during the space shuttle era. The move was announced Friday by Boeing, the Chicago-based company that built the X-37B orbital test vehicle and is in charge of repairing the spacecraft whenever it returns to Earth. Previously, Boeing had refurbished the 29-foot-long spacecraft at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, but the company decided to relocate its fix-up shop in Florida, where the vehicle now launches."
manned cabin (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
I guess every US gov't department is interesting in backdooring whatever/whomever they can...
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe that's why so many government officials are against gay marriage... they don't want to be tied down to backdooring only one thing for the rest of their life.
Re: (Score:3)
I guess every US gov't department is interesting in backdooring whatever/whomever they can...
Hell, the IRS 'backdoors' me every April.
Fixed link (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Kennedy is situated near the equator (28 degrees latitude) to take advantage of the additional velocity of the Earth's rotation in an Eastward launch. This reduces the delta-v you need to achieve orbit, meaning less fuel, less cost, and more payload. Unfortunately launching to the East limits you to equatorial orbits which pass over only about the middle +/- 28-62 degrees of latitude. That's good enough coverage of the Earth's su
Re:I wish they wouldn't (Score:5, Funny)
Why can't we just demilitarize NASA. The military already has their own Space Command, so why do they have to fuck with NASA as well?
Why do dogs piss on trees? Or XBL kiddies teabag corpses in Halo?
Because winning just isn't as much fun if you don't mark your territory.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Billing the Air Force for use of available facilities transfers some of the military space budget back to civilian agencies. Remember, the military space budget is larger than NASA's so NASA could probably use the money.
Re: (Score:2)
...presumably it is too expensive to do long term physical operations in the People's Republic of Kalifornia as well as favoring different orbital paths.
I wouldn't choose the state if I were siting a garment plant or a toxin smelter; but do you imagine that there is a particularly large cost delta for a corporation that can probably book just about anything in almost any state or several overseas offices if the tax accountant says to, running an operation involving a relatively small number of skilled specialists (presumably with fairly robust clearances, even if they are just screwdriver peons, given the secrecy surrounding the details of the project)?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
my guess would be they are going for the lower latitudes.
launching from higher latitudes requires more fuel for the same orbit.
so either they are lifting a heavier load or going for a higher orbit.
to move just to save money would be totally out of character for the U.S. Gov.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not sure if that is true.
IIRC, most of the spy satellites uses a polar orbit, where latitude makes less of a difference.
US Lost the space race (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The recent off-planet excursions by the Chinese may be viable threat enough to restart one though, he said hopefully.
It is unfortunate that governments/nations are unable to advance space exploration without perceived military benefit, but that's just the way of it presently.
Re:US Lost the space race (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Good point. Currently, space exploration is - or should be - more about science than a race.
I have a friend who works as a scientist for NASA, and he has made the point that there is very little "science" to be gleaned from the manned exploration of space, e.g. "the space race". Basically, the unmanned probes and robots can gather data at a much lower cost. Manned exploration like moon landings and space stations may capture the public imagination, and thus lead to funding (even in China), but they just
Re: (Score:2)
Currently, space exploration is - or should be - more about science than a race.
Space exploration should be about enabling future activities in space.
Re: (Score:2)
Which activities? We won't know what's worthwhile without doing the science.
Remember, it's Ready, Aim, Fire.
In that order.
Re: (Score:2)
Which activities? We won't know what's worthwhile without doing the science.
I agree. But we can also do science that doesn't help us. For example, most funding for onsite Mars research is actually spent on technology development that will probably only be used for a few Mars vehicles.
Re: (Score:2)
"Space Shuttle Era"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Is this what used to be known as the LAB (Score:2)
ie. Launch Assembly Building for the Apollo's?
Spy Plane? (Score:1)