Secretive X-37B Military Space Plane Could Land On Tuesday 81
schwit1 writes After twenty-two months in orbit, on its second space mission, the Air Force plans to bring the X-37B back to Earth this coming Tuesday. From the article: "The exact time and date will depend on weather and technical factors, the Air Force said in a statement released on Friday. The X-37B space plane, also known as the Orbital Test Vehicle, blasted off for its second mission aboard an unmanned Atlas 5 rocket from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida on Dec. 11, 2012. The 29-foot-long (9-meter) robotic spaceship, which resembles a miniature space shuttle, is an experimental vehicle that first flew in April 2010. It returned after eight months. A second vehicle blasted off in March 2011 and stayed in orbit for 15 months."
The biggest secret? (Score:1)
It will soon be revealed that OSX 10.10 Yosemite was developed entirely in space on the X-37B in order to provide adequate security. It's returning home now that it's about to be released.
Re: (Score:1)
They had to to patch bash, and didn't think they could safely do it in orbit.
Re: (Score:2)
Patch the entire OS from orbit--it's the only way to be sure
It must be running out of fuel (Score:2)
Why else would they need to bring it back
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see any claim that they "need" to bring it back, just that they "are" bringing it back. Considering that its stated mission is to test various technologies, maybe they want to change the payload out. Maybe the mission ended. Apparently the other two missions did not end because of a lack of fuel.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It must be running out of fuel (Score:4, Funny)
They managed to give Kim Jong-il cancer with their first mission, and now that they've perfected their orbital space-cancer-raygun, took out Hugo Chavez and Kim Jong-un on this latest mission. Why build airborne drones when you can riddle offending world leaders with cancer from orbit?
Re: (Score:2)
Much more cost effective ways to give someone cancer. CIA would do it the old fashioned way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why else would they need to bring it back
To install a different sensor package? To put it into a different orbit? I can think of many reasons, after all the whole point of the X-37 is that it can land and be re-used for different mission profiles.
Re: (Score:1)
America spends plenty of public and private money to feed the hungry. If anyone is actually left hungry it's not for lack of resources expended at the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Remove 'and not a hobo by choice,' and the last sentence becomes more true. Why exclude a group of completely daft people?
Have you ever lived/worked near a rail yard? 'Hobos' are violent criminal scumbags. The only thing good about them is what they do to college hipsters who red 'on the road' one time too many.
Re: (Score:1)
know why? because you don't care about homeless people or the starving. The only thing you really care about is making excuses for your masters to justify their horrendous profiteering on said defenseless poor people across the earth and in murica
Really, you should kill yourself.
Greetings troll.
You need to add another reflective fold in your tinfoil hat, you are ranting shit-filled gibberish again. The mind control rays from our glorious, glorious masters have penetrated your defences. Please adjust your tinfoil hat to protect yourself.
Quick, hurry before the next MCR-Sat makes another orbital pass!!
Re: (Score:3)
That is so fucking bullshit its not even funny. The definition of "plenty" is debatable, as America doesn't spent nearly 1/10th what it needs to feed its poor. Let along medical care, the big one.
The military budget, however, rarely if ever gets questioned, and we have by far the largest military spending in the world. Mabey 1/3 could probably end both homelessness and hunger, and pay for universal health care.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We spend ~$800B on Medicare/caid we spend ~$600B on defense and "war-specific spending" (aka, defense), and about $300B on welfare of various kinds. Defense spending is less than 20% of our $3.5T budget. (Social Security is the largest outlay).
Of course, you're right that we're not adequately funding Medi*, as the unfunded liability there is about $800,000 per taxpayer. Not sure what we can do about that. The total US unfunded liabilities (dominated by medicare) exceeds that value of all US assets. Confi
Re: (Score:2)
Even ignoring the political ramifications of spending so much on defence, what justification is there for doing so? In terms of improving the lives and health of US citizens what had the most effect, invading Iraq or healthcare?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I happen to think a strong military presence helps us all, but I've already lost that fight, and military budgets are shrinking every year. We've already stopped being a superpower, it's just that no one else has stepped up to dominate their region yet (other than Russia, who we're used to being assholes). With defense at only 20%, future reductions give diminishing returns. Don't count on that to fix the huge problem with government overspending.
Federal revenue has come back up as a % of GDP with
Re: (Score:2)
How much was spent on stopping the minimum wage from raising to $5 a day so that the CEO of Haynes could get a bonus?
I have it on good authority (Score:1, Insightful)
That this thing has some advanced propulsion system on it that also gives it some clever control over inertia and gravity. This is the thing that cut a chunk out of that asteroid that passed near Earth, towed it into orbit, and hurled it into Russian airspace. As a demonstration. Of course, we calculated the precise mass and trajectory of said asteroid chunk so as not to kill anyone...
Re: (Score:3)
Was that information you received from the dental implant containing the transceiver you were given following the anal probe procedure during the last "visit"?
You may joke, but getting a dental implant via anal probe is no laughing matter. Its also not a recommended method for flossing.
Re: (Score:3)
What about a brushing? Or a waterpik?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The anal route is the most direct means of cranial access for more than a few people around here.
Re: (Score:2)
You may joke, but getting a dental implant via anal probe is no laughing matter. Its also not a recommended method for flossing.
So I can give up the micro-kinis and go back to boxers? There will be much relief all around.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not secretive (Score:5, Funny)
It's just shy.
Godspeed (Score:5, Funny)
The real space shuttle (Score:5, Interesting)
Whatever the X-37B does, it seems to do it well. The USAF sends them up into space, they stay up for months or years, they do whatever they do, and they come home.
Space is the place - for robots.
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever the X-37B does, it seems to do it well. The USAF sends them up into space, they stay up for months or years, they do whatever they do, and they come home.
Space is the place - for robots.
It's a weapons platform and it's likely out of ammo.
Think of all the drone strikes we've had as of late... now imagine if the drone was at just a tad higher altitude and had the optics of a military spy satellite... how handy would that be? and you think they don't have one? An orbital sniper rifle would be a hell of a thing.
Re: (Score:2)
What's deadlier? A million dollar system that requires huge infrastructure and hours of preparation or a million machine gun bullets?
Well, the million dollar system. A million bullets ain't doing jack shit on their own.
Re: (Score:2)
Just for surveillance.... all the complex space related international treaties are still in play.
Re: (Score:2)
Many nations that would be interesting to a military spy satellite would have the ability to track this and over time every other US spy satellite.
The selling point of this project would have been to remove all the limitations of a traditional, trackable path of a hardware limited military spy satellite.
Other nations know its up, know kit can be swapped out, know it is a bit different and have taken simple, very low cost steps to avoid any
Re: (Score:2)
ah but container ships aren't expensive. the USA only does things to stupid expensive way first. then simplifies later. That way we can do it twice at 5 times the cost as everyone else.
Just look at our healthcare system. We pay 2-3 times what other countries pay and nearly 1/6th of our population still can't afford to go to a doctor.
Re: (Score:2)
The space plane is just another way of keeping the cash flowing to contractors and keeping old space related jobs safe.
Keep the expensive skill sets with a few more projects and generations.
Re: (Score:1)
Dream Chaser? (Score:3)
I wouldn't be surprised if the USAF would grab Dream Chaser for that. It's basically a much larger version of the X-37B and even is meant to be launched on the same launcher (Atlas V) since it doesn't need that frigging huge payload shroud that the X-37B hides its wings under during ascent.
After Sierra Nevada being denied NASA money they're basically beggars who can't be too choosy anyway.
Whatever the USAF needs the X37B for, Dream Chaser would be even better suited for it and again: same launcher, same la
I thought it was dead (Score:3)
I thought it was dead, and the Air Force just didn't say anything to mess with people and make them think about what it was up to.
Second Space Mission?? (Score:1)
After twenty-two months in orbit, on its second space mission, the Air Force plans to bring the X-37B back to Earth this coming Tuesday. [...] the Orbital Test Vehicle, blasted off for its second mission aboard an unmanned Atlas 5 rocket from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida on Dec. 11, 2012. [...] an experimental vehicle that first flew in April 2010. It returned after eight months. A second vehicle blasted off in March 2011 and stayed in orbit for 15 months."
So it first flew in April 2010, a second time in March 2011 and a second second time on Dec. 11, 2012?
I could forgive making that mistake once, but not twice inside one summary. The article itself only made the mistake once.
Or is it me who's making the mistake, along with Wikipedia? On its page it says that it's currently on its third space flight...
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, on a second and longer reading it appears that there are three space missions flown by X-37 B's overall, but there were two space planes of that designation built. The first X-37 B built flew the first (2010) and this last, third (2012) mission while the second one built flew the second (2011) mission.
This space mission is one vehicle's second flight but the third overall mission. It could have been made a little clearer and less conflicting, I think.
Trippy (Score:5, Funny)
Could Land On Tuesday
What's wrong with landing on a runway?
Re: (Score:2)
they want to make sure they land on time
Re: (Score:2)
The Chinese hacked the landing code (Score:2)