After Almost Two Years, The Air Force's Mysterious X-37B Space Plane Lands (space.com) 116
An anonymous reader quotes Space.com:
The record-shattering mission of the U.S. Air Force's robotic X-37B space plane is finally over. After circling Earth for an unprecedented 718 days, the X-37B touched down Sunday at the Shuttle Landing Facility at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida -- the first landing at the SLF since the final space shuttle mission came back to Earth in July 2011... The just-ended mission, known as OTV-4 (Orbital Test Vehicle-4), was the fourth for the X-37B program... The 29-foot-long (8.8 meters) X-37B looks like NASA's now-retired space shuttle orbiter, only much smaller; indeed, two X-37Bs could fit inside a space shuttle's cavernous payload bay...
Most of the X-37B's payloads and activities are classified, leading to some speculation that the space plane could be a weapon of some sort, perhaps a disabler of enemy satellites... But Air Force officials have always strongly refuted that notion, stressing that the vehicle is simply testing technologies on orbit. "Technologies being tested in the program include advanced guidance, navigation and control; thermal-protection systems; avionics; high-temperature structures and seals; conformal, reusable insulation, lightweight electromechanical flight systems; and autonomous orbital flight, re-entry and landing," Captain AnnMarie Annicelli, an Air Force spokeswoman, told Space.com via email in March.
Most of the X-37B's payloads and activities are classified, leading to some speculation that the space plane could be a weapon of some sort, perhaps a disabler of enemy satellites... But Air Force officials have always strongly refuted that notion, stressing that the vehicle is simply testing technologies on orbit. "Technologies being tested in the program include advanced guidance, navigation and control; thermal-protection systems; avionics; high-temperature structures and seals; conformal, reusable insulation, lightweight electromechanical flight systems; and autonomous orbital flight, re-entry and landing," Captain AnnMarie Annicelli, an Air Force spokeswoman, told Space.com via email in March.
Refute vs. Rebut (Score:1)
The Air Force rebutted arguments it was a weapon. It did not refute them. The latter requires evidence, the former is mere PR.
Re: (Score:3)
Rebut can also mean to prove false, and refute can also mean simply to deny (though it's not how I would read it).
"But Air Force officials have always strongly denied that notion" would have been much simpler.
Re: (Score:1)
Rebut can also mean to prove false, and refute can also mean simply to deny (though it's not how I would read it).
"But Air Force officials have always strongly denied that notion" would have been much simpler.
No, actually "We can neither confirm nor deny" would have been much simpler, would have eliminated the bullshit semantics around rebut vs. refute, and quite frankly, would have conformed to governmentspeak tradition.
Re: (Score:2)
Weapons in space are illegal under treaty law. Refusing to deny illegal activities is not usually the best way to go.
Re: (Score:2)
and refute can also mean simply to deny
Not really. It's just another instance of the media and politicians picking up a nice new technical-sounding word and not bothering to check what it means before using it. Of course the sheer volume of mis-use does in time change the actual meaning, but I don't think "refute" is quite that broken yet.
See also epicentre, code, chad, hacker, etc...
Re: (Score:2)
Yes really. When people misuse a word often enough, it stops being a misuse.
https://www.merriam-webster.co... [merriam-webster.com]
Re:Refute vs. Rebut (Score:5, Interesting)
"Nawww, the spaceplane isn't a weapon (which is technically true). What's in the cargo hold includes these experiments..."
Probably included bleeding edge spy electronics in actual service, the only reason for such an extended mission beyond exercising for stress test reasons new electron8cs and materials, which Nasa would have covered already in ongoing missions.
Re:Refute vs. Rebut (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Refute vs. Rebut (Score:5, Funny)
"Nawww, the spaceplane isn't a weapon
In unrelated news, police and firefighters were called to the scene of a house bursting with popcorn early this morning. Homeowner Jerry Hathaway was unavailable for comment.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
well... using it as a weapon for two years before re-landing would seem odd, unless it is using an extremely light and small form of ammunition
Monkey-wrenching other satellites may be another purpose, but it would require phenomenal amounts of fuel to match orbit and approach a single satellite, much less many satellites
I am inclined to believe that it is an observation platform that can make up for weaknesses in our current surveillance satellites, which have well known orbits and periods of observation of
Re: (Score:2)
well... using it as a weapon for two years before re-landing would seem odd, unless it is using an extremely light and small form of ammunition
Monkey-wrenching other satellites may be another purpose, but it would require phenomenal amounts of fuel to match orbit and approach a single satellite, much less many satellites
I am inclined to believe that it is an observation platform that can make up for weaknesses in our current surveillance satellites, which have well known orbits and periods of observation of certain areas.
just my 2 cents
IDK. How important is the satellite network to communications in so-called first world nations? Pretty damn.
Not just for your internet and cable, either; as a prelude to a military offensive, blinding your opponent is a sweet sucker punch.
To paraphrase Eddie Murphy, "I could whoop Stevie Wonder's ass!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Part of the US thinks that with ever better look down it will never need the services of a CIA or MI6 with humans on site.
No amount of fences, restricted areas, sealed off parts of a nation or secure mil sites can be protected from now random reconnaissance times.
No nation can now track most of the traditional US reconnaissance satellites and take measures not to be doing things under the US satellites
reconfigurimable (Score:2)
not convinced (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just because it wasn't a weapon, doesn't mean they weren't testing technology to develop weapons.
Re:not convinced (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, or to put it another way, "What do you think a secret phase conjugate tracking system is for?"
One obvious stepping stone towards weaponizing space would be developing advanced surveillance and precision tracking technology, and experimenting with it without actually building the weapon part. After all, once you build the weapon and use it, you're committed. Everybody knows you have it, and if the outcry is too strong, you've lost the PR war, and you're never going to get money for new R&D. So it makes sense to limit your laser testing to labs (because location doesn't matter much for that), and test only the tracking/optics in a real-world environment until you get that part exactly right, then merge the two after you have all the key pieces for your superweapon.
I'm not saying they're doing this, because how would I know, but that's certainly what I'd do if I wanted to pull a fast one on the general public. Just saying.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on what you mean by "space-to-ground weapons systems". If you mean something that can hit a building from space, sure, we could do that today. But for any weapons system to be useful in modern-day asymmetrical warfare (e.g. terrorism), you need to be able to identify a target reliably. If you use ground-based surveillance to find the target, you're already in harm's way, so there's n
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"the vehicle is simply testing technologies on orbit" -- why is it so secret, then?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:not convinced (Score:5, Funny)
-- why is it so secret, then?
The Air Force is just protecting their IP . . . they are worried that Über will hire away one of the Air Force's colonels with stolen design materials, and offer a competing Secret Space Plane Service, that can be hailed with an App!
Actually, the really secret news, is that, although the Secret Space plane took off unmanned, . . . it landed with three passengers!
The "guests" will be working on the Air Force's super secret Götterdämmerung project, which is being developed at the follow-on virtual site to Area 51. The virtual site is not in one place, but uses advanced distributed technology, based on Git, Blockchain and BitTorrent in an Internet of Things. If one node of the virtual site gets destroyed by Russian Hackers, the other nodes can recreate the work of node.
The Air Force stated that the purpose Götterdämmerung is "no what you think it is", and that they also have no idea what you think.
Re: (Score:1)
In space ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: In space ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You'll hear the roar and hiss... no updraft action. I owned one of those planes. You don't hear that.
You'll also hear the rat tat tat of the machine guns... and if you're hit the blap blap blap (splat if it hits the other guy).
I've seen it (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I've seen it (Score:1)
Must be fun trying to track it through a telescope.
Re: (Score:2)
A long time ago, a friend told me about his new telescope. He'd set it up and it would checkout the GPS satellites to figure out its location and orientation and time. Then, if he gave it something to look at, it would (if possible) turn itself to aim at that. I believe that, if he wanted to look at a satellite, it would keep the scope on the target as long as possible.
Re: (Score:1)
plane? (Score:3)
One small detail... (Score:2)
"Technologies being tested in the program include advanced guidance, navigation and control; thermal-protection systems; avionics; high-temperature structures and seals; conformal, reusable insulation, lightweight electromechanical flight systems; and autonomous orbital flight, re-entry and landing," [...]
Coming to a Walmart near you!
Re:One small detail... (Score:5, Interesting)
The Air Force had their fingers deep in the Shuttle program - mostly to it's detriment. Cross-range landing capability, payload size and a host of other goals were stuffed into the project making it one of the largest human kludges ever designed.
Now they get to play with their own toys. If we're very nice, they might let NASA take a peek. But probably not. There are both valid reasons for keeping the military technologically ahead of the civilian space program and some institutional / paranoia reasons.
Hopefully everyone remembers enough of the Shuttle program to not try to make a one size fits all high technology vehicle.
Like the F-35.
Sigh.
Re:One small detail... (Score:4, Insightful)
Like the F-35.
But with the F-35, it is the Marines, not the USAF, that are ruining it.
The V/STOL capability has required a lot of compromises in other capabilities.
Re: (Score:3)
For example the dysfunctional (and almost useless even if functional) gun, the abysmal helmet, and the serviceability?
Yeah, those were the marines...
US pork procurement procedures are what ruined it, and pretty much every other US military project in the last 20+ years, not the marines.
Meanwhile the Russians and the Chinese are making actual progress..
Re: (Score:2)
The V/STOL Marine version of the F-35 is completely separate from the Air Force and Navy versions.
Re: (Score:2)
The V/STOL Marine version of the F-35 is completely separate from the Air Force and Navy versions.
Yet the ability to create a V/STOL version required compromises in the airframe, engine placement, and many other areas of the base design, that weaken all the versions. Likewise, the Navy's need for an airframe that can handle steam catapult launches and arresting cable landings, means that the Air Force is getting a heavier airframe than they need, resulting in a slower plane with a reduced range.
Re: (Score:2)
It reminds me of an attempt in the early '60s to do similar. We ended up w/ the F4 Phantom II. Pretty much living proof that a pig *can* fly given sufficient thrust.
Through upgrades, re-thinking tactics, and training, it was turned into an adequate, if expensive weapon.
It appears that every generation needs to make the same mistakes as their forebears.
Re: (Score:2)
First landing since...? (Score:2)
I guess they don't count the SpaceX booster returns
Mount a Ma Deuce on that sucker (Score:2)
Oh shit, if you don't hear from me tomorrow start a gofundme to get me a lawyer.
Re:Mount a Ma Deuce on that sucker (Score:5, Insightful)
Remote tracking from earth, or advanced software that lets someone on the ground say "shoot that", and who can prove it wasn't random space junk that took out that satellite.
Anyone who tracks pieces of space junk, I would think.
Look at this device in context. China, Russia and the US are all working on hypersonic weapons. With such a weapon, you could potentially strike any point on the Earth within an hour, combining the global reach of an ICBM and the precision terminal guidance of a smart bomb, without the political ... well, fallout you'd get from the brute force of a nuclear strike.
You obviously could weaponize a space drone, but once you'd actually used it the cat would be out of the bag. Everyone would know you're stationing weapons in space, so next time there's a chance of a conflict all your space assets are a target, which of course is especially bad for the country with the most space assets. Oh, don't get me wrong. You'd surely keep your options open, probably even discreetly study the problem, especially in an cost-is-no-object procurement atmosphere.
But the thing that a military who's increasingly emphasizing precision from afar needs most is to know is the right chimney to drop the bomb down. So while I wouldn't be surprised if the program did have some space-based weapons goals, I'd be really surprised if it didn't have intelligence-gathering goals.
Lots of uses (Score:2)
I think it's primary mission is as a roving spy satellite platform which can change orbit. Maybe even as a platform for the deployment and possibly retrieval of micro satellites. Lets say you want to observe an area that you think is active only when typical satellites are not overhead. You could launch a micro sat with stealth tech to do short term undetectable observation. This is highly likely I believe. Less probable but maybe even more useful would near silent reusable small sats that could sync bac
Re: (Score:2)
Let's try to argue we shot it down as opposed to space junk hitting it.
/ then again, with it's payload it probably has a few million rounds of ammo
Re: (Score:2)
Oh and changing orbits takes a ridiculous amount of fuel. You're better off using a normal satellite, one without all of the added weight of thermal protection necessary for
Re: (Score:2)
Why the hell would anyone mount a machine gun on a satellite?
Why, indeed? [popularmechanics.com]
These days there are such things as guided bullets. It's not hard to imagine a large projectile (in the tens of mm range, perhaps) which would be guided not by fins, but by jets. Then you could make a course correction.
Not to mention the recoil will put your satellite out of alignment instantly.
Obviously, you take that into account.
You're probably right anyway, though. You'd use something more like a rocket and less like a bullet. For example, you could use a Gyrojet [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Lets say someone doesn't understand the physics of firing a .50 cal in space :)
Ha!
I still want to see the movie, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Because the hydrazine fuel almost every spacecraft uses is incompatible with human life. That cart and big hose they have hooked up to the craft are draining the remaining tank contents. There are later pictures where workers are approaching the craft in plain clothes.
Re: (Score:1)
Those are protective gear for hypergolic propellants. Wikipedia says the X-37 engine was changed to use nitrogen-tetroxide/hydrazine. Those are both toxic, but deliver much more reliable engine restarts, hence consistent with the X-37's long-duration mission objectives.
Re: (Score:2)
HAZMAT suits worn by crew at landing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Hydrazine? [wikipedia.org]
Nothing to see here. (Score:1)
Re: Dolts (Score:1)
Kinda sad he still makes you so angry. Do you want to have sex with him, but can't? Is that why you're so angry?
Re: Dolts (Score:1)
Can you explain why all Trump supporters are so obsessed with cocks and cuckolding please.
Re:Dolts (Score:4, Insightful)
Grab your pacifier and head for your safe space, it'll all be OK.
Space is not safe. Apart from not having any air to breathe it is really hot and cold at the same time. Also stuff is fast and if it hits you it hurts. There are these invisible wells full of gravity which tend to suck.
In safe space nobody can hear you scream 'SAFETY'
Re: (Score:2)
What does that have to do with the article? If you're going to complain about him, at least do it somewhere relevant. Otherwise you look like a (worse) fool.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:space.com is owned by chinese gov (Score:4, Interesting)
Uh, no.
Space.com is owned by the Purch Group [wikipedia.org], which is an American media company based in New York.