After Two Years The Air Force's X-37B Space Plane Finally Lands (cbsnews.com) 39
"An unpiloted Air Force X-37B spaceplane, one of two winged orbiters used to carry out classified research, made a surprise landing at the Kennedy Space Center early Sunday to close out a record 780-day mission," reports CBS News:
It was the fifth flight in the secretive Orbital Test Vehicle (OTV) program, pushing total time aloft to 2,865 days. "This program continues to push the envelope as the (Air Force's) only reusable space vehicle," Randy Walden, director of the Air Force's Rapid Capabilities Office, said in a statement. "With a successful landing today, the X-37B completed its longest flight to date and successfully completed all mission objectives."
The unpiloted orbiters, built by Boeing, are based on the same lifting body design used for the space shuttle and they fly a similar re-entry trajectory to a runway touchdown. The X-37B features a small 4-foot by 7-foot payload bay and uses a deployable solar array for power. The spacecraft are believed to fly as orbital test beds for advanced technology sensors and other systems but the program is classified, and the Air Force provides few details. Walden said the latest mission "successfully hosted Air Force Research Laboratory experiments, among others, as well as providing a ride for small satellites...."
The X-37B is one of only two operational spacecraft capable of multiple flights to and from orbit. SpaceX's unpiloted Dragon cargo ship also can be refurbished for additional flights... "This spacecraft is a key component of the space community," Lt. Col. Jonathan Keen, X-37B program manager, said in the Air Force statement. "This milestone demonstrates our commitment to conducting experiments for America's future space exploration. Congratulations to the X-37B team for a job well done."
The unpiloted orbiters, built by Boeing, are based on the same lifting body design used for the space shuttle and they fly a similar re-entry trajectory to a runway touchdown. The X-37B features a small 4-foot by 7-foot payload bay and uses a deployable solar array for power. The spacecraft are believed to fly as orbital test beds for advanced technology sensors and other systems but the program is classified, and the Air Force provides few details. Walden said the latest mission "successfully hosted Air Force Research Laboratory experiments, among others, as well as providing a ride for small satellites...."
The X-37B is one of only two operational spacecraft capable of multiple flights to and from orbit. SpaceX's unpiloted Dragon cargo ship also can be refurbished for additional flights... "This spacecraft is a key component of the space community," Lt. Col. Jonathan Keen, X-37B program manager, said in the Air Force statement. "This milestone demonstrates our commitment to conducting experiments for America's future space exploration. Congratulations to the X-37B team for a job well done."
Reusable (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
most of the exterior had to be replaced every flight.
Something you gotta do if you want the astronauts to be reusable
Re:Reusable (Score:5, Interesting)
The X-37 launches at the tip of a rocket inside a protective fairing, so it won't have the Space Shuttle's problem of ice and foam breaking off the external tank and damaging the orbiter. It also doesn't have all the life support systems to drain and recharge, main engines to replace after every launch, or an interior to refurbish between flights. And it's a lot smaller.
Since the X-37 isn't man-rated, the standards are significantly lower, too. If they needed to, they could probably have it flight-ready again in a day.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they said "reusable space vehicle" so they didn't need to add the editorial qualifier of "Air Force's" since nobody else has a reusable space vehicle.
If you replace the bumper on a car, is it still the same vehicle? Yes.
And no, the space shuttle didn't have most of the exterior replaced. It had the exterior inspected and tested, and they replaced individual tiles and things as needed.
Nobody else is even flying a "space vehicle," everybody else is sending payloads in a orbital vehicle on top of a rocke
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like the Ship of Theseus [wikipedia.org] thought experiment.
Re: (Score:3)
As originally flown, procedures required inspection of the tiles and replacement of any missing or loose ones (nowhere near "most of the exterior". The real limiting factor was apparently removal, inspection and reinstallation of the engines.
Post-challenger, new procedures increased the man-hours required to turn around an orbiter by an order of magnitude.
The X-37 doesn't have the hugely complicated main engines, likely has better tiles using newer technology, and doesn't put the entire manned space program
Re: (Score:2)
"So what's the definition of reusable in this case?"
As you see, every couple of years a checkup.
Re: (Score:2)
So what's the definition of reusable in this case?
Can be used again.
Re: (Score:2)
> but required a ridiculous amount of time to refit since most of the exterior had to be replaced every flight.
??? If by replaced you mean inspected and a few tiles here and there per flight replaced, sure.
The solid rocket boosters and the 3 main shuttle engines were the maintenance sink for rebuilding between flights, along with all the other inspections.
"Classified research" (Score:2)
"Cause if you knew, you wouldn't want it, as it will ultimately harm you."
Re: "Classified research" (Score:5, Interesting)
"National Security" is not the same thing as "safety of the people" - it means "continuity of the current State". Even an elected President can be a national security threat, if they want to make big changes (e.g. Gabbard).
Ed Snowden's recent interview on The Joe Rogan Experience went into this terminology technically, and in-depth. A good primer for those who want to learn more.
More to the point... (Score:2)
"National Security" is not the same thing as "safety of the people" - it means "continuity of the current State". Even an elected President can be a national security threat, if they want to make big changes (e.g. Gabbard).
Ed Snowden's recent interview on The Joe Rogan Experience went into this terminology technically, and in-depth. A good primer for those who want to learn more.
Hell, "National Security" has become a catchall excuse to give the government whatever powers those IN power want, Constitution be damned. NatSec has become the rubric of "we can do anything we want because *insert "threat" here".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Cause if you knew, you wouldn't want it, as it will ultimately harm you."
No, Ivan, I would definitely want it, because it keeps you from harming me.
Re: (Score:2)
"An unpiloted Air Force X-37B spaceplane, one of two winged orbiters used to carry out classified research, made a surprise landing at the Kennedy Space Center early Sunday to close out a record 780-day mission," reports CBS News:
The X-37B's first words on landing were "Dammit, is that guy still president? I thought 780 days would be enough... get be back up there again and don't bring me back down until he's gone".
Critical Project (Score:2)
This is effectively the Space Shuttle or ISS of the military. This is critical for our worldwide dominance of the sky... proof we still can send anything anywhere!
Re: (Score:3)
This is effectively the Space Shuttle or ISS of the military.
The Space Shuttle was already the Space Shuttle of the military. Seriously.
Though presented as a civilian program, and paid for out of the civilian budget all of the super-expensive, and astronaut-life-threatening, aspects of the shuttle were due to secret military requirements. Which is why the Space Shuttle resembled the military's cancelled DynaSoar, and the new X-37B resembles the Space Shuttle -- the military has always wanted this reusable space operations platform that could fly to recovery sites of
Re: (Score:3)
As I loaded the page for my own question on Stack Overflow/Exchange/Whatever after a day or so, it said "0" for the votes. However, when I accidentally opened it in a different "sandbox", not logged in, it said "-2". I reloaded both pages again to make sure it wasn't some temporary glitch. In other words, they don't even let you see the correct number of votes anymore...
Uhm, the reason you're -1 here is because you're offtopic. Try posting your complaints to the right articles to get your opinions heard.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't, but it does show that /. still needs to clamp down further on the AC system. I loved that week when there was no AC posting, period. Need a return to that, and a mechanism to get shitposters like the above permabanned.
USAF should be chastised for this... (Score:4, Interesting)
There is zero excuse for not giving prior warning about this, especially since it was coming in during the middle of the night.
If I were local law enforcement I would be miffed because of all of the false alarms this generates without advance notice.
I live in the Central Florida area the last time they pulled this stunt it really freaked everyone out. I love a good sonic boom but only when we know it is coming.
Having one out of the blue is momentarily terrifying.
Re: (Score:3)
Local law enforcement doesn't get to "chastise" the Air Force.
If they tried, it would be "pigs oinking stupidly again," not something that would chastise anyone.
In fact, the biggest response they could hope for would be a lecture from the Air Force on the relative difference in seriousness between nuclear war and a few people who live next to a spaceport being woken up by a space plane landing.
"a surprise landing at the Kennedy Space Center.." (Score:2)
Anyone else find the notion of a "surprise landing" ANYWHERE to be a little worrying?
Re:"a surprise landing at the Kennedy Space Center (Score:4, Insightful)
Just so we're all on the same page here (Score:2)
So are we all just going to tacitly ignore this vehicles true purpose? Rumors have been openly circulating for years that this space plane is simply the latest nuclear payload delivery mechanism of the United States (or 'fourth column' of preemptive nuclear 'defense') with orbital loitering capabilities measured in years rather than hours. In trademark style the air force neither confirms nor denies this all the whilst claiming the mission is entirely scientific in its (top secret) purpose.
I do wonder in th
Re:Just so we're all on the same page here (Score:4, Interesting)
Not among any collection of intelligent and informed people I know of. Mostly because it's a completely stupid idea as the response time to any given target is going to hours or days (depending on the birds cross-range capability).
You can't hide a rocket launch, and there's almost no known launches with unaccounted for payloads. Satellite trackers have accounted for all but a small handful of orbiters. (Believed to be NSA stealth birds.) Such an umbrella would require hundreds of launches.
Re: (Score:2)
That's quite the paranoid rant. But, for maximum points, you need to work in a reference to MK-ULTRA and The Illuminati.
I suggest a few months of Coast-to-Coast AM as a tutorial, then you will be ready to try again.
Re: (Score:1)
As long as they don`t try to annihilate each other, we`re cool. Just don`t go panicking in the dead of night anticipating apocalyptic scenarios that might never come to.
Community? (Score:2)
"This spacecraft is a key component of the space community," Lt. Col. Jonathan Keen, X-37B program manager, said in the Air Force statement.
No it's not. No one outside the Air Force knows what it's doing, what its capabilities are, when it's launching, when it's landing, or how it's built. The "space community" is a great deal larger than just the US Air Force, and the X-37B is far, far outside it.
Re: (Score:2)
"This spacecraft is a key component of the space community," Lt. Col. Jonathan Keen, X-37B program manager, said in the Air Force statement.
No it's not.
Yes it is. The fact that the project is highly classified probably means it is very important; that you don't know what it's doing doesn't make it any less so.
Space Plane? (Score:2)