SpaceX Will Launch the Space Force's Mysterious X-37B Space Plane On Falcon Heavy (space.com) 31
The U.S. Space Force's shadowy X-37B spaceplane is set to launch atop a SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket on Dec. 7. It'll mark the seventh mission for the X-37B, but the first time it'll fly on a heavy-lift launcher. Space.com reports: Little is known about the capabilities and operations of the space plane, but Space Force says the mission will follow previous flights that used the X-37B as a test bed for launching experimental payloads and returning them to Earth. "We are excited to expand the envelope of the reusable X-37B's capabilities, using the flight-proven service module and Falcon Heavy rocket to fly multiple cutting-edge experiments for the Department of the Air Force and its partners," said Lt. Col. Joseph Fritschen, program director for the X-37B, in the statement.
It isn't known why the X-37B is launching atop a Falcon Heavy for the USSF-52 mission. Five of the space plane's previous missions launched on United Launch Alliance Atlas V rockets, while its fifth mission, USA-277, took off on top of SpaceX's smaller rocket, the Falcon 9 (Falcon Heavy consists of three Falcon 9 boosters strapped together). Such a change could suggest that the space plane is carrying heavier payloads or is sporting a new hardware configuration. So far, Space Force has only stated that the mission will "expand the United States Space Force's knowledge of the space environment by experimenting with future space domain awareness technologies," according to the statement. However, Space Force's statement adds that the mission will carry a NASA experiment known as Seeds-2 that will test the effects that space-based radiation has on plant seeds during a long-duration spaceflight.
It isn't known why the X-37B is launching atop a Falcon Heavy for the USSF-52 mission. Five of the space plane's previous missions launched on United Launch Alliance Atlas V rockets, while its fifth mission, USA-277, took off on top of SpaceX's smaller rocket, the Falcon 9 (Falcon Heavy consists of three Falcon 9 boosters strapped together). Such a change could suggest that the space plane is carrying heavier payloads or is sporting a new hardware configuration. So far, Space Force has only stated that the mission will "expand the United States Space Force's knowledge of the space environment by experimenting with future space domain awareness technologies," according to the statement. However, Space Force's statement adds that the mission will carry a NASA experiment known as Seeds-2 that will test the effects that space-based radiation has on plant seeds during a long-duration spaceflight.
when you need to update your alien overlords .. (Score:1)
.. what better way than to Come on, it's the choo, choo train?
To boldly go or just to blow it up? (Score:2, Insightful)
That looks like the lovechild of a Space Shuttle and a Reaper drone.
I wonder if this is being designed for exploration or for destruction.
The pentagon has already conformed isn't not intended to develop space weapons so it almost certainly is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If a government official says something it's a safe bet the opposite is the actual truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Not always but you can safely assume whatever they said isn't fully truthful which isn't necessarily the same thing as a complete lie.
Yes, I have worked for the government before.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Too small to have any meaningful payload capacity.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder if this is being designed for exploration or for destruction.
"Neither" or "Both", depending on your semantics.
It's an experimental test-bed craft, specifically for running scientific tests.
Tests, plural. It is almost certain some of those tests are for exploration, some for destruction, and some for other things. All of the above and more.
Any "production" payloads would not be launched on an experimental craft, but a full blown purpose designed craft.
You would not be hearing about the launch of those, as their very existence is kept secret, let alone their purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a bit hard to have a secret launch. The payload and purpose yes. But the launch itself is visible to the horizon.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a bit hard to have a secret launch. The payload and purpose yes. But the launch itself is visible to the horizon.
If a planet can explode dozens of nuclear bombs without the masses really knowing about it, I'm pretty sure a launch could be pulled off.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
That's quite a long list of "Seriously? That many? And where is that again??"
This, made me laugh. From the list:
"The Soviets had an extensive program of peaceful nuclear explosions."
Ah, the peaceful serenity of a mushroom cloud...
Re: (Score:2)
The masses absolutely knew about the number of nuclear explosions when they were going on; it's not like you can hide one. You may just be too young to remember it being in the news every month, and what a big deal it was when they stopped.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if this is being designed for exploration or for destruction.
Yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:To boldly go or just to blow it up? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Is being designed"? Really?
The X-37b has been operational [wikipedia.org] for 13 years. No outsiders know exactly what they're doing with it, but it's quite obviously not destructive, and the Air Force doesn't do exploration, NASA does. Most speculation runs towards on demand surveillance of some sort.
But whatever it is, they've been doing it for over a decades.
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing SpaceX needs to know is the configuration of the mounting points it attaches to for launch.
More thrust = more weight (Score:5, Interesting)
More thrust from a Falcon Heavy means they are moving more mass into orbit, but we know this is a space plane launch,. So either more fuel, or a heavy payload to deploy. Given that there's not much point carrying a heavy satellite in a space plane when you could launch it for half the price on a single rocket. That leaves more fuel.
More fuel means more changes to orbital parameters. Either a higher orbit, or multiple lower ones. So what would a spy agency do with all that fuel?? My thought are:
a) Refuelling spy satellites so they can remain operational for longer (most likely)
b) Stealing a rival nation's spy satellite (possible, and amusing)
c) Attaching small hypergolic motors to a rival's satellites so they can be set tumbling and rendered useless at some point in the future (unlikely)
Anyone got a better suggestion?
Re:More thrust = more weight (Score:5, Interesting)
More delta-v. Once you have overcome the energy requirements to get into orbit, the total amount of energy you have for changes in velocity vs your mass becomes really interesting.
You can trade it for time (increasing and decreasing velocity more quickly for a lower trip time) or for the ability to move more mass. And moving more mass doesn't just mean lifting it off Earth into a stable orbit - with enough delta-v you can do things like put a new satellite into orbit around the Moon, or park it in a lagrange point.
Maybe those extra options are more about science right now than military considerations, but with so many other countries planning some kind of serious presence on the Moon, it wouldn't surprise me if the US wants some observation capability in lunar orbit. There are a couple of options for dynamically stable lunar orbits that would probably suit anyone trying to keep eyes on a Chinese lunar outpost.
Probably all pie-in-the-sky right now, of course. Most likely they are just moving something more massive with a wider range of capabilities than they've had before.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:More thrust = more weight (Score:4)
Depending on how much extra fuel they're packing, it could be an attempt to see if the space plane is viable for a quick jaunt to the moon and back. If we're planning human missions to the moon, you can bet your ass Space Force wants some form of rapid-ish access in that direction. Why not start with the X-37b?
Re: (Score:3)
"More thrust from a Falcon Heavy means they are moving more mass into orbit,"
More mass or a higher orbit?
Re: (Score:3)
b) while I agree it would be cool to see and rather amusing, my understanding is that current scuttlebutt is that modern versions of Chinese and Russian satellites (and probably American too) are equipped with either basic defensive armaments or self-destructive capabilities or both that make 'stealing' them or messing with them at all heinously dangerous.
Shadowy? Yeah right. (Score:5, Insightful)
"The U.S. Space Force's shadowy X-37B spaceplane..."
"Shadowy" is what you would use to describe something being launched from Area 51 at an unknown time, using an unknown launch vehicle. Not a program 20+ years old with a launch broadcast around the world asking Elon for a lift.
"Little is known about the capabilities and operations of the space plane..."
Oh, you mean other than all the specs and detail listed on the "shadowy" Wikipedia page?
Space Seed? (Score:2)
Preserve propellant (Score:2)
Is probably why USSF is spending an extra $80 million (and use up a Falcon Heavy center core) is to preserve onboard propellant with direct GEO insertion.
Higher Orbit (Score:2)
The most obvious answer to why Falcon Heavy is that they're putting it in a higher orbit. Falcon Heavy tends to be used for geosynchronous orbits, as that's a lot harder to reach than low Earth orbit.
Also, there's a big difference between Falcon Heavy expending all the boosters and Falcon Heavy recovering all the boosters (with expending just the center core somewhere in between). A quick check shows they're planning on expending the center core but returning the side boosters to the launch site which is
It's full of SSDs. (Score:2)
It's full of SSDs. It's a surveillance payload, probably imaging and sigint. It's full of SSDs to store the acquired data. Probably mostly collecting basemap data, not short-term tactical stuff - collecting data that doesn't need to be on the ground right away.
There's no other reasonable reason to sit on orbit as long as it does, then return to the ground. It simply has too many bytes to downlink in any reasonable time, and no protocol beats a FedEx truck full of tapes for bandwidth (or a X-37 full of SSDs)