USAF's Robotic X-37B Orbiter Launched For Test Flight

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

USAF's Robotic X-37B Orbiter Launched For Test Flight

Posted by timothy on Thursday April 22, 2010 @06:18PM from the hope-no-one-fell-asleep-inside dept.

An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt: "The United States Air Force's novel robotic X-37B space plane is tucked inside the bulbous nose cone of an unmanned rocket that blasted off Thursday from Florida on a mission shrouded in secrecy. ... The unmanned military Orbital Test Vehicle 1 (OTV-1) — also known as the X-37B — lifted off at 7:52 pm EDT atop an Atlas 5 rocket on a mission that is expected to take months testing new spacecraft technologies. ... Key objectives of the space plane's first flight include demonstration and validation of guidance, navigation, and control systems – including a 'do-it-itself' autonomous re-entry and landing at California's Vandenberg Air Force Base with neighboring Edwards Air Force Base as a backup."

145 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

frist by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-22 18:21 · Score: -1, Offtopic

suck my dick
Error 503 Serice Unavailable by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-22 18:22 · Score: -1, Troll

You have insulted Islam! You shall spend the next thousand years fellating Muhammed's Noodly Appendage
foxnews by timmarhy · 2010-04-22 18:28 · Score: 0, Troll

oh no watch all the left wing closest conservatives whip themselfs for daring to read news from fox!

--
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Wasn't the Buran autonomous...? by TheModelEskimo · 2010-04-22 18:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

Is autonomous tech really that difficult now? At the very least couldn't it fall back to remote control? I could swear the Sovs did some work like this back in the 70s.
1. Re:Wasn't the Buran autonomous...? by Bruce+Perens · 2010-04-22 18:48 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Buran flew in 1988. Maybe it was autonomous. And then sat in a warehouse until the building collapsed from lack of maintenance, destroying Buran. I guess this is no worse than spacecraft rusting out in museum parking lots in the U.S.
  
  --
  Bruce Perens.
2. Re:Wasn't the Buran autonomous...? by countertrolling · 2010-04-22 19:07 · Score: 2
  
  Aluminum doesn't rust. It corrodes.
  
  --
  For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
3. Re:Wasn't the Buran autonomous...? by macson_g · 2010-04-22 19:16 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Exactly! I took over 20 years for american military scientist to decipher Buran's documentation and clone the technology. This again proves my theory that the cyrylic alphabet is best cipher out there!
4. Re:Wasn't the Buran autonomous...? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-22 19:33 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Aluminum doesn't rust. It corrodes.
  Not exactly - aluminium corrodes briefly, then stops, because the oxide forms a layer protecting the metal below (unless mercury is involved). This is a big difference from iron/steel, where the oxide doesn't form a protective layer.
5. Re:Wasn't the Buran autonomous...? by Richard_at_work · 2010-04-22 20:00 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The only Buran flight was done without a crew, and it was autonomous - the only one to fly was destroyed, but there were another one which was nearly complete which survives, and another three in production, of which two survive. The USSR
6. Re:Wasn't the Buran autonomous...? by BuR4N · 2010-04-22 20:02 · Score: 1
  
  Burans first and only flight was autonomous in the sens that it was unmanned and landed on auto pilot.
  
  --
  http://www.intellipool.se/ - Intellipool Network Monitor
7. Re:Wasn't the Buran autonomous...? by TheModelEskimo · 2010-04-22 20:15 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  And undoubtedly it's also the easiest alphabet with which to spell "cyrillic?"
8. Re:Wasn't the Buran autonomous...? by c6gunner · 2010-04-22 20:41 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Is autonomous tech really that difficult now? At the very least couldn't it fall back to remote control? I could swear the Sovs did some work like this back in the 70s.
  Strictly speaking, an artillery shell is autonomous. How impressive the automation is depends on how adaptive it is.
9. Re:Wasn't the Buran autonomous...? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-22 20:53 · Score: 0
  
  It was no coincidence that the Buran looks exactly like the Space Shuttle. It was a duplicate copy. By the time America figured out where the leak was at NASA, they only had one recourse left. Feed them false information. The glue that holds the tiles on was the Russians undoing. We leaked the wrong information and the tiles fell off during the first landing. It was destroyed when the could come up with a fix.
10. Re:Wasn't the Buran autonomous...? by toxygen01 · 2010-04-22 21:01 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The two surviving are OK-GLI and OK-TVA.
  The former one was used for atmospherical tests, i.e. it had mounted 4 jet engines (from SU-27) and could take-off and land autonomously.
  Out of 25 flights, 14 were completely autonomous including landing.
  Last weekend we went to see OK-GLI locate in Speyer in Germany. Photos can be seen here:
  on picasa
11. Re:Wasn't the Buran autonomous...? by rxmd · 2010-04-22 21:08 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  It was no coincidence that the Buran looks exactly like the Space Shuttle. It was a duplicate copy.
  Actually it was not. The two looked similar because at the time there were only so many ways to build an orbiter, but on the technical level they are pretty fundamentally different. The most important difference is that the Space Shuttle is basically its own rocket, while Buran only had small engines for maneuvering, while launch was done by an Energia booster. Since it did not have to be built around a big engine, Buran is completely different structurally.
  As a result, the Buran had a greater payload capacity (theoretical, as it was never tested with a payload) and a better glide number, but you needed a big rocket (theoretically reusable) every time you wanted to launch it. In other words, two fundamentally different approaches to the same technical problem.
  
  --
  As a state gets corrupt, its laws multiply; the most corrupt states have the most numerous laws. (Tacitus, Annales 3:27)
12. Re:Wasn't the Buran autonomous...? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-22 23:11 · Score: 0
  
  But not do-it-itself autonomous! I'm sure the next prototype will be all-by-myself look-ma-no-hands autonomous.
13. Re:Wasn't the Buran autonomous...? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-23 00:39 · Score: 0
  
  Aluminum doesn't rust. It corrodes.
  Not exactly - aluminium corrodes briefly, then stops, because the oxide forms a layer protecting the metal below (unless mercury is involved). This is a big difference from iron/steel, where the oxide doesn't form a protective layer.
  True for pure aluminium but spacecraft are made with aluminium alloys which continue to corrode unless protected.
14. Re:Wasn't the Buran autonomous...? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-23 01:12 · Score: -1, Flamebait
  
  You are ignorant of the facts:
  1: Buran is a piece of shit, and so is your face.
  2: Buran is a blatant and worse copy of Shuttle.
  3: It is more expensive and top Rocketbuilder Mr. Mishin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Mishin )did not want to build it because it made no sense. He was right - but no one listened.
  http://hedrook.vho.org/library/salah3.htm
  (last paragraph starting with bold)
15. Re:Wasn't the Buran autonomous...? by TapeCutter · 2010-04-23 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  Strictly speaking, an artillery shell is autonomous. How impressive the automation is depends on how adaptive it is.
  Autonomous literally mean "self governing". Strictly speaking an artillery shell is ballistic, it is not autonomous since it is in no way "self governing".
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
16. Re:Wasn't the Buran autonomous...? by countertrolling · 2010-04-23 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  Gee, thanks for ruining my pedantic moment... and yes, I am aware of the various alloys and cladding, and such, and then, if we painted the aircraft, we'd throw on some zinc chromate primer as an added touch...
  
  --
  For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
17. Re:Wasn't the Buran autonomous...? by DerekLyons · 2010-04-23 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  Is autonomous tech really that difficult now?
  No, it's not all that difficult now. However, it's not at the state where you can just hand over a check to the dealer and happily drive it off the lot either.
  
  Seriously, when you're talking hardware/systems of this complexity, even though the basic concepts are all worked out, you still need to test the specific implementation.
18. Re:Wasn't the Buran autonomous...? by ColdWetDog · 2010-04-23 03:59 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The two looked similar because at the time there were only so many ways to build an orbiter, but on the technical level they are pretty fundamentally different.
  While much of the internal and mission design requirements where different, it's clear that they took the external shape of the Shuttle and modeled it very, very closely. Yes, there are only a couple of ways you can make a hypersonic fuselage of a certain size, but the Russians could have used several other design complexes (for example, the 'V' tail configuration of the XB-37) instead of looking exactly like the Shuttle.
  
  The fact that the Russians repurposed the Buran-Mir docking collar to fit the shuttles also indicates a high degree of structural similarity.
  
  Did they steal the data or just used the fact that the US had done extensive tests on 'that' configuration and thus not re inventing the wheel would gain time and save money? Who knows?
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
19. Re:Wasn't the Buran autonomous...? by jte · 2010-04-23 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  You're forgetting inter-granular corrosion.
20. Re:Wasn't the Buran autonomous...? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-23 12:05 · Score: 0
  
  The fact that the Russians repurposed the Buran-Mir docking collar to fit the shuttles also indicates a high degree of structural similarity.
  
  uhh... the only similarity you need is roughly matching size, which is determined by forces it has to withstand during docking and by the size of cargo that must get through (humans).
Air Force testing explosive space modulators? by leftie · 2010-04-22 18:47 · Score: 1

Marvin the Martian: "At last, after two thousand years of research, the illudium Q-36 explosive space modulator. At last..."
Marvin the Martian: "Where's the kaboom? There was supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom!"
Space without astronauts by Bruce+Perens · 2010-04-22 18:52 · Score: 4, Interesting

Here's the space shuttle we lost, OK at 1/4 scale, but without the triple redundancy because it doesn't have to carry people. It can do the missions.
The future of space, at least in the near term, doesn't look so great for astronauts.
I wonder if it would scale up to shuttle size?

--
Bruce Perens.
1. Re:Space without astronauts by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-22 19:20 · Score: 0
  
  Probably not, and even if it did, don't we already have those?
2. Re:Space without astronauts by TheModelEskimo · 2010-04-22 19:35 · Score: 1
  
  Astronauts belong in elementary schools, urging kids to study science and engineering! (At least until we can get some robots that are more spitball-resistant)
3. Re:Space without astronauts by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-22 19:38 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Wow.. it's really sad to see the great Bruce Perens spreading "OMG human spaceflight is ending" FUD.
  The gap is unfortunate, but its a product of the previous administration, not a choice of the current one. The retirement date for the shuttle? An overdue decision finally made in 2003. The continual redesign of Ares 1 and the Orion capsule? Thank you Mr Griffin. If the simple safe soon replacement vehicle for the shuttle had been funded back in 2003 when it was supposed to be, and not co-opted for Apollo On Foodstamps, then it would be flying by now.. on existing launch vehicles. Instead we got the Constellation train wreck.
  So what has this administration decided to do? Close the gap by engaging *multiple* commercial providers. So if one vehicle fails, or retires, NASA can keep flying on another. There will never be a gap again. Basically what they should have done back in 2003 but without the cost plus pork.
  In the mean time, NASA astronauts will continue flying to the ISS on the Soyuz.. as nearly every expedition crew member flies to the station now. The only change is that the shuttle won't be taking 6 to 7 people there 3 times a year to do assembly work.. because the station will be complete.
4. Re:Space without astronauts by Yvanhoe · 2010-04-22 19:41 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  According to Feynman's book on the Shuttle, the only non-automatic procedure for the Space Shuttle reentry is the landing gear command. Why ? Because astronaut required to have at least some actions to do. It could have been handled by computer. In fact, IIRC, it was bypassable by ground control, so that in case all astronauts became unconscious, they could be brought safely back to earth.
  
  --
  The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
5. Re:Space without astronauts by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-22 19:47 · Score: 0
  
  The future of space, at least in the near term, doesn't look so great for astronauts.
  Maybe this will lead to the robotised construction of space stations. A group of these sent up could be programmed to build.
6. Re:Space without astronauts by putaro · 2010-04-22 20:30 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't need to scale up that large. The Space Shuttle has a lot of cargo bay plus capacity for up to 7 people for long on-orbit times. What we need at the moment is an Earth->Station->Earth space taxi. Double the size of the X-33 and add 24 hours of life support capacity for 2-3 passengers and you're rocking.
  The key thing is to keep going. Actually launching some hardware is an amazing breakthrough given the history of developing spacecraft in the last 20 years or so for the US. Unbelievable boondoggles like the X-33 and then Constellation where hundreds of millions and billions are spent on paper spacecraft that never get built. This is absolutely fantastic.
7. Re:Space without astronauts by Yvanhoe · 2010-04-22 20:42 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Heh, or you could go cheap and employ Chineses to do that :
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_921-2
  (China plans a space station for 2012)
  
  --
  The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
8. Re:Space without astronauts by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-22 20:49 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Nope, there is no way to remotely deploy the landing gear on the shuttle. That is, unless it has been rigged for unmanned flight - known as RCO (Remote Controlled Orbiter) mode - beforehand, using the so called IFM (In-Flight Maintenance)cable. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-3XX#Remote_Control_Orbiter
  This wasn't developed until after the Columbia accident. So yes, the Soviets with their unmanned Buran flight were first.
  The Reason for not letting the computer control the landing gear deployment is simple: It's a one-way procedure. Once deployed, you cannot retract the gear and close the orbiter's underside - that can only take place on the ground. So, if a computer glitch would deploy the gear before or during the "hot" phase during reentry, there'd be no way to return the craft in one piece, with fatal consequences for the crew if it happened at a point where (re)docking with the ISS and waiting for a rescue shuttle is no longer an option.
  You know, folks, sometimes having a human in control isn't all that bad.
9. Re:Space without astronauts by paganizer · 2010-04-22 21:56 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  I agree, this is fantastic. After Obama's cancellation of our space program....
  NOTE: Is anyone else sick, tired and disgusted about the people who disagree that cancellation is what he has done? As I explained to my kids: he says he wants to send a ship to a asteroid, and another to mars; however, he canceled the heavy lifter rocket that would have made either mission possible; What he has actually done is given just enough money to heavy lifter development so that he can deny shutting it down (800 million a year for development), and postponed anything that might require big expenditures until after his current term of office is up. read anything that Neil Armstrong is writing lately; he's as disgusted as i am. .... I'm frakking ecstatic about the x-37b; if it makes it safely back down from orbit, we could have a way to get people and small packages in to space WITHOUT relying on Russia, China or India.
  This indicates to me that the U.S. military just might have a shuttle replacement waiting in the wings; I'm not talking "Blackstar" which would be great if it actually existed, I'm talking something with similar capabilities to the shuttle.
  If Obama canceled our civilian space program so that the funding can go to the military project, I forgive him.
  
  --
  Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
10. Re:Space without astronauts by QuantumG · 2010-04-22 22:33 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Constellation wasn't taking astronauts anywhere. It was never going to be built and even if it arrived gift wrapped it would have cost so much that NASA would have to cancel it immediately. The entire thing was designed for a budget that NASA never had. It really was warmed over Apollo, but without the Apollo sized budget.
  Hopefully this time NASA will develop a heavy lift vehicle that is actually affordable, or learn to go beyond LEO without it.
  
  --
  How we know is more important than what we know.
11. Re:Space without astronauts by putaro · 2010-04-22 23:02 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I'm of very mixed feelings on the Constellation cancellation. On one hand, I thought that Constellation was a big loser of a program. Expendable solid rockets? Apollo style capsules? We need cheap access to space, not more aerospace contractor welfare. On the other hand, not having a manned space program sucks pretty badly too. As you said, if Obama cancelled the NASA boondoggle knowing that the Air Force had something better coming along, I would feel much better.
12. Re:Space without astronauts by Shihar · 2010-04-23 00:18 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Obama did public space flight. It will not be missed. Our dear "socialist" leader also dumped a pile of money into private space flight. Obama didn't kill space flight. He killed a state welfare program and at the same time gave a boost to the people doing real innovative R&D in manned and unmanned lift vehicles in the private sector. This was long LONG over due. Having the US government design and fund a fucking spaceship by committee and legislation makes about as much sense as the US government designing by fucking committee and legislation cars. It is a really dumb idea and Obama did us a favor by killing it. NASA can now focus on stuff that the private sector can't do, namely, raw science. I'm not against NASA, I just want to see them fretting over stuff like how to detect life on another planet or the arcane working of some exotic stellar mass. Stuff that I want commercialized and brought to the public at large on the other hand needs to be kicked off to private industry ASAP.
13. Re:Space without astronauts by Covalent · 2010-04-23 00:26 · Score: 1
  
  +1 insightful for the word "multiple". NASA has to be a jack-of-all-trades for space travel right now. Ideally, there would be companies that specialized in various aspects of space travel: Human transport, delicate cargo, rugged cargo, etc. We use different companies for different related services all the time because those companies can optimize for their particular niche (UPS vs. FedEx vs. DHL vs. USPS, etc.) A similar approach should be used for space flight.
  
  --
  Great warrior...hrmph! Wars not make one great.
14. Re:Space without astronauts by cshotton · 2010-04-23 01:13 · Score: 1
  
  Actually the real reason is the pyrotechnics that are used to deploy the landing gear and the drogue chute as well. They both have to be armed and deployed manually by a series of buttons on the glare shield. It has been a long standing rule in manned space flight that anything that can explode on command like that is always operated manually unless it is impossible for some reason. The fact that neither system can be re-stowed after deployment is problematic.
  
  --
  
  Shut up and eat your vegetables!!!
15. Re:Space without astronauts by hitmark · 2010-04-23 01:21 · Score: 1
  
  i can understand the chute, but no hydraulics on the gear?
  
  --
  comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
16. Re:Space without astronauts by hitmark · 2010-04-23 01:27 · Score: 1
  
  i wonder whats more cost effective, multiple launches with returnable objects, or one big launch with non-returnable parts.
  basically, what i am thinking is this. Get a "cargo" module going thats basically a habitat for astronauts, then launch the actual payload and work crew as separate launches. Once the cargo is up there, unless it has a badly decaying orbit, it can wait for the work crew to get up and do their thing.
  heck, if the module was transferable, one could maybe even get a safety aspect out of it, if something was to happen to the crew carrying vehicle so that it could not return safely.
  
  --
  comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
17. Re:Space without astronauts by Yvanhoe · 2010-04-23 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  The Reason for not letting the computer control the landing gear deployment is simple: It's a one-way procedure.
  
  I doubt the deployement of the landing gear is the only one-way procedure of re-entry.
  I doubt that a human pilot is less susceptible to glitches that a redundant array of 5 (IIRC) computer systems.
  
  You know, folks, sometimes having a human in control isn't all that bad.
  You always have the programmer in control. A computer never controls or decide anything. It just follows procedures. Humans are bad at that. In Feynmann's book he tells how the engineers were worried about this human command, exactly because it could fail if deployed at the wrong timing.
  
  --
  The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
18. Re:Space without astronauts by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-23 02:04 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Our dear "socialist" leader also dumped a pile of money into private space flight. Obama didn't kill space flight. He killed a state welfare program ...
  I think it is cute that you believe that the President which is systematically demonizing one industry after another in order to create a fig leaf excuse for his administration to seize control is suddenly interested in helping to privatize space technology.
  Obama did what he did to NASA in order to weaken the US and make it increasing vulnerable to the whims of other countries. His BS promises of submitting designs for a new launch system five years from now mean nothing.
19. Re:Space without astronauts by chaim79 · 2010-04-23 02:08 · Score: 1
  
  I'm guessing here, but I suspect that the difficulty of keeping the hydraulic fluid from freezing, coupled with the hydraulics itself made for too much weight/complexity to the system, so they decided on the deploy-once option.
  It's not as if there will be multiple takeoffs and landings between servicing, the system is designed around one takeoff, one landing, service, rinse, and repeat.
  
  --
  DEMETRIUS: Villain, what hast thou done?
  AARON: Villain, I have done thy mother.
  Shakespeare invents 'your mom'
20. Re:Space without astronauts by GooberToo · 2010-04-23 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  I don't believe this is the correct perspective.
  The military has long desired sub-orbital and low orbital satellite capability. Right now, orbital patterns are well known which means its fairly easy to obstruct view during an orbital pass. Moving a satellite requires using precious fuel and analysis to ensure you're not placing it into a path of orbital debris or other objects. And even still, the changes in time allowed by changing its orbit is generally not all that considerable from what I understand.
  Enter this vehicle. You can launch it. Keep in in orbit for what, thirty days? It provides for surveillance and potentially a "rod from god" weapon capability which existing satellites current don't provide. And I assume, at the cost of orbital longevity, its extremely maneuverable. And given its lower orbital plane, changing its orbit, I'd guess, means far less potential debris to hit during orbital changes.
21. Re:Space without astronauts by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-23 02:36 · Score: 0
  
  ...The Reason for not letting the computer control the landing gear deployment is simple: It's a one-way procedure. Once deployed, you cannot retract the gear and close the orbiter's underside - that can only take place on the ground. So, if a computer glitch would deploy the gear before or during the "hot" phase during reentry, there'd be no way to return the craft in one piece, with fatal consequences for the crew if it happened at a point where (re)docking with the ISS and waiting for a rescue shuttle is no longer an option.
  You know, folks, sometimes having a human in control isn't all that bad.
  "I thought LGD stood for Later 'Gator Dinner!"
22. Re:Space without astronauts by EvilBudMan · 2010-04-23 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  One thing that bothers me though is the testing facilities not being up yo what NASA already has for manned flight. This where private industry will cut corners until enough space tourists die and end up being more of the same. I guess we shall see if this is a good idea or not. All I'm saying is a least let NASA do some of the testing because they already have the equipment.
23. Re:Space without astronauts by BenEnglishAtHome · 2010-04-23 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  You know, folks, sometimes having a human in control isn't all that bad.
  
  But backups are good, too. I distinctly remember a television interview with the commander of the first shuttle test flight in which he went over all the things that happen during a landing. (I remember the interview but not the program. It was so long ago, I think it was "Donahue".)
  One thing he pointed out was that upon landing, if the sensors show imminent touchdown (that is, after the nose has started to drop to the tarmac) and the front gear isn't down, a dynamite charge just "blows it down" without a command from anyone. He may have been wow-ing the rubes with the way the gear is normally deployed but he gave the definite impression that the process was, as a last-ditch backup, automated. If something was stuck, the gear was either coming down or coming apart, whether a pilot did their part or not.
  Do I have that wrong?
24. Re:Space without astronauts by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-23 04:00 · Score: 0
  
  So the state welfare system called NASA failed, but the state welfare system called Obamacare will succeed?
25. Re:Space without astronauts by Will.Woodhull · 2010-04-23 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  I agree with just about everything in parent post except I have one quibble:
  
  Close the gap by engaging *multiple* commercial providers. So if one vehicle fails, or retires, NASA can keep flying on another. There will never be a gap again. Basically what they should have done back in 2003 but without the cost plus pork.
  This should have been started at least 10 years earlier, in 1993, when the failures of the Space Shuttle to meet its original design goals were obvious. My guess as to the cause of the delay is that it takes decades for enough bureaucrats who pinned their careers to a single technology to either retire, or get themselves so far up the ladder that they would not be affected by criticism of their earlier actions.
  We still have a lot to learn about how to develop new technology. Studying NASA's performance during the Shuttle years could teach us a lot about how important the bureaucratic side is-- in some ways more important than the science-- and some of the things that should be avoided.
  Why, yes, I am a curmudgeon...
  
  --
  Will
26. Re:Space without astronauts by pavon · 2010-04-23 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  Stuff that I want commercialized and brought to the public at large on the other hand needs to be kicked off to private industry ASAP.
  What stuff? The Delta and Atlas are already commercialized, but practically no one wants to use them other than the government. Boeing and Lockheed have already stated that they are only willing to bring those rockets up to man-rated status if they are given a normal cost-plus contract to do so because they don't believe there is a business justification for it otherwise. They don't think that NASA or Bigelow are stable enough customers to risk any money for.
  In other words, these companies that Obama is dumping money on have no interest in commercializing space. They just want to continue sucking the government's teat. The ones that do, like SpaceX aren't far enough along to serve NASA's launch needs right now.
  As far as manned LEO is concerned NASA is in a no-win situation. They can sink a ton of money into their own design, they can sink a ton of money into ULA's design, or they can suspend LEO activities and rely on our international partners until entrepreneurs like SpaceX until they are ready. Frankly, I think LEO is a waste of time and money. The ISS was an international effort from the start and I see no shame in shifting responsibility away from the US once we meet our obligation to launch the existing modules, choosing to pursue more worthwhile ventures instead.
  I was originally supportive of the Ares I, mostly because I saw it as a stepping stone to Ares V (more about that later), but now I am having some doubts. I see no point in man-rating a Delta rocket at this point though. In my mind it would just be a stop-gap while waiting for Space X. The gains of having our own LEO capabilities for that short window of time just isn't worth it, and I don't see any purpose in dumping money on companies that aren't going to commercialize.
  
  NASA can now focus on stuff that the private sector can't do,
  But the thing is, that requires launch capabilities that the market doesn't have or need. The market is only interested in launching small satellites into orbit, mostly LEO. Even if space tourism took off, that is still just medium payloads to LEO, with the added safety requirements.
  Part of the reason that the market isn't interested in Atlas or Delta is because they were designed for larger goals than the market needs (although that doesn't justify all of their exorbitant launch costs), such as sending school-bus sized probes to Saturn. Furthermore, if we are going to do anything interesting with a manned space program at all we are going to need a heavy lift vehicle that currently does not exist and that the market has no interest in. So the market has no role in this discussion. The options are all some combination of government/contractor collaboration to produce a HLV for specific government needs.
  I think the Ares V was a solid design. It used proven technologies (like the SRB) where they made sense, and improved based on NASA funded research over the years where it made sense (The J2X aerospike engine is just awesome). I seriously doubt that handing this job over to Boeing or Lockheed would save us any money or get us a rocket any sooner.
  I agree, keep NASA focused doing what the market can't, which includes heavy lift capability.
27. Re:Space without astronauts by Megane · 2010-04-23 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  Are you saying that there is something wrong with Apollo-style capsules? Try telling that to the Soviets.
  The reason we lost seven astronauts back in the '80s was precisely because the Shuttle wasn't an Apollo-style capsule. When you put the crew vehicle beside the rockets, instead of above them, you remove a lot of important emergency abort capability.
  See that little pointy thing on top of an Apollo Saturn V stack? That's a little rocket that can fly the capsule away from the rest of the rocket if there is a problem shortly after launch.
  The "it's old so it must be crap, it's new so it must be better" attitude is stupid, and way too many people believe in it.
  
  --
  #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
28. Re:Space without astronauts by Jonathan_S · 2010-04-23 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  It might also have to do with the difficulty of ensuring that the thermal shield was still perfect after the gear cycled. If operating the gear in orbit is likely to (at least partially) compromise your thermal protection (because you can't be sure it will close perfectly without gaps and without damaging the thermal tiles on the cover) why build in that ability?
29. Re:Space without astronauts by Bruce+Perens · 2010-04-23 05:01 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Can you construct a compelling reason that this vehicle, rather than its payload, should loiter in space on a military mission? IMO the X-37 should put up something that's not designed to work in atmosphere, but which has delta-V to change orbit, etc., and then the X-37 should warp orbit to something that's ready to be returned and de-orbit with it. Ultimately, this is a launch and re-entry vehicle, not a space vehicle.
  
  --
  Bruce Perens.
30. Re:Space without astronauts by GooberToo · 2010-04-23 06:47 · Score: 1
  
  Can you construct a compelling reason that this vehicle, rather than its payload, should loiter in space on a military mission?
  Because the military has repeatedly stated they desire such ability since the shuttle's inception for the reasons I stated. And the fact is, the vehicle can loiter for something like 30-day missions; based on what I read. This is, of course, not to say the can't or wont use it to insert additional objects into space for yet additional missions which require yet additional loiter time.
  You also bring up an excellent point about being able to drop off and/or bring back objects, which has also been a long term stated goal of the DoD and Air Force.
  My point being, a vehicle such as this brings with it the potential for a far reaching list of missions.
31. Re:Space without astronauts by FleaPlus · 2010-04-23 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  The future of space, at least in the near term, doesn't look so great for astronauts.
  If you haven't seen it already, I'd definitely suggest reading through this piece by aerospace engineer Rand Simberg (of transterrestrial.com) over at the NRO, titled, "Obama's Space Program: More Conservative than Bush's -- America has never had a space policy more visionary or more friendly to private enterprise." Of course, the National Review has plenty of issues, but the piece itself is quite well-written and a strong defense of the new plan for NASA:
  http://article.nationalreview.com/432073/obamas-space-program-more-conservative-than-bushs/rand-simberg
  
  The new plan gives us redundant capabilities to get people to orbit, and competition among the multiple providers will drive down prices not just for NASA but for everyone, including those who want to use Bob Bigelow's orbital facilities for business or pleasure. It will develop, finally, the technologies needed to reduce the costs of going beyond Earth orbit as well. It will open up space not just for NASA astronauts but for all, Americans and others, to seek their own dreams there. It may be intrinsically unconservative to have a federal human-spaceflight program in the first place, but politics would seem to dictate that it's going to continue. If so, don't we want to see that money spent on a more effective, more conservative, and fundamentally American approach to opening up space? If so, then Obama's space program beats the previous one, which was based on the anachronistic Apollo model.
  The new policy isn't perfect. I would have preferred that the president not be so openly dismissive of the moon. "Been there, done that" is not a sound basis for selection of goals. Besides, we barely scratched the surface and haven't yet done a proper assessment of the possibilities of using its resources for further reductions in transportation costs (something that the VSE got right -- unfortunately, the technology was starved by Mike Griffin's Ares overruns). But that doesn't matter right now. If we can finally get on with the business of letting private industry take on the (literally) mundane task of getting people only 200 miles above and let NASA focus on new technologies, there is plenty of time over the next few years to decide exactly where to go from there -- and Barack Obama will not be involved in that decision. The important thing is that we had to euthanize NASA's expensive, unneeded new rockets and move on to the more critical development of opening up space. We're now on a path to do so, assuming that Obama's plan survives Congress.
  Many don't trust President Obama to execute this policy along these lines. Neither do I, necessarily. But I'd rather have good policy poorly executed than poor policy well executed. The execution can always be improved later. Do I believe that Obama really cares as much about human spaceflight as he said in his speech at the Cape? No, and I think that's a good thing. I think he sees NASA as a problem he inherited from George W. Bush, and in that, he is right for once. He assigned to the problem people who do care about getting humans into space and, like Bush, he now wants to move on to other matters. Really, we should fear the day he gets interested in spaceflight; that will be the day that private enterprise is no longer trusted to conduct it. Let's hope that day never comes. In the meantime, remember that when government does the right thing, it doesn't matter whether it's done for the wrong reason. Whatever the motivations behind it, this is a much more visionary space policy than we've ever had before.
32. Re:Space without astronauts by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-23 08:20 · Score: 0
  
  Because that would be *stupid*
  1. you want something that will always work, not "jam" by accident
  2. there is no reason to put landing gear back in
  3. it adds weight
  4. think protective tiles and how they can't really be put back together just right if you wanted to re-close the landing gear
  And that's just few reasons why hydraulics in system where none are needed nor wanted would be plain *stupid*
33. Re:Space without astronauts by jamesbulman · 2010-04-23 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with all of the Apollo and Shuttle era technologies that they don't scale. We're never going colonize anywhere sending six people at a time.
  If we define the problem as building a spacecraft capable of transporting 1000 people to Mars with equipment to support them for 10 years, and that it should be able to make this journey four times a year for the next 50 years, you would have to come up with a solution that is based on fundamentally different principles.
  The first powered aircraft that where built share similar principles to our largest air transports today. I believe Apollo and the Shuttle are not going to share principles with the spacecraft we colonize the solar system with.
  P.S. I'm a big space elevator fan :)
34. Re:Space without astronauts by Iron+Condor · 2010-04-23 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  Wow - the most insightful post in the thread and I don't have mod-points handy. Seriously - you're losing karma here for posting AC...
  
  --
  We're all born with nothing.
  If you die in debt, you're ahead.
35. Re:Space without astronauts by ConfusedVorlon · 2010-04-23 13:37 · Score: 1
  
  the question seems backwards. Why would you want retractable gear?
  you are definitely only going to land once - so you definitely don't need to retract the gear during a mission.
  why would you waste any weight on something you definitely don't need?
  
  --
  VLC Remote for iPhone and Android
36. Re:Space without astronauts by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-24 15:52 · Score: 0
  
  Can you construct a compelling reason that this vehicle, rather than its payload, should loiter in space on a military mission?
  What I've heard is they're worried about HAM operators being an effective resistance coordination tool once they announce a 'bank holiday' and shut down US Internet peering locations when the government runs out of money in this fall. The X-37B is supposedly dropping off a series of small jamming micro-satellites in LEO. It takes a while for its orbits to intersect the proper LEO orbits to drop each of these jammers into. They're very small so they can't spend much fuel getting into the right orbit, but without people aboard, waiting the 45 days it'll take to get each satellite in the right drop-off location isn't a problem.
37. Re:Space without astronauts by sjames · 2010-04-25 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  Hydraulics have weight, take up space, and add complexity. They are best reserved for things that actually need them. Given that there was no credible case where the ability to retract the landing gear would actually help, that capability was left out.
38. Re:Space without astronauts by Shihar · 2010-04-25 22:34 · Score: 1
  
  I think the only thing we disagree about is the need for man rated heavy lifting to be done by the government. Frankly, I am pretty content with what we have. I want money tossed out to private industry simply because it is going to take some innovation to make LEO and beyond worthwhile for humans. NASA isn't going to be that innovator and we frankly don't need a heavy man rated lifter like the shuttle.
  Even for stuff that was previously "human only" like satellite repairs is easier to farm off to drones these days. I don't expect an instant miracle from private industry. I just want them to have enough funding to keep trying and failing. Maybe we waste what is pocket change to the shuttle program on private industry seed money and maybe someone does something innovative and the industry ignites.
  NASA has a role in all of this. I expect NASA to work with private industry in the way universities work with chip makers. I am not calling for an end to NASA. I just don't want another expensive spaceship designed by committee that serves the purpose of dick waving at the rest of the world and funding state welfare programs.
  So, give NASA the role of "university", toss some money and private industry with a focus on innovators trying something new.
  As far as humans and safety go, I frankly would prefer that we cut the strings. Make it so that if you want to blast off from space you need to get your will in order and sign a YOU ARE GOING TO FUCKING DIE contract. If a few people die in the process, eh, thats how the ball rolls. We seem to accept crab fishermen dying on a pretty regular basis to get luxury food items. I bet we can reach deep down into our collective pants, find our collective balls, and accept that some people are crazy mother fuckers who are literally willing to accept the risk of death to see space and let them go be crazy for the benefit of humanity. This post 9/11 nanny crap is getting incredibly tedious. Someone better not tell the media that OMFG dozens!!!!111!! of people are killed each year by lightening strikes or else some asshole politician is going to feel the pressure and stick Homeland Security at clouds.
39. Re:Space without astronauts by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-26 08:08 · Score: 0
  
  Can you construct a compelling reason that this vehicle, rather than its payload, should loiter in space on a military mission? IMO the X-37 should put up something that's not designed to work in atmosphere, but which has delta-V to change orbit, etc., and then the X-37 should warp orbit to something that's ready to be returned and de-orbit with it. Ultimately, this is a launch and re-entry vehicle, not a space vehicle.
  Two words, "Drop Ship". More specifically in the near term, they want a way to get important equipment and possibly elite military personnel to just about any point on the globe without having to worry about staging areas and other potential logistical hassles. Imagine of you could send several LEO launch or re-entry vehicles at a moment's notice. That could be enough to quickly deploy a company worth of US Marines or US Army Rangers, as well as weeks worth of food and ammunition and a few Strikers or Humvees for support. A capability like this could be used as the precursor to larger operations or used to rapidly reinforce positions at need (once you are in LEO you are theoretically ninety minutes, at most, from any spot on the surface of the Earth).
Anywhere on earth in 2 hours by Taco+Cowboy · 2010-04-22 18:55 · Score: -1, Troll

I heard that one of the mission for X-37B is to enable the Pentagon a within 2 hour attack vehicle anywhere on earth.
Which means, with X-37B, the United States of America can bomb anyone anywhere within a 2-hour envelop.
Including a nuclear strike.
Hmm...

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
1. Re:Anywhere on earth in 2 hours by Bruce+Perens · 2010-04-22 19:04 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The first re-usable nuclear missle :-)
  X-37 is, like the shuttle, meant to soft-land and be re-used. Nuclear missles are meant to get somewhere really fast and avoid anti-ballistic missles, and blow themselves up. Not really the X-37 mission.
  It's for spy satellites, among other things. Nuclear missles can get anywhere in two hours already.
  
  --
  Bruce Perens.
2. Re:Anywhere on earth in 2 hours by raind · 2010-04-22 19:07 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I heard anywhere on earth in one hour, (conventional weapons only)unless you believe this article:
  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/23/world/europe/23strike.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&src=igw
  
  --
  Get up!
3. Re:Anywhere on earth in 2 hours by Taco+Cowboy · 2010-04-22 19:20 · Score: 1
  
  X-37 is, like the shuttle, meant to soft-land and be re-used
  Not only that. Since it's unmanned space vehicle, it's designed to stay in orbit for as long as 300 days.
  Which means, within that 300-day envelop, it can travel to any spot on earth in a 2-hour time frame to deliver a neuclear strike.
  While existing ICBM definitely can achieve that task, they may be intercepted by anti-ICBM weapons that are already being deployed.
  However, there is not that easy intercept the X-37B since it's on orbit all the time.
  At least, not yet.
  
  --
  Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
4. Re:Anywhere on earth in 2 hours by vbraga · 2010-04-22 19:31 · Score: 1
  
  However, there is not that easy intercept the X-37B since it's on orbit all the time.
  Why not? Unless it has a new kind of radar stealth technology it should be somewhat easy to track since it's launch time is know and a orbit is somewhat easy to propagate.
  Most advanced air/space control organizations like NORAD and it's Russian counterpart are tracking every interesting target in orbit already.
  It could be intercepted in reentry like a ICBM would or even in orbit by a kinetic device.
  
  --
  English is not my first language. Corrections and suggestions are welcome.
5. Re:Anywhere on earth in 2 hours by Taco+Cowboy · 2010-04-22 19:55 · Score: 1
  
  Why not? Unless it has a new kind of radar stealth technology it should be somewhat easy to track since it's launch time is know and a orbit is somewhat easy to propagate.
  Of course X-37B can be tracked, just like any satellite. :)
  The thing is, X-37B is used as a "missile carrier", not the bomb itself.
  So let's say US wants to strike Venezuela the X-37B doesn't have to go to Venezuela. It can launch or "drop" the missile over the Pacific ocean or Atlantic ocean or even over the African continent and the missile, with the help of GPS, would seek out a way to strike Venezuela thousands of miles away.
  But of course the Pentagon can choose to manuever the X-37B right over Venezuela and aim the missile straight down, point blank.
  
  --
  Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
6. Re:Anywhere on earth in 2 hours by fredrik70 · 2010-04-22 20:00 · Score: 1
  
  doubt that, nukes not allowed in space, don't think russia, et. al. would be too impressed if this turned out to be a nuclear payload delivery mechanism. Anyway, all that just sounds a bit cold war-ish and soooo last century. :-)
  
  --
  if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
7. Re:Anywhere on earth in 2 hours by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-22 20:00 · Score: 0
  
  It's for spy satellites, among other things. Nuclear missles can get anywhere in two hours already.
  Exactly. Nukes are a solved problem. But for about 10 years I've wondered what the real-world inspiration was for novelist Dale Brown's ficticious NIRTSats(Need It Right This Second Satellites). As soon as the X-37B revival PR hit the blogosphere last month, I had a hunch. I see I'm not alone in my guess; even the timing of the novels and the programme is about right.
  I'd have preferred to see the VentureStar take flight (on account of I hate the idea of waiting for hours for an airplane to haul my tourist ass a mere few thousand miles when I know there exist much more elegant - albeit expensive - solutions) but I gotta admit that for this particular sort of mission, robots beat humans. Sweet technology.
8. Re:Anywhere on earth in 2 hours by flyingfsck · 2010-04-22 20:02 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Uhhh, the USA, France, Britain, Russia and China can already drop a nuclear bomb on anyone, anywhere on earth, within about 10 minutes.
  
  --
  Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
9. Re:Anywhere on earth in 2 hours by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-22 21:08 · Score: 0
  
  An ICBM is a suborbital rocket with a relatively huge payload capacity because it doesn't need to carry its warheads all the way up to orbital speed, and it doesn't have to waste payload mass on landing structure like heatshields and wings. You can carry a hell of a lot more tricks for dodging countermissiles on an ICBM than you can with this toy shuttle's payload bay.
  
  If you tried to use this space-UAV to carry a nuke, that's all you'd get. You could fit one nuke into it with no penetration aids, very limited guidance, very limited ability to maneuvre.
  
  This machine isn't a bomber, it's a combination of spyplane and sabotage device. Just remember that big engine it carries is going to be easily powerful enough to deorbit an enemy spy sat, destroying it without creating a load of debris that would damage US military satellites in the process.
10. Re:Anywhere on earth in 2 hours by Taco+Cowboy · 2010-04-22 21:14 · Score: 2
  
  Uhhh, the USA, France, Britain, Russia and China can already drop a nuclear bomb on anyone, anywhere on earth, within about 10 minutes.
  10 minutes ??
  
  --
  Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
11. Re:Anywhere on earth in 2 hours by flyingfsck · 2010-04-22 21:24 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Yup. There is a foreign submarine bearing a nuclear bomb armed missile or three, off your coast right now...
  
  --
  Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
12. Re:Anywhere on earth in 2 hours by OolimPhon · 2010-04-22 21:30 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Yup. There is a foreign submarine bearing a nuclear bomb armed missile or three, off your coast right now...
  My country doesn't have a coast, you insensitive clod!
13. Re:Anywhere on earth in 2 hours by flyingfsck · 2010-04-22 21:35 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Hmm, but many people don't realize why the doomsday clock has been stuck at about 6 minutes to midnight for half a century. Its time is not quite as arbitrary as most would like to hope.
  
  --
  Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
14. Re:Anywhere on earth in 2 hours by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-22 21:50 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Exactly. The scenario plays out like this:
  U.S.: What a nice satellite you've got there, it'd be a shame if anything happened to it.
  Them: What satellite? (It's a spy satellite, so they're not going to admit anything of course.)
  U.S.: Well, we have other plans for that orbit. And we know it's there. So you should... You know...
  Them: Nyuh uh...
  U.S.: *Yoink!*
  U.S.: Yeah, you were right. There wasn't a satellite there. My bad.
15. Re:Anywhere on earth in 2 hours by MRe_nl · 2010-04-22 22:47 · Score: 1
  
  "There is a foreign submarine bearing a nuclear bomb armed missile or three, off your coast right now..."
  F#cking terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.
  I say invade!
  
  --
  "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
16. Re:Anywhere on earth in 2 hours by TCPhotography · 2010-04-23 00:10 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  An ICBM is a suborbital rocket with a relatively huge payload capacity because it doesn't need to carry its warheads all the way up to orbital speed, and it doesn't have to waste payload mass on landing structure like heatshields and wings. You can carry a hell of a lot more tricks for dodging countermissiles on an ICBM than you can with this toy shuttle's payload bay.
  Wrong. An RV (Re-entry Vehicle) comes in on a mathematically fixed path (that's why it's called a BALLISTIC MISSILE). The minor course correction ability that they have is to improve accuracy. Besides, Even SPARTAN (LIM-49A) and GBI have the range to hit the warhead bus before discharge of the warheads. Plus ICBMs don't have the energy you think they do.
17. Re:Anywhere on earth in 2 hours by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-23 01:03 · Score: 0
  
  ... and it's probably Israeli.
18. Re:Anywhere on earth in 2 hours by NEDHead · 2010-04-23 01:15 · Score: 0
  
  We can fix that in, oh, say, ten minutes
19. Re:Anywhere on earth in 2 hours by TwineLogic · 2010-04-23 01:35 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, yeah, the cold war is, like, totally over. When was the last time the Russians flew nuclear bombers into Scotland's airspace anyway??
  Oh, right, just a couple months ago.
20. Re:Anywhere on earth in 2 hours by Bruce+Perens · 2010-04-23 01:37 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I don't see the logic in this. Existing missles have a delta-V that could reach orbital velocity. That's why their boosters get re-used for civilian missions. If anyone wanted to loiter a missle in orbit, in contravention of the treaty about that, I would imagine that some of the existing MERV systems have that capability. But sitting one in orbit doesn't make it harder to shoot down when it re-enters, because regardless of how well it is stealthed it can be seen - if by no other means, when it occludes a star. Having it in orbit just makes destroying its launch pad irrelevant.
  Submarines can go anywhere, and sit there for months, and launch a missle that arrives in 20 minutes rather than 2 hours. If you want to worry about US nuclear capability, worry about that.
  
  --
  Bruce Perens.
21. Re:Anywhere on earth in 2 hours by fredrik70 · 2010-04-23 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  well, it's far less cold than it used to be, despite the letest rattlings from russia. US and russia now sogned another agreement to get rid of some of their stockpile. I think russia and US are quite-ish happy with the current status quo.
  Why shake the bees nest by creating am orbiting nuke? By doing that US basically tells the world it's not giving a damn about the treaties they agrees to and all hell will be breaking lose (russian, china, etc all putting nukes in LEO, seeling nukes to countries that should not have it, etc, etc)
  Especially as mentined elsewhere, they already pretty much have this cabability with subs.
  They might use it with things like a MOAB is similar but bigger in there, packs quite a punch as well
  
  --
  if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
22. Re:Anywhere on earth in 2 hours by denobug · 2010-04-23 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  Are you sure the mother Russia didn't have anything "nuclear" up in the space during the Cold War?
23. Re:Anywhere on earth in 2 hours by Kell+Bengal · 2010-04-23 02:30 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  But of course the Pentagon can choose to manuever the X-37B right over Venezuela and aim the missile straight down, point blank.
  Alas, orbital mechanics don't work that way. To 'drop' a bomb, the entry vehicle would have to apply thrust opposed to its orbital trajectory. This would alter the orbital trajectory until the semi-minor axis of the orbit enters the atmosphere around about where you want your warhead to go. Given the energies and velocities involved (and the need for cooling during aerobraking) this approach path tends to be pretty shallow. Consequently, you have to start your deorbit burn a fair ways out. They'll still see it coming, even if you have freaky high delta-V and take the shorted route to ground.
  
  --
  Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
  altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
24. Re:Anywhere on earth in 2 hours by Kell+Bengal · 2010-04-23 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  As a UAV researcher, I like that acronym - Space Unmanned Aerial VEhicle. It's SUAVE!
  
  --
  Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
  altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
25. Re:Anywhere on earth in 2 hours by Tekfactory · 2010-04-23 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  I think it has to scale to the size of the shuttle, at least the shuttle's cargo bay.
  One point that people are missing, the shuttle had mission requirements to be able to deliver big satellites for the military, it also had requirements go up and retrieve satellites for the military.
  Neither Orion, Ares, or a Falcon 9 with a Dragon on top can do anything about retrieving a large military satellites the size of the shuttle's cargo bay.
  DoD can launch all the satellites it wants on Atlas rockets, but all they can do without the shuttle is de-orbit them.
  Like the stealth fighters and spyplanes, the military doesn't stop flying one thing until it can meet those mission requirements with something else.
  Also the shuttle had a military requirement to go up, service, install or uninstall a satellite and then return in less than 1 orbit so the Russians couldn't see it. They talked about this ever so briefly on the MIT Aerospace lectures on the Shuttle program. They also said that this functionality was never used. I think it'd be pretty hard to hide a shuttle launch, and with satellites in orbit I think it would be hard to have a launch window/mission the Russians wouldn't know about.
  The 9 month on orbit loitering time allows them to use a shuttle sized version of this thing to grab a satellite and land quickly. Couple this with a hardened version of the robot, not the CanadARM, but the actual man shaped telepresence robot for the ISS, and you could do repair missions on-orbit for 9 months without sending up multiple missions and astronauts getting around launch windows, weather delays, fuel tank sensors and every other delay the shuttle is heir to.
26. Re:Anywhere on earth in 2 hours by EvilBudMan · 2010-04-23 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  How is it going in Switzerland these days?
27. Re:Anywhere on earth in 2 hours by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-23 03:12 · Score: 0
  
  They did. A fleet of ship tracking radar satellites got launched using onboard nuclear reactors instead of solar, to allow them to be kept low and not have to rely on batteries while in the Earth's shadow. They're widely regarded as being a stupid thing to have put in orbit because they leak coolant metals and create a vast amount of space debris.
28. Re:Anywhere on earth in 2 hours by Will.Woodhull · 2010-04-23 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  Parent post is technically correct, but I think misleading in being too literal for this level of discourse.
  MIRV designs do allow a single ICBM to carry decoys of various kinds, and jamming or shielding electronics can be added to any warhead, all at a relatively cheap cost in added weight since these things are suborbital. Additionally, the last fifty miles or so of an ICBM's warhead trajectory can be made very similar to the trajectory of a smart bomb with the simple addition of some small steering surfaces and target acquisition electronics. A smart warhead could be programmed to take some evasive aeronautic maneuvers and still reach its target.
  Since I have no clearances and am not in any way privy to any of the relevant designs, I am of course speaking out of my ass. However it would be not only illogical, but totally irresponsible, for the USA not to have added such capabilities to the ICBMs in the 40+ years since they were first deployed. So I think it reasonable to assume that today's ICBMs do carry some countermeasures, since, as grandparent points out, the fuel cost for the added payload is well within reason.
  Perhaps others who know more about the subject, and can find a way to talk about it without violating security, will speak up.
  
  --
  Will
29. Re:Anywhere on earth in 2 hours by Wyatt+Earp · 2010-04-23 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  Re-usable FOBS more like.
  This gives the US a deniable FOBS now, they can launch them to stay on station for 9-12 months with a couple MIRVS, if something goes sideways in Iran or the DPRK on an orbit over the trouble spot they can drop a MIRV.
  It avoids the launch tension from Russia over an ICBM or SLBM and it's "stealthy", if the trouble fades then the X-37 can land and there were never nukes in space.
30. Re:Anywhere on earth in 2 hours by Wyatt+Earp · 2010-04-23 03:49 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The Russians have had FOBS tasked ICBMs for decades, and with the history of how Russia treats arms treaties*, I'm sure they still have them. I believe it was the SS-9 and then SS-18 mod 4 that were devoted to orbiting a nuke into orbit.
  The R-36orb (SS-18) carried the 869 fractional-orbit missile.
  * Read a book on the Soviet and Russian Federation bio-weapons treaty compliance, a Russian researcher said that they didn't comply because they assumed the US wouldn't comply. The US had thrown out most of the bioweapon program before the treaty was signed as Nixon hated the idea of bioweapons.
31. Re:Anywhere on earth in 2 hours by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-23 04:22 · Score: 0
  
  If you wanted to hit Venezuela from orbit, You wouldn't fire straight down, you'd fire backwards when you were over the Pacific.
32. Re:Anywhere on earth in 2 hours by LWATCDR · 2010-04-23 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  Well you have many details wrong.
  1. ICBMs do reach speeds not far below orbital velocities and some do look up FOBBS.
  2. ICBMs do have heatsheilds.Well the RVs do anyway.
  Actually the idea of using a winged system like this does have some merit and the USAF has looked into it back in the late 60s and early 70s.
  In theory you could have this reach a much lower altitude than an ICBM which would give you less time where you are over the horizon so the enemy would have less time to reach.
  Also this test vehical looks like it has the same 1000 mi cross range ability as the shuttle so yes it could look like it was going one place and then at the last minute turn and hit a different target But I do not see it being used for that.
  No to your idea about it as a sabotage. There is no way they would risk using this to deorbit or steal a satellite. It is to easy to put a self destruct on a satellite and take out this space UAV. This critter is not cheap to launch.
  So what could they use it for besides research?
  Simple as a space bomber quick strike weapon.
  The 9 month parking time means you can put it into orbit and leave it there for a long time.
  It will just sit there waiting. If you do not need it it de orbits and brings it's warhead home to be reused. After all you don't want a warhead to just come down someplace when it gets old do you?
  Somebody gets out of line? You just drop one of these bad boys on there head. The crowbar or telephone pole from space kinetic kill weapon can take out a launch silo, ship, or just about any hard target you want all without any warhead at all. A nice targeted 1000lbs slug of tungsten carbide at 18,000 mph will really ruin your day.
  You could pack a few different weapons maybe a few 20KG small ones for ships or mobile missle launchers and a big one for high value targets.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
33. Re:Anywhere on earth in 2 hours by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-23 08:28 · Score: 0
  
  Yup. There is a foreign submarine bearing a nuclear bomb armed missile or three, off your coast right now...
  Except when they're in dry dock after managing to crash into each other at the bottom of the ocean...
34. Re:Anywhere on earth in 2 hours by TCPhotography · 2010-04-23 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  I don't have clearance either (just an educated layman), and I seriously doubt that people with clearance would venture into this debate.
  Except decoys and other countermeasures don't work. We (the US) have had the sensors and computers to differentiate between real RVs and decoys, because, unless the decoy has the exact size, mass, and thermal signature as the real thing, we can ignore it. How we can is by tracking it on radar (a less massive RV wouldn't react the same to the Earth's mass, that is it wouldn't fall so fast, due to less inertia to punch through the atmosphere). And Thermal properties are important because the electronics in nuclear devices are sensitive and like to be kept in a nice stable temperature range. (Major source for the above paragraph is B. Bruce-Briggs' work "The Shield of Faith").
  As for MIRVs, any public time-lapse photographs, you will see that the individual RVs are released sequentially, not all at once like you see on TV (source - MX missile test photographs at the National Museum of the United States Air Force).
  And yes, the minor course correction features of modern RVs to allow for some accuracy adjustments. This allows us to use smaller devices, which fits with the policy of not directly harming civilians (as codified the various Geneva Conventions), but not letting civilian casualties stop us.
35. Re:Anywhere on earth in 2 hours by fredrik70 · 2010-04-25 20:23 · Score: 1
  
  well, reactors are a bit different than actual nukes, however I do agree it's bloody silly to keep them in LEO. For missions going elsewhere I can live with them.
  Even US used nuclear power sources; voyager used RTGs iirc, although that bit more benign than actual reactors
  
  --
  if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
You insult Islam! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-22 19:01 · Score: 0

Making me use a proxy to be able to post more often than a Muhammaddamn spammer!
1. Re:You insult Islam! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-22 19:14 · Score: 0
  
  You mean Allahdamn spammers
robynrihanna by robynrihanna · 2010-04-22 19:25 · Score: -1, Offtopic

Thanks for the great stuff provided Best Attorney
Welcome to Yesterday by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-22 19:25 · Score: 2, Funny

The purpose of the X-37 is for several things.
* Spy satellite recapture.
* Spy satellite de-orbit (killing).
* Rapid satellite deployment.
* As a communications platform of Network Centric Ops.
* Look-e-looing.
x
1. Re:Welcome to Yesterday by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-25 06:16 · Score: 0
  
  Don't forget that it also can do what the Shuttle was REALLY made for... Going up on a supposedly 'normal' mission only to change it's orbit and entry window at the last moments, flying at super sonic speeds right over Moscow or China and deploying first strike H-Bombs before anyone knows what is happening.
  There is a reason this bloated $$$ space vehicle lasted so long and it wasn't just rapid tasking photos.
Better weapons than nukes... by Sooner+Boomer · 2010-04-22 19:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

...telephone poles and crowbars from orbit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment)

--
Chaos maximizes locally around me.
1. Re:Better weapons than nukes... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-22 19:57 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/21/x37b_secret_launch_options/
2. Re:Better weapons than nukes... by Calinous · 2010-04-22 20:09 · Score: 1
  
  The cost to bring them to orbit in the first place, and then to de-orbit them (in order to allow them to fall on target) is pretty high. Also, this isn't a "surgical strike" capability as the weapon can not "see" the target or communicate too well while falling at multiple times the sound speed.
3. Re:Better weapons than nukes... by hitmark · 2010-04-23 01:30 · Score: 1
  
  autonomous smelters that can grab asteroids and turn them into ammo?
  
  --
  comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
4. Re:Better weapons than nukes... by Calinous · 2010-04-23 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  That's only effective when you need to build some million crowbars, as sending probes anywhere but Low Earth Orbit is very very expensive (and an autonomous smelter would by necessity be huge).
5. Re:Better weapons than nukes... by ArtemaOne · 2010-04-23 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  Hell yeah, this is the start of the Caldari Empire.
I think I heard this one before. by bytesex · 2010-04-22 20:14 · Score: 1

In other words, they're testing a Buran.

--
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
podbay by idji · 2010-04-22 20:38 · Score: 3, Interesting

Is the podbay big enough to hold Chinese or Russian satellites and bring them back down again? That seems to me what is really going on here - why otherwise would the USAF really care about getting stuff back down again? - they don't need their own satellites back - let them burn up in reentry - they are not collecting particulate matter, and I don't believe they will be going around hoovering up space junk. If the thing can stay up therewith it's solar panels for 270 days, maybe it is just wandering around picking up "rogue" satellites, attaching small engines and letting the satellites deorbit.
1. Re:podbay by Monty_Lovering · 2010-04-23 00:55 · Score: 1
  
  As per above AC post;
  "* Spy satellite recapture.
  * Spy satellite de-orbit (killing).
  * Rapid satellite deployment.
  * As a communications platform of Network Centric Ops.
  * Look-e-looing." ... this is one of its likely roles. It can bring back US assets for service and relaunch; repair or service US assets via spacewalk; launch assets (but not the big spy sats); observe, jam or destroy enemy assets - and all this without any overfly of 'enemy' territory if in polar orbits. It can also do surveilance and launch weapons, but there are far better/cheaper ways of doing this (Tomahawk, U2 etc..).
2. Re:podbay by Bruce+Perens · 2010-04-23 01:23 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I am dubious that this scales if you are trying to clean up orbital garbage. There's a lot. If you are trying to deorbit hostile satellites, they are likely to blow themselves up. Probably all you can do successfully is shoot them. This only makes the debris problem worse.
  
  --
  Bruce Perens.
3. Re:podbay by LWATCDR · 2010-04-23 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  Well if I was building any type of military satellite I would include a self destruct or anti-tamper device.
  The shuttle already had the ability to grab a satellite and showed it a few times with US ones. If you any classified type of device in orbit and you saw a US anything getting close just set it with a proximity / time fuse. Boom..
  I am sorry there must have been a fault in that. We had no idea that you would have your shuttle close to it! And why was that BTW?
  So that is probably not it's mission.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
4. Re:podbay by idji · 2010-04-23 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  you're right. they won't be risking baby shuttle getting blown up.
5. Re:podbay by denobug · 2010-04-23 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  Ther velocity of the objects raveling in orbits are so high that one little piece of objects colliding to anyting would be disasterous. Cosnidering an unmanned shuttle "releasing" a small, but reasonable size object (like a solid metal ball?) and let it "float" to the desire target. The taret (rogue satellie, for example) will most likely be destroyed upon contact, or as you point out, self-destruct with proximity sensors.
6. Re:podbay by (H)elix1 · 2010-04-23 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  My thoughts would be to bring our own back. If you harden a satellite as defense against anti-sat weapons, I suspect it might have the unwanted effect of letting critical bits survive re-entry when it does leave orbit.
  
  --
  +++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
7. Re:podbay by LWATCDR · 2010-04-23 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  It might be worth the risk if you think you have a chance but since it is simple to make it impossible I would bet every nation does it.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
8. Re:podbay by icegreentea · 2010-04-23 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  Well. For what it's worth, if they brought down an operational or recently decommissioned Chinese or Russian satellite, the world would come one step closer to exploding. Seriously, its great to fantasize about this stuff. But going out and blatantly stealing other countries' military/intelligence hardware (and in effect, deploying an ASAT weapon) would just become a diplomatic disaster.
9. Re:podbay by tsotha · 2010-04-23 20:18 · Score: 1
  
  The bay is about the size of a coffin, which makes it too small to bring back spy satellites. Hard for me to imagine what they're going to do with it beyond use it as a test bed to develop something bigger.
What's with the fairing? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-22 20:50 · Score: 3, Interesting

Does anyone know what the panels lining the rocket fairing are for?
http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/scitech/2009/10/22/nasas-secret-space-plane-nears-maiden-voyage?slide=4
1. Re:What's with the fairing? by DuncanLoomis · 2010-04-23 01:12 · Score: 1
  
  Does anyone know what the guy in the blue shirt is for? http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/scitech/2009/10/22/nasas-secret-space-plane-nears-maiden-voyage?slide=13
2. Re:What's with the fairing? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-23 02:21 · Score: 0
  
  lol!
3. Re:What's with the fairing? by DerekLyons · 2010-04-23 03:18 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Does anyone know what the panels lining the rocket fairing are for?
  A variety of things... Insulation (the fairing will get quite hot during ascent) and acoustic dampening (the fairing will vibrate like a drum during ascent as will the payload) being the key ones.
4. Re:What's with the fairing? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-23 04:42 · Score: 0
  
  The slovenly shape and choice of clothing makes me think it's a SysAdmin they killed and are now using as a test dummy.
More like 45 minutes max by drerwk · 2010-04-23 00:47 · Score: 1

Orbit at low altitude is about 90 minutes. An ICBM has to go at most half way around the world, so 45 minutes from launch is about the max time you would expect for an ICBM. Montana to Afghanistan is 6,000 miles, or a 22 minute flight; overflight of Russia might be problematic. As pointed out in other posts sub launch to target is less than 10 minutes.
1. Re:More like 45 minutes max by Wyatt+Earp · 2010-04-23 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB47/index1.html
  Talks about how long an ICBM takes to get to a target based on origin and trajectory.
  "RAND analyzed the performance potential of the Minuteman missile defense system against six potential scenarios: China launching against Hawaii and Los Angeles; North Korea against Hawaii and Alaska; and Libya against Washington, D.C., and Miami. Flight times vary from about 23 minutes for the North Korean threat against Alaska to 35 minutes for the Chinese threat against Los Angeles."
PIcs and video at BBC by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-23 01:47 · Score: 0

BBC coverage on X-37B
Meteor over midwestern US last week - coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-23 02:31 · Score: 0

I'm surprised that no conspiracy theorists have jumped on the idea that this mission was to replace the spy satellite that burned up on reentry over the midwest last week!
g=
What is it for? by coolmoose25 · 2010-04-23 02:46 · Score: 1

That's the discussion that I want to see here on slashdot. Wild speculation about what it's mission is. Here is my first shot at it:

- High Tech ASAT machine: ASAT tech (ballistic/laser) weapons mounted in the cargo bay. Makes sense except, why do you need it to come back down... cost of laser perhaps?

- Satellite Stealer: Go up, grab enemy satellite, bring it back down. Deprives enemy of the satellite, and lets you figure out how it works so you can perhaps destroy/disable others like it?

- Special Recon: Allows you to do tactical recon that current fleet of satellites can't do - put it in various different orbits to maximize loiter times?

- Prototype for First Space Fighter: Sure, the Russians already did that, sort of... they had a manned spy satellite with a machine gun on it... and fired it in space (but remotely and unmanned). This would potentially be much better - fit the cargo bay with life support and weapons?

So what is your SWAG as to what this is REALLY for?

--
Brawndo: It's what plants crave!
1. Re:What is it for? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-23 03:17 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Special Recon:. The X-37 has a on orbit delta-V of 3.3km/s so it can basically add 14,000km of cross range any time it wants to on orbit, in a orbital period, literally showing up unexpected, over anywhere on the _entire_ planet.
  ASAT: possibly, but probably not a primary or even secondary mission. Would not be too hard to upgrade one of the many exoatmospheric ABM interceptors for taking on higher targets when dropped from the X-37s bay. Or carry stealthy slow missiles with black spray paint, to induce premature failure in enemy satellites.
  Satellite Stealer: Not at all likely. Most military satellites are equipped with self destruct charges ranging from simple ruination to catastrophic explosion.
  Antipodal bomber: Highly Likely. Drops guided conventional warhead reentry vehicle onto high value or fleeting targets. anywhere in the world 80 minutes or less. Multiple vehicles can lower time dramatically to below 10 minutes.
  Not stuck with NASA: Fly more frequently for test and research purposes, almost on demand as long as you have a booster. No having to dance around civil payload manifests.
  Survivable, Reliable, Evasive Orbital Observation/Mapping/Recon/Communications.
  Immense delta-V and cross range reduces vulnerability to enemy ASAT weapons, allows for flying of high investment radar and optical telescopes that you can bring home and reuse, cheaper than the big KH spy satellites. Use saved money on perks for Officer clubs.
2. Re:What is it for? by Wyatt+Earp · 2010-04-23 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  Forget satellite stealer, satellite hacking and eavesdropping.
3. Re:What is it for? by ColdWetDog · 2010-04-23 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  Wild speculation about what it's mission is
  1) Surreptitiously toss male and female 'astronauts' into space without the blinding glare of NASA publicity. Amateur video to follow.
  2) Deorbit and buzz Washington DC, just like every fighter jockey that's dealt with government bureaucracy has always wanted to do.
  3) Our space penis is bigger than your space penis.
  4) $$$$
  5) Profit.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
4. Re:What is it for? by Artifakt · 2010-04-23 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  It's humbling to realize I'm no better qualified to be an 'astronaut' than I am to be an astronaut.
  
  --
  Who is John Cabal?
5. Re:What is it for? by FleaPlus · 2010-04-23 08:06 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I haven't seen anybody else mention it in this thread, but there was a really interesting pre-launch teleconference with Air Force Deputy Under Secretary for Space Programs (and former astronaut) Gary Payton. Payton gave quite a few details about the program I hadn't seen elsewhere, giving additional insight into the program's purpose and future plans. I've pasted a few highlights below:
  http://www.dodlive.mil/index.php/tag/gary-payton/
  http://www.defense.gov/Blog_files/Blog_assets/PaytonX-37.pdf
  
  Question: Mark Matthews with the Orlando Sentinel.
  Two quick questions. If the tests are successful is the Air Force looking to be able to build more of these planes? And what do you say to concerns about how this could lead to the increased weaponization of space?
  Mr. Payton: We do have a second tail number on contract. Currently we're looking at a 2011 launch for that second tail number. That assumes everything goes properly as predicted on this first flight. And truthfully, I don't know how this could be called wedaponizatino of space. It's just an updated version of the space shuttle kind of activities in space. We, the Air Force, have a suite of military missions in space and this new vehicle could potentially help us do those missions better.
  Question: Gordon Lubold, Christian Science Monitor.
  I guess I would just wonder if you could explain a little bit more about what the flight will test and clarify one thing. Is there not going to be a specific payload on it this time, or is there going to be and you can't tell us what it's going to be? Can you give us some sense of it? There seems to be a lot of mystery around the flight and I'm not sure if that's intended or not.
  Mr. Payton: Like in many of our space launches, not all of them but many of them, the actual on-orbit activities we do classify. So we're doing that in this case for the actual experimental payloads that are on orbit with the X37. But again, our top priority is demonstrating the vehicle itself with its autonomous flight control systems, new generation of silica tile, and a wealth of other new technologies that are sort of one generation beyond the shuttle. ...
  Question: It could capture a spacecraft that's already on orbit and bring it down for servicing or what have you?
  Mr. Payton: Not on this flight. Again, this flight's intend is the experiments themselves, both during ascent, during entry, and on orbit. But there's no arm on this one. ...
  Question: A quick follow-up on in-orbit capability. Do you have, what kind of props on this thing? I know you can get up to like 500 nautical miles, something like that. Is there any expectation to do some orbit maneuvering of this vehicle to different altitudes?
  Mr. Payton: Just the way we handle satellites in general. We would, and like we handle low earth orbit satellites. We move them a little bit with their own on-board propulsion system.
  You're starting to touch on the notion of using a winged vehicle to really change the inclination of the orbit by sort of dipping into the top of the atmosphere and turning and then bouncing back up off the top of the atmosphere. You need a very very good, very very high. Again, hypersonic lift over drag, in order for that to be beneficial. This bird does not have that high hypersonic lift over drag ratio that you would need to do that kind of maneuver.
  Sorry, I didn't intend to give a lecture on Aero 562. ...
  Question: Air Force Magazine.
  You talked before about how this could handle a small sized satellite. In more lay person's terms, what does that mean? Is the payload large enough to hold like a Volkswagen Beetle or an SUV? Can you give us some idea there?
  Mr. Payton: You know our ORS program, Operation Responsive Space?
  Question: Yes.
  Mr. Payton: Maybe a couple of satellites that are a few hu
6. Re:What is it for? by Iron+Condor · 2010-04-23 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  And, of course, 8+3.3 > 11.2
  Just sayin.
  
  --
  We're all born with nothing.
  If you die in debt, you're ahead.
Re:podbay killer water balloons. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-23 03:02 · Score: 0

If you want to deprive someone of a satellite on the sly, you don't bother with high kinetic gunfire or ASAT missiles, you hit it with a balloon filled with matte black paint at a comparatively low velocity. The satellite's ground controllers, will see a gradual failure from overheating and power loss, additionally possibly glitched optics if present and a little bit of tumble, eliminating high-gain antenna function. Heh.
Re:Wasn't the Buran autonomous...? Physics lesson by DCFusor · 2010-04-23 04:32 · Score: 1

Because during re-entry you can't communicate to a craft surrounded by ionized atmosphere and bits of burned off heat shield. Something similar happens during boost as well. Almost the entire instrumentation recorder/time shift industry was created as a result ,so data from launch and re-entry could be gathered and studied.

--
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
Dynasoar by Princeofcups · 2010-04-23 04:52 · Score: 1

After 50 years, dynasoar finally takes flight. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasoar Better late than never.

--
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
Re:podbay killer water balloons. by Artifakt · 2010-04-23 05:05 · Score: 1

Nice!
The problem overall with depriving someone of a satellite on the sly is after three or so uses of any method, it's not sly any more. Nothing scales up economically for repeat use, because any sudden rash of satellite failures would have their deployer thinking it can't be coincidence to lose that many that quickly.
Ergo, any method used is likely to be either a one shot attack, or an overwhelming attack against all an enemy's space capability (which, whatever else it is, won't be sly) - nothing in between. Governments are actually highly averse to funding one shot, in extremis programs such as killer asteroid stopping missions. Exceptions for clear and present danger may exist, but (to get back to the topic) it's unlikely if the 37b is part of one of them.

--
Who is John Cabal?
Anonymous Coward. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-23 10:15 · Score: 0

It's a multi-mega watt laser. Rule of strategic thumb is not throw away usable weapons til the next better one is on line. Which is why Obama renounced nukes.
We have something better! ( Bits and pieces have been leaking out for some time and I have seen the craft actually fly, interesting drive.)
Nobody will read this post, fewer will believe it until after but low profiles are good.
A Surge? by Well-Fed+Troll · 2010-04-23 11:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

He's talking about a big push to put stuff into orbit. I see several scenarios here:

Large solar flare destroying a bunch of satellites, replacement needed.
Some new weapon that can destroy a large number of satellites (ground based X-ray laser or an EMP/Nuclear weapon)
Reagan's Star Wars style satellites chain. I've heard we have some advances in Fiber laser efficiency. Any other recent big advances in beam weaponry?