Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

X-37B Found By Amateur Sky Watchers

Posted by Soulskill on from the eye-in-the-sky dept.

otter42 writes "It seems that X-37B couldn't stay hidden forever. Launched a few weeks ago, The Flying Twinkie disappeared shortly after separation. Now it has been found in an orbit that takes it as far north as 40 degrees latitude. No additional information has been found about the spacecraft's capabilities or purpose, except for a US Air Force statement that the satellite has no space-weapons purpose. The X-37B is intended to fly for 9 months at a time, opening the door to possible space longevity experiments in addition to its spying tasks."

109 comments

  1. Space weapons.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    It might not have space weapons, but it's cloaking device sure failed.

    1. Re:Space weapons.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      want to see it?
      go to www.heavens-above.com
      for times/magnitude/etc.

    2. Re:Space weapons.. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Since we're talking about a flying twinkie here, isn't is more of an wrapping device?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re:Space weapons.. by gamecrusader · · Score: 1

      at least china hasn't shot it down yet

    4. Re:Space weapons.. by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      You can't miss it. It says Hostess on the heat shield.

      --

      Better bread spacecraft.

    5. Re:Space weapons.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia, Lying Twinkie fools you.

    6. Re:Space weapons.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dont you get it...they really waking up the aliens and all hell is going to break loose soon..
      These freaking mason people need to just come out of closet and tell the people of the world n human being form what the heck is really going on in this life.

      Stay tuned and you dont believe me bout these mason fucks
      lookup sites
      jayzamason (YOUTUBE.COM)
      Masonsociety (YOUTUBE.COM)
      soldierstalktruth.com
      iraqnpresidentbushfriends.com

      Take it to what you want in life YOU WANT REAL ANSWERS

      START PAYING ATTENTION TO YOUR SURROUNDINGS

  2. Oh really? by ringmaster1982 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "in addition to its spying tasks." What tasks are these? Please elaborate, for the sake of accuracy of course.

    1. Re:Oh really? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 4, Funny

      Rendezvous with alien spaceships of course.

    2. Re:Oh really? by MRe_nl · · Score: 1

      "The craft is the manifestation of the Air Force's long-held, on-and-off again dream to operate its own space plane."

      --
      "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
    3. Re:Oh really? by sv_libertarian · · Score: 1

      Of course they wait until Mulder and Scully retire...

    4. Re:Oh really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they could use it for the CIA use it for assasinations a hyperkentic munition and take out the leaders of china for example, drop a rock from there then blame it on a astroid unluckly hittng their leader would be hard to prove the U.S. had anything to do with it, it could drop a balistic missile and strike anywhere in the world without warning.

    5. Re:Oh really? by MoralHazard · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Dropping a rock from space isn't as straightforward of an idea as it sounds. Apologies to the Jerry Pournelle fans out there, but there are some problems that significantly reduce the cool factor.

      First of all, drop the perception that each "rod" is a cheap, unpowered, purely-kinetic weapon, because the orbital physics don't allow it. De-orbiting an object (in a stable orbit, anyway) is not a free manuever, it costs thrust and therefore fuel burn to "slow" itself down so it drops out of orbit. Usually, the object is moving at a really high velocity--in LEO, it's at least 30,000 kph, maybe more. De-orbiting quickly (within minutes) means generating a large amount of force over a fairly short time interval. Given current technology, that means a rocket engine.

      So each "rod" is basically just a missile launched from orbit. Instead of using thrust to against earth's gravity, the rocket thrusts against its own orbital inertia, which is *enormous* in LEO. Yes, after a certain point, the falling object becomes purely kinetic, but that doesn't change the fact that the weapon is basically an ICBM with a kinetic warhead instead of a nuclear warhead. The rocket engine could be somewhat smaller than an ICBM's, but still big enough to be a significant launch weight expense in the first place.

      Second problem: The potential energy delta from LEO to the surface of the earth isn't big enough to accelerate the rod to hypersonic velocity, taking re-entry drag into consideration. You'd get a bigger explosion from dropping a MOAB, but at 1000x the delivery postage. You could raise the launcher's orbit, which increases the impact velocity, but which also enormously increases the delay between your lauch order and weapon impact. LEO is around 400 km from the surface, but geosync is somewhere above 30,000 km. De-orbiting could take hours, unless you hugely increase the power of the re-entry rocket, which means upscaling the size, weight, and expense per shot.

      Finally, there's a non-phyics problem that wasn't even really an issue back when Pournelle came up with his original ideas: The politics of the "weapons of mass destruction" label. WMD is a sloppy-shit term that will get applied *instantly* by IR commentators and the press to any weapons system that has destructive power closer to a small nuclear bomb (~500+ t) than a MOAB (~10t). The fact that this isn't a nuclear weapon, or a chem/bio agent, will be totally irrelevant, because very few of the interested parties will know the difference. All that Joe Public (or Mohammed Al-Public, overseas) will understand is that the US has invented another unstoppable, super-technology killing machine.

      So if your Rods from God are less powerful than a small tactical nuke, each shot would need to be cheaper than delivering an equivalent load of conventional ordnance--call if 10-50x MOABs. I seriously doubt that the economics would work in your favor, here, because boosting shit into orbit is insanely expensive, while big bombs are relatively cheap to make and drop.

      On the other hand, if your Rods from God are as powerful or more powerful than a small tactical nuke, they become unusable on the battlefield because of the political costs. And it the Rods program is relegated to only being a strategic deterrent, it had better be cheaper than ICBMs/SLBMs. Again, I really doubt that the economics will work in your favor, for the same reasons.

    6. Re:Oh really? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1
      The rod may be a dumb projectile launched by a cannon, instead of a missile. The advantage of a space platform is loitering time, plus the fact that it is harder to strike back at an orbital platform. This is the same reason why bombers used to fly at increasingly higher altitudes. Defensive weapon systems are harder to develop.

      Also a kinetic weapon does not cause radioactive fallout.

  3. Remarkable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    I find it amazing they've created a spaceship that can stay up in the sky for up to 9 months at a time.

    The article notes that "The X-37B can stay aloft for as long as nine months because it deploys solar panels for power, unlike the space shuttle."

    I...doubt it's the solar panels alone which allow it to stay up there so long. Although, if it runs primarily on solar energy I'm frankly stunned at how powerful solar panels are. Arguably since they're getting pure sunlight rather than atmosphere diffused sunlight it's probably stronger, but still.

    Also the reason I doubt the solar panels are the primary reason is due to the fact that the shuttles needed to add in a lot more weight for food/water which caused it to use more fuel plus be limited to how much food/water they could get up there. Even at best, I doubt the shuttle could've held enough food and water to last more than a month.

    But yeah, the reduction in fuel weight is good to hear. If they're testing ion drives on it, this would be the most amazing real spaceship I've ever heard of.

    1. Re:Remarkable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "I find it amazing they've created a spaceship that can stay up in the sky for up to 9 months at a time."

      Really? There are craft up there that will stay thousands of years.

    2. Re:Remarkable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And most of them are powered by solar arrays (though that's not what's keeping them up there)

    3. Re:Remarkable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Really? There are craft up there that will stay thousands of years.

      That's like saying we shouldn't be impressed by subs being underwater for months because of all those shipwrecks doing it for centuries.

    4. Re:Remarkable by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I find it amazing they've created a spaceship that can stay up in the sky for up to 9 months at a time.

      How's that? There are no humans to feed or otherwise keep comfortable and alive. Small craft, electronics for spying, stable orbit. Sounds like it could stay up longer if needed.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    5. Re:Remarkable by bcmm · · Score: 5, Informative

      I...doubt it's the solar panels alone which allow it to stay up there so long. Although, if it runs primarily on solar energy I'm frankly stunned at how powerful solar panels are. Arguably since they're getting pure sunlight rather than atmosphere diffused sunlight it's probably stronger, but still.

      It isn't using solar panels for propulsion. It needs hardly any propulsion, once it's in orbit, since it will naturally tend to stay in its orbit, "flying" by its own momentum (though it will use a bit to counteract the tiny atmospheric resistance that exists even at that altitude). The panels allow it to go on long missions not by keeping it in the sky, but by giving it power to run its computers, comms, and its payload, assuming the payload uses electricity. This avoids the expense of launching very large batteries.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    6. Re:Remarkable by bcmm · · Score: 4, Informative

      Forgot to mention that the ISS has been continually powered by solar panels since 1998.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    7. Re:Remarkable by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not really - put a space craft into the correct orbit and it will stay there until its systems fail. Longevity is not really a new thing introduced by the X-37B, its been a staple of geostationary satellites for decades.

    8. Re:Remarkable by init100 · · Score: 1

      though it will use a bit to counteract the tiny atmospheric resistance that exists even at that altitude

      I'd say that it probably doesn't have to use any fuel for that. The ISS is at a similar altitude, and it is boosted to a higher altitude a few times a year, but the ISS is intended to stay in orbit for a long time. Since the X-37B is only intended to stay up for nine months, it is possible that it does not need any boosting. Besides, it is also possible that it can minimize the drag by using a certain attitude profile, such as pointing the nose forwards. If horizontal w.r.t. the ground (inverted or not), it might even be able to use its wings to counteract the aerodynamic resistance, like a glider.

    9. Re:Remarkable by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 5, Informative

      But this thing is a very low earth orbit sattellite. It has a very fast shifting orbit, and it has much more athmospheric drag (though, granted, still not all that much). The orbit is "close" (certainly in space terms), low-latency, but a bit of a bitch to navigate in.

      If we could deploy 100 of these quickly and cheaply we could have fast broadband with tiny latencies everywhere on the planet, from New York to Antarctica (worst case you'd need a roof antenna, and given performance of iridium handsets that's not necessary except in highrises in city centers). Since you have clear line of sight to just about any location on the planet, very high bandwidth applications are within the realm of possibility. Inter-satellite links can use the exact same technology used on fibers (except for the need to aim them), and thus COTS components will get you an inter-sattellite bandwith of 160 Gbit per transmitter, with no real limits on the number of transmitters.

      This is the one technology that truly has the potential of getting high-bandwidth links into outlying rural areas.

      LEO and this type of technology could be the future of the internet. Unstoppable, unfilterable, available anywhere and anytime (because of the possibility of having extreme directionality in the tranceivers, the only real option you have is taking out the satellite, you can't even find who's using this internet connection. Iran and other countries' censorship would be thoroughly fucked), usable with cola can sized devices costing $150 able to link up to playboy online right under the nose of Ahmadinejad. Able to tell any Chinese what happened at Tiananmen, and provide that same porn to increase the customer base.

    10. Re:Remarkable by mikael_j · · Score: 4, Insightful

      An all-wireless internet is not "the future" no matter how many times the "omg it has noe wiers!!!1" crowd say it is.

      Show me a stable 10 Gbps transatlantic connection using satellites that requires little to no maintenance and which doesn't risk randomly interfering with other links (or being interfered with by other links) and I'll believe it's getting close. Until then fiber is still king no matter how much some people scream about "wireless!!1" like it's the second coming of christ.

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    11. Re:Remarkable by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But this thing is a very low earth orbit sattellite. It has a very fast shifting orbit, and it has much more athmospheric drag (though, granted, still not all that much). The orbit is "close" (certainly in space terms), low-latency, but a bit of a bitch to navigate in.

      The International Space Station has a standard orbit of between 181 miles and 189 miles and only needs a boost a few times a year, while the X-37B was spotted at 255 miles up where the atmopshere is significantly thinner - 9 month longevity should not be hard to achieve, especially as the X-37B includes the ability to boost its orbit.

    12. Re:Remarkable by H3g3m0n · · Score: 1

      There is a point at which bandwidth becomes pointless. If you have a low latency system that has enough bandwidth to display HD videos for example, you no longer need to download movies, you can just watch them. The same can be applied to your entire computer desktop. Of course resolutions will be increasing and so on but so will the technologies.

      That system might not be here yet, but it will be eventually. I doubt it will be in orbit due to the latency (even low latency is too much), but radio travels as fast as fiber and lasers are wireless too and won't interfere. Actually an advanced system of lasers might work much better than fiber, you don't have to lay the cables and you can just keep adding beams and receptors, just need a simple deployable system, like wifi except with multiple lasers that automatically locate receptors in range (maybe with some 2ndary radio system for the general direction) and aim a beam towards them.

      In addition to that, there are many low bandwidth/low latency applications. Imagine giving all the villages/people in Africa cheap solar $5 OLPC style computers with built in internet access without needing a hub, server or whatever. They might not be able to do anything more than basic web browsing but that would be a huge revolution. They dropped a computer into an Indian village, came back a few months later and all the children now spoke English.

      --
      cat /dev/urandom > .sig
    13. Re:Remarkable by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "How's that? There are no humans to feed or otherwise keep comfortable and alive. Small craft, electronics for spying, stable orbit. Sounds like it could stay up longer if needed."

      Yet another demonstration of why remote-manned space systems offer far greater ROI than carrying expensive tourists.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    14. Re:Remarkable by ari_j · · Score: 1

      It does take some fuel to maintain an attitude, and using wings to generate lift also increases drag, so that doesn't really work out so well. The ISS's orbit is boosted by its main engines or by a docked spacecraft. Fortunately, it doesn't take much acceleration to maintain the low Earth orbit that these things live in, so a little bit of fuel can go a long way, but it does take some.

    15. Re:Remarkable by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Shuttle can have only short mission because it depends on fuel cells simply for powering ("keeping alive", up there) its systems; actually, it has a possibility to "steal" this power from ISS and prolong it's mission...a bit.

      But several months alone is nowhere near impressive. Almost every damn spacecraft did at least that, "spacecraft"/"spaceship" not being somehow more real if it looks like the popular depiction of "spaceplane" - the latter (and hence X-37B) are actually very poor all around "real spaceships". Built primarily with atmospheric phase of the flight in mind; which might make sense for military LEO vehicle, and not much else.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    16. Re:Remarkable by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Gliders don't use their wings to counteract the aerodynamic resistance, quite the contrary (somewhat; directed in a specific way). Fall all the time, and are way below the Karman line.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    17. Re:Remarkable by sznupi · · Score: 4, Informative

      What? Somebody still believes the fairytale that satellite access can be better & cheaper (and less wasteful...) from cables and cellular towers? O_o

      In case you didn't notice, the business plan for Iridium was:
      - go in deep debt building ridiculously overpriced communication network, valuable to few customers with much influence (military)
      - go bankrupt
      - debts dissapear
      - rely on profits from said customers with much influence

      Plus Iridium orbit is not much higher than this thing does now; 100 vs 70 satelllites also doesn't make much difference.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    18. Re:Remarkable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is impressive for what this thing is. a space fighter drone. armed with weapons it should be able to kill any satellite it likes for 9 months. and completely dominate space with high bandwidth links to the ground for targetting data. it can also latch on to any satellite it likes and intercept feeds/add remote relays. everyone should be really scared of this thing. it makes space war practical even if the first one is unarmed.
      a fighter plane. in space. controlled from the ground. welcome to battlestar galactica. next up will be heavy bombers in space. and then space destroyers. and space carriers. the russians and chinese are no doubt scrambling for their own space fighter drones right now.

    19. Re:Remarkable by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Hello....this is the government, do you really expect them to give the real data on orbital longevity? Duh.
      This platform is nothing more than a RCS fuel tank with interchangeable payload bay. Highly maneuverable, more so than the permanent spy satellites. As for being weaponless, return to base, change out the payload, relaunch, target, boom.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    20. Re:Remarkable by sznupi · · Score: 1

      I see, so instead of simply lying fiber and dealing with last mile how is appropriate for given area...you would like to see "wireless fiber", with lasers travelling through the air (coordinated in some magical way between moving users (going inside is useless, everybody can get used to little rain, snow and cold) and satellites), and all this at nice a cost of, say, trillions of dollars.

      So we can transmit one HD video.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    21. Re:Remarkable by sznupi · · Score: 1

      But that would not make it more "real spaceship"; just another contribution to the immense waste of US defense (nice newspeak) industry.

      And it makes space warfare nowhere near practical. Weaponising LEO is moronic. At first sight of it, any entity which thinks it can "lose" will simply launch few dumb rockets with millions of ball bearings, triggering Kessler syndrome.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    22. Re:Remarkable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure this should be marked as "funny."

    23. Re:Remarkable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sticking giant lasers on 747s to shoot down ballistic missiles is moronic too. doesnt mean it isnt going to be done. how are you going to ball bearing the entirety of LEO ? its really big and ball bearings can be tracked and avoided with radar. this thing has large engines to move from leo to meo if it needs to. it will be highly maneuverable and well armed. plus they can build hundreds if they need to and keep them up only a week or two rather than 9 months.

    24. Re:Remarkable by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      It seems like they could be though - solar panels could generate lift via a tether.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    25. Re:Remarkable by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid that save for arming it with a nuke, it would be a terrible waste of money. Anything else can be deployed from the surface for much less $$$.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    26. Re:Remarkable by Steauengeglase · · Score: 1

      They don't want the warranty to expire.

    27. Re:Remarkable by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually an advanced system of lasers might work much better than fiber....

      Sshyeah. All you'd need is some way around weather patterns and LOS issues. Maybe you could set up some towers and fire the lasers through a glass medium so that they're undisturbed by local weather conditions....

      But seriously, I'm on wireless and it's got a looooonnnggggg ways to go before replacing wires and fiber.

    28. Re:Remarkable by TorKlingberg · · Score: 1

      Forgot to mention that the ISS has been continually powered by solar panels since 1998.

      The propulsion is not solar powered. On GOCE of the other hand, it is. It is only 270 km (170 mi) up where the atmosphere is relatively thick and it will stay up for 20 months.

    29. Re:Remarkable by JWSmythe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Spacecraft without human pilots aren't good PR.

          "Look what we did, we sent these guys to ...." is a much bigger sensation than "Look at the chunk of metal we sent up."

          From the PR standpoint, the ISS is a big deal, because there are people on it. There's little interest in the almost 1,000 operational satellites floating around above us.

          No one would care if Glonass 712 fell out of orbit. It would make a blurb on the news, and that would be the end of it. Now, if the ISS were to suddenly and uncontrollably deorbit, that would be international news for months or years.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    30. Re:Remarkable by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Yeah, yeah, you will always have the rights & means to shutdown any rocket launch, heh...

      You underestimate what millions of objects on erratic orbits would do. And it doeasn't have to be strictly metal ball bearings...or not ball bearing at all. Might as well be some fairly undetectable material, it doesn't matter - at those impact speeds, mass is the only thing that matters, any solid matter behaving like liquid anyway. Well, and this one type of spacecraft might have a chance at escaping, sometimes, quickly wasting practically all its fuel to do so; well, mission accomplished.

      Fuck yeah, America!

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    31. Re:Remarkable by Iron+Condor · · Score: 1

      r. this thing has large engines to move from leo to meo if it needs to.

      That's an understatement.

      With a delta-v of 3.3, this thing can go to the moon, if needed. (Won't come back, though).

      --
      We're all born with nothing.
      If you die in debt, you're ahead.
    32. Re:Remarkable by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      You do realise transatlantic and transpacific cable have basically the same business model, right ? They've gone broke at least 5 times in the last 10 years or so.

      Besides, even intra-US fiber is not exactly a goldmine of profits for their owners.

    33. Re:Remarkable by slick7 · · Score: 1

      it would be a terrible waste of money.

      When has the government been known to do anything economically? Remember, an elephant is a mouse with government design specifications.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    34. Re:Remarkable by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      Given that Iridium phones operate perfectly well in a snow storm ... what weather conditions are so very detrimental to LEO communication if I may ask ?

      We're talking extremely directional communication with only tiny amounts of interference very close to one of the tranceivers (ie. the one on the ground). This is not a hard problem.

      The hard problem in wireless transmission is obstacles "mid-flight" (so to speak). Because the earth is round, and thus there is a "mountain" between any two points anywhere on the planet, and that the highest point of this mountain tends to be ... smack in the middle (the exact place you can do the most damage to a signal).

      Fortunately we're not in avatar and there are no mountains floating miles above the surface, so once you clear buildings you have a clear shot to any satellite floating above.

      And since athmospheric drag in LEO is not zero, there is hardly any space debris to destroy satellites. The only potential (realistic) colissinos are with other satellite constellations, and therefore by definition any satellite in LEO has a working propulsion system (or it would not be able to resist athmospheric drag).

    35. Re:Remarkable by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Those are at mosy problems with weird implementations. Backbone where I live doesn't seem to have many; besides, does it need to be a "goldmine" to be insanely more viable from satellites?...
      Transatlantic and transpacific cables give very tangible benefits for their cost, and could be rerouted through hardly any deep ocean to speak of; heck, "transpacific" one needing in practice not much more than 100km of underwater cable.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    36. Re:Remarkable by seekertom · · Score: 1

      i thinks you're missing the point... 9 months really IS a feat of longevity, considering that the on-board astronaut has no outhouse! thanks fer lis'nin' seekertom

  4. "Satellite"? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1, Informative

    Does this spacecraft look like a satellite to you?

    --
    My blog
    1. Re:"Satellite"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they look Dalek.

    2. Re:"Satellite"? by maxume · · Score: 1

      Not when it is sitting on the ground.

      Being in orbit changes things.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    3. Re:"Satellite"? by Annorax · · Score: 1

      Looks more like a mini space shuttle to me.

      Maybe it collects defunct satellites and brings them back for repair..

    4. Re:"Satellite"? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe it collects defunct satellites and brings them back for repair..

      Actually, it has a a robotic arm, so the X37B can be used to repair and refuel satellites in orbit. I'm not sure I believe the USAF when it says it has absolutely no space weapons purpose, however.

      --
      My blog
    5. Re:"Satellite"? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      It has doors that can open, thus it can deploy a unique set of payloads on every flight.
      From expensive sensors to really really secret sensors as needed per mission.
      The sat killer units will wait until the US faces a real war.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    6. Re:"Satellite"? by fizzup · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Satellite. I do not think that word means what you think it means.

      Does this look like a satellite to you? Does this? What would have to change about the X-37B to make you think it's a satellite, anyway? Put it in orbit? Well, you can check that off your list, because it's already there.

    7. Re:"Satellite"? by Ihmhi · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's meant to go up there, find a similarly-designed Chinese satellite, and play the world's most expensive and ostentatious game of Rock 'Em, Sock 'Em Robots.

      --
      Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
    8. Re:"Satellite"? by M8e · · Score: 1

      It's a grappler ship!

    9. Re:"Satellite"? by Vellmont · · Score: 1, Informative


      Does this look like a satellite to you? Does this?

      Yes, and yes.


      What would have to change about the X-37B to make you think it's a satellite, anyway?

      Maybe take the wings off, and make it non-reusable? Would you consider the space shuttle a "satellite" in any conventional sense of the word? I realize that a satellite is anything that orbits the earth, but you're missing the point here. The GP is implying that this is something MORE than a satellite.

      --
      AccountKiller
    10. Re:"Satellite"? by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Does this spacecraft look like a satellite to you?

      Yeah, one that can return with all kinds of goodies.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    11. Re:"Satellite"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...don't change the subject, just answer the fucking question."

      -Stephen

    12. Re:"Satellite"? by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      Would you consider the space shuttle a "satellite" in any conventional sense of the word?

      Yes, of course I would. Why on earth (or in low earth orbit for that matter) wouldn't you?

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    13. Re:"Satellite"? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > I'm not sure I believe the USAF when it says it has absolutely no space
      > weapons purpose, however.

      It's rather small for a weapons platform.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    14. Re:"Satellite"? by wampus · · Score: 1

      O RLY?

    15. Re:"Satellite"? by aix+tom · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Satellite:
      1) man-made equipment that orbits around the earth or the moon
      2) any celestial body orbiting around a planet or star

      Why, yes, it does, once it is on orbit.

    16. Re:"Satellite"? by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      Yes, of course I would. Why on earth (or in low earth orbit for that matter) wouldn't you?

      Because I realize words aren't just things we all look up in the dictionary and that's the "right answer". Words are defined by usage, and dictionaries are always incomplete. If you asked the vast majority of people whether the space shuttle is a satellite or not, they'd say "No! It's a space ship". That's why I don't think it's at best confusing to use the word "satellite" for the space shuttle, or for this thing.

      --
      AccountKiller
    17. Re:"Satellite"? by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      If you ask the vast majority of people to give a general idea of how orbit works, they wouldn't even be able to do that.

      Opinions of the general uninformed public does not override well defined technical definitions (satellite = object in orbit) in technical discussions (slashdot).

      Besides, this thing, unlike the space shuttle, stays in orbits for very long periods of time, is unmanned, and apparently regularly goes in orbits generally not used for manned space flight. Saying that it is "not a satellite" simply because it has wings and can re-enter the atmosphere is very silly. If you really wanted to, for whatever reason, differentiate between "space ships" and "satellites", this would still be far more a "satellite" than a "spaceship".

      If anything, it should still be called a satellite in common media so that the otherwise uninformed public is given a clearer idea of what it is and how it operates.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    18. Re:"Satellite"? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > Words are defined by usage

      An excellent reason to discourage misuse.

      > If you asked the vast majority of people whether the space shuttle is a
      > satellite or not, they'd say "No! It's a space ship".

      Which, while it is in orbit, is a type of satellite.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    19. Re:"Satellite"? by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      Opinions of the general uninformed public does not override well defined technical definitions (satellite = object in orbit) in technical discussions (slashdot).

      This is a technical discussion? I thought it was a discussion forum.

      --
      AccountKiller
    20. Re:"Satellite"? by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      *looks up at the top of the webpage and notes the "News for nerds" logo.*

      Yes, on slashdot we generally engage in technical discussion. Sufficiently technical anyways that redefining "satellite" to exclude things with wings just because we feel like it is very silly. If you can't handle this, then you should go back to digg.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    21. Re:"Satellite"? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Someone else already pointed out the Davy Crockett, but as a matter of fact, no, no I don't. Even a suitcase-sized nuke could take out an entire city.

      --
      My blog
    22. Re:"Satellite"? by Jonathan+McDowell · · Score: 2, Informative

      I had someone from the Beeb prepping an interview on the Japanese solar sail probe last week who kept calling it a "space shuttle"., apparently under the impression that that was a general term for anything that went into space. Sigh. I propose the following correct astronomical and astronautical senses of 'satellite':

      1) Any object in closed orbit around another object of larger mass (the most general sense, considered a loose usage: "the Earth is a satellite of the Sun" is rare, although "The Ikaros probe is a satellite of the Sun" does crop up. By 'closed' orbit I am excluding hyperbolic orbits - Voyager 2 was not a satellite of Saturn when it flew past.)
      2) A natural celestial body in closed orbit around a nonstellar object of larger mass; a "natural satellite": "Phobos is a satellite of Mars". All known examples to date are rocky bodies, but one could imagine a Neptune orbiting a super-Jovian... the boundary between 'satellite and primary' and 'binary world' is fuzzy, as has been pointed out in the case of the Earth-Moon and Pluto-Charon systems.
      3) An artificial object in closed orbit around any larger mass body: an "artificial satellite". "Space Shuttle Atlantis is an artificial satellite; the ISS is the largest artifiical Earth satellite; Cassini is an artificial satellite of Saturn". "The spacewalker's tool bag floated off and is now a separate artificial satellite" - so this includes all space debris objects. ("orbit" here implies gravitationally dominated motion: when Atlantis makes a flyaround of the ISS, it is not a satellite of the ISS. But possibly Luke's X-wing fighter, if his engines go out, is a satellite of the Death Star, even though the Death Star is artificial....)
      4) An artificial satellite payload. "The satellite separated from the launch vehicle final stage". This is a narrower sense - satellite with a functionally useful payload as opposed to inert orbiting object.
      5) A functioning artificial satellite payload. "How many satellites are there orbiting the Earth right now?". Often the questioner just means the ones that are still working.
      6) An artificial satellite payload that does not include design provisions for carrying humans (i.e. is not a 'spaceship'), propulsion intended to send it onto a hyperbolic orbit after a brief stay in parking orbit (i.e. is not a 'space probe'), or aerosurfaces intended to provide controlled reentry and landing (i.e. is not a 'spaceplane'). This even narrower sense is the one being used by the original poster: a 'satellite' is an 'ordinary' spacecraft that isn't in any of these more interesting categories (but for some reason, other interesting categories: satellites with tethers for example, don't matter...).

      I encounter frequent confusion caused by people mixing senses 3,4 and 5. Especially when they are asking me questions along the lines of the one in 5.
      The X-37 clearly meets the definitions in senses 1, 3, 4 and 5, and so is a satellite *in those senses* even though one can argue that it's not *simply* a satellite per sense 6.. I, however, argue that sense 6, while valid nontechnical English by moderately widespread usage, should be eschewed by readers of slashdot as too muddily defined.

    23. Re:"Satellite"? by tsalaroth · · Score: 1

      *looks up at the top of the webpage and notes the "News for nerds" logo.*

      Yes, on slashdot we generally engage in technical discussion. Sufficiently technical anyways that redefining "satellite" to exclude things with wings just because we feel like it is very silly. If you can't handle this, then you should go back to digg.

      Hmm...

      *looks at Sir_Lewk's user number*

      *looks at Vellmont's user number*

      Yep.

  5. How can they call it a shuttle replacement by VorlonFog · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When it won't carry people, and has no more the cargo capacity of a pickup truck?

    1. Re:How can they call it a shuttle replacement by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 3, Funny

      Have you seen pickup trucks nowadays? Some of those things look quite capable of hauling space telescopes around.

      --
      SSC
    2. Re: How can they call it a shuttle replacement by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Funny

      Have you seen pickup trucks nowadays? Some of those things look quite capable of hauling space telescopes around.

      Also known as "Penis Compensation Vehicles".

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    3. Re: How can they call it a shuttle replacement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The irony is the largest pickup truck I've seen is driven by a 5' tall asian woman.

    4. Re:How can they call it a shuttle replacement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The main justification for the shuttle was as a launch vehicle for military payloads like the KH series spy satellites.

      This is a test unit, along the lines of our drone program. This is Space Drone, Mark I.

      NASA has been a military project all along despite some science missions it has carried out along the way.

    5. Re: How can they call it a shuttle replacement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      ironic? who could need more penis compensation than that?

    6. Re:How can they call it a shuttle replacement by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      putting people in space add huge unnecessary expense to a job that can be done by machine.

    7. Re: How can they call it a shuttle replacement by ari_j · · Score: 3, Informative

      Or, you know, a practical vehicle for moving cargo or tools from place to place and/or getting through adverse conditions including snow and undeveloped terrain. Granted, many people go too far and get a 1-ton truck with dual rear wheels and a heavy-duty diesel engine and matching transmission and then never one pull a trailer or haul a load, but they are the minority of pickup owners. Most people with that mindset just end up with a Hummer H1 or Corvette.

    8. Re:How can they call it a shuttle replacement by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Humans think (not very well), but they think. Machines only act on a specific set of commands. Reprogramming a machine takes longer than a human can change his/her mind, based on the situation in real time.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    9. Re:How can they call it a shuttle replacement by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      remote control is also possible. The jobs the air force have in mind don't require such ability, and the savings of not having resource-wasteful human beings is enormous.

    10. Re:How can they call it a shuttle replacement by bcmm · · Score: 4, Funny

      No passengers. Less space than a pickup. Lame.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    11. Re: How can they call it a shuttle replacement by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      Agreed for the most part, but the number of people I know who drive their Dodge Ram to work everyday would seem to suggest that the majority do no in fact use them to their full capabilities. There's no way that even half of the trucks being driven around Houston are used as trucks.

      --
      Is 1563649 a prime number?
    12. Re:How can they call it a shuttle replacement by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Humans think (not very well), but they think.

      Largely true...

      Machines only act on a specific set of commands.

      Depending on what you mean, this is either flat-out false, or true, but equally true of humans (who, like the machines in question, have pre-coded instructions, and any decision-making that occurs beyond that is occurring in accord with those instructions -- they think because they're programmed to).

      Reprogramming a machine takes longer than a human can change his/her mind, based on the situation in real time.

      As a generalization, this is also just plain false. It can be true of particular machines, but it's certainly not always the case.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    13. Re: How can they call it a shuttle replacement by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > There's no way that even half of the trucks being driven around Houston are
      > used as trucks.

      There are a lot of trucks in the world that are not being driven around Houston.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    14. Re: How can they call it a shuttle replacement by frosty_tsm · · Score: 1

      Or, you know, a practical vehicle for moving cargo or tools from place to place and/or getting through adverse conditions including snow and undeveloped terrain. Granted, many people go too far and get a 1-ton truck with dual rear wheels and a heavy-duty diesel engine and matching transmission and then never one pull a trailer or haul a load, but they are the minority of pickup owners. Most people with that mindset just end up with a Hummer H1 or Corvette.

      Except in Southern California. And according to another poster, Houston.

      I especially like the ones that raised the body way up, but still have the suspension / drive train at the original height.

    15. Re:How can they call it a shuttle replacement by Iron+Condor · · Score: 1

      Wait - who is calling this a shuttle replacement?

      I mean - someone who just wanted the shuttle for sending little military spy satellites up can do so with the X37 - so it replaces that one function of the Shuttle.

      Other than that, I haven't seen anybody claim hat this is a replacement for the Shuttle.

      --
      We're all born with nothing.
      If you die in debt, you're ahead.
    16. Re: How can they call it a shuttle replacement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that not everyone can afford multiple vehicles, right?

    17. Re:How can they call it a shuttle replacement by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Unless you have an infinitely modifiable heuristic matrix algorithm, I'll put my money on the human.
      Machines are digital with analog components, humans are analog with digital components.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    18. Re: How can they call it a shuttle replacement by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      I drive my Ram to work every day.
      I also drive it to the feed store, the dump, my family's house to move shit, etc.

      And while it may be asshattish I charge people who ask me to help them move. Specifically:
      I fill the tank and when we are done moving I fill it again. They get the bill for the second fill.

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    19. Re: How can they call it a shuttle replacement by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      That is particularly funny.
      Then you see them go "off roading" and smack their transmission pan into something and their truck actually bleeds.

      You can tell the really dumb ones because they try to drive out.

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    20. Re: How can they call it a shuttle replacement by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1
      Judging from the trucks around Central PA, those big ones are used almost exclusively for penis compensation. The actual work trucks are old F-150s or Chevy S-10's.

      You can always tell, because they all have a cartoon of that Calvin kid peeing on either a Ford or Chevy logo in the rear window, and often a plastic scrotum hanging from the trailer hitch.

      --
      Why is this even on SlashDot?... Why is this even on Slashdot?...Why is this even on Slashdot?
    21. Re: How can they call it a shuttle replacement by ari_j · · Score: 1

      I agree (with essentially all of the people who've responded to me). I also get a hell of a kick out of people with uselessly-modified pickups.

    22. Re:How can they call it a shuttle replacement by seekertom · · Score: 1

      down here 'bouts in the redneck south, MY pickup hauls a big, mean, yougly dawg that'll eat yer dumb ass in a heartbeat, and tho i have no 'weapons' on board, the shutgun unner th seat will also tear ya a new one! now, whats the xb-thingie REALLY got? thanks fer lis'nin' seekertom

  6. Shutellite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FTFA> The X-37B can stay aloft for as long as nine months because it deploys solar panels for power, unlike the space shuttle.

    I don't know if it looks like a satellite, it definitely quacks like one and moves like one. Twinkie is not only a Shuttle Lite, it's also a shuttelite.

  7. Not worth the cost? by Posting=!Working · · Score: 1

    many aerospace experts questioned whether the mission benefits of the X-37B outweighed its costs and argued that expendable rockets could achieve similar results.

    The secretive flight, civilian specialists said in recent weeks, probably centers at least partly on testing powerful sensors for a new generation of spy satellites.

    So they're saying the benefits of the mission, which "probably centers at least partly on testing" sensors , aren't worth the cost. They don't have a clue what the mission is or it's benefits, how can they possibly say it's not worth it?

    Even if you ignore all other possibilities for the mission and it's just for testing sensors, they have no idea what kind of sensors are being tested. What do they detect? Nuclear weapons? Underground gold and oil deposits? Are they just testing better cameras or perfecting Smell-o-vision? Some sensors might be more than worth the cost.

    --
    This sentence no verb.
    1. Re:Not worth the cost? by Tekfactory · · Score: 1

      I believe that unless the sensor is changed by the sensing, the observer changed by the observation that most sensors would be cheaper to put up on single use rockets. The sensor could also be the only working prototype and or made of unobtanium.

      But since this is a technology demonstrator for a lot of next gen vehicle technologies those arguments are bunk.

      The airframe and everything on it is a test bed, not only will the flight data be important but the returned airframe with its not shuttle based heat shields will be useful itself. The real question is will they try to make it go sideways a little when it's time to land the thing and actually use the wings for what they are designed for.

  8. Well said! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A pickup truck is often just the "right tool for the job". And since vehicles are rather pricey, a person often can't afford to have a fleet of specialized vehicles for each type of job. While a Prius would be fine for getting groceries, it sure can't safely carry 4x8 sheets of plywood, construction equipment, or tow a 30-ft trailer. And the price of a Prius buys a lot of gas for the pickup truck.

  9. From the NYTimes Article by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

    > “If a bunch of amateurs can find it,” Mr. Weedon said, “so can our adversaries.”

    True for some of our adversaries, but not all. Ten or fifteen years ago there was a big hubbub in DC when a web site or two went up to track our spy satellite launches. Pre-internet, it was generally just a few big governments who had the resources to track them. But with the amateur community helping, suddenly anyone with a web browser could get some idea of when satellite coverage would be available for a given area. This is one of a very few areas of government operations where I tend to favor secrecy. Not for the money spent--knowing within an order of magnitude how much we're spending on a massive defense program is important if we are to retain any civilian control over the military-industrial complex--but for the actual launches and orbits.

    We compromise intelligence assets when we do anything else, and that can mean our leaders are making decision with even worse information. Those decisions cost lives.

    --
    -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
  10. So have they found the The Prompt Global Strike? by Devar · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Prompt Global Strike, a prototype that can hit any target around the world in less than an hour, was also launched the same day.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7106714.ece

    Have they found that yet?

    --
    It's a Bagel.
  11. Still edible after 8 months in space too by leftie · · Score: 1

    Golden Hard Vacuum Resistant Sponge Cake with Creamy Filling

  12. On board: Colonel Cochrane to test a 'warp drive' by D4C5CE · · Score: 1

    No additional information has been found about the spacecraft's capabilities or purpose, except for a US Air Force statement that the satellite has no space-weapons purpose.

    ...and meet the Vulcans.

    Of course, if the public knew, they'd find out about Cheyenne Mountain too. ;-)

  13. Nine months? It's obvious.... by rclandrum · · Score: 1

    They are breeding satellites to save on launch costs. Just raise the new satellite babies in orbit. Only the female sats need to stay aloft for 9 months though....