Slashdot Mirror
X-37B Found By Amateur Sky Watchers
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."
It might not have space weapons, but it's cloaking device sure failed.
"in addition to its spying tasks." What tasks are these? Please elaborate, for the sake of accuracy of course.
"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.
And most of them are powered by solar arrays (though that's not what's keeping them up there)
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.
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)
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
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
Forgot to mention that the ISS has been continually powered by solar panels since 1998.
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
When it won't carry people, and has no more the cargo capacity of a pickup truck?
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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)
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.