Slashdot Mirror


After a Year In Orbit, US Air Force's X37-B Will Conclude Its Secret Mission

SomePgmr writes "The U.S Air Force's highly secret unmanned space plane will land in June — ending a year-long mission in orbit. The experimental Boeing X37-B has been circling Earth at 17,000 miles per hour and was due to land in California in December. It is now expected to land in mid to late June. And still, no one knows what the space drone has been doing up there all this time."

243 comments

  1. Given that this is slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...I'm guessing most here will believe that its mission was one of unmitigated evil.

    It's probably designed to shred the Constitution — from space!

    1. Re:Given that this is slashdot... by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      If NASA is getting free spy sats, yes its a brave new world.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Given that this is slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it was designed by Apple, Microsoft and Facebook to crush peoples freedom and privacy, the government just helped for the kickbacks. Google was helpless.

    3. Re:Given that this is slashdot... by C_amiga_fan · · Score: 1

      The Constitution authorizes the creation of a military to defend against non-U.S. enemies. This is just the Republicans and Democrats dreaming about making Star Wars a reality..... unmanned robots in space.

      --
      FREE magazine : http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/prior/
    4. Re:Given that this is slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Missiles will be fired from it on copyright violators. Hail our Hollywood overlords.

    5. Re:Given that this is slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is just the Republicans and Democrats dreaming about making Star Wars a reality..... unmanned robots in space.

      Unmanned robots?

    6. Re:Given that this is slashdot... by jank1887 · · Score: 1

      yes. as opposed to manned robots in space. the Japanese beat us to that.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazinger_Z
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltron
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gundam

    7. Re:Given that this is slashdot... by C_amiga_fan · · Score: 1

      Yes "unmanned robots". Drone airplanes and spaceplanes.

      --
      FREE magazine : http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/prior/
    8. Re:Given that this is slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's probably designed to shred the Constitution — from space!

      Absurd. We do that perfectly well -- and cheaper -- on the ground.

    9. Re:Given that this is slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A good chance the purpose was to see how long it could stay aloft, along with sensors tracking its health status, etc.. Could be useful for a low-orbit satellite system? Or eye-in-the-sky drones? Military uses as well, obviously. Or maybe a long term place for the president to command from in the event of a nuclear crisis or major disaster.

    10. Re:Given that this is slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's not the American way. Why do something cheaper (even if perfectly well) when you can do something more expensive, from space?

    11. Re:Given that this is slashdot... by couchslug · · Score: 4, Funny

      "...I'm guessing most here will believe that its mission was one of unmitigated evil."

      Damn political polarisation!

      I favor Centrist, Mitigated Evil where all Americans can share the benefits.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    12. Re:Given that this is slashdot... by mikael · · Score: 4, Funny

      But in a liberal libertarian society everyone gets their fair share of evilness plus the opportunity to contribute as much evil as back as they like. In such an environment, shared projects such as OpenEvil are free to flourish and take over the universe.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    13. Re:Given that this is slashdot... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Funny

      I won't lie -- I'm a fan of Commuevilism, where the means of evil production are owned by the people. From each according to their villainy, to each according to their vulnerability.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    14. Re:Given that this is slashdot... by cmburns69 · · Score: 1

      Senator Hatch, is that you?

      --
      Online Starcraft RPG? At
      Dietary fiber is like asynchronous IO-- Non-blocking!
    15. Re:Given that this is slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The secret mission investigated ways to be sure about the things. They found the one.

    16. Re:Given that this is slashdot... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      But in a liberal libertarian society everyone gets their fair share of evilness plus the opportunity to contribute as much evil as back as they like.

      I thought everyone got as much evilness as they earned.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:Given that this is slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given the story a day before this on /. about NASA acquiring military spy satellites for astronomy that are otherwise still viable instruments - it's obviously a next-gen spy satellite.

    18. Re:Given that this is slashdot... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      You win the internet. That was more funny than any individual post has any right to be.

      as an aside: Your sig is broken. (or did you intend to cut it off mid sentence?)

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    19. Re:Given that this is slashdot... by NoSleepDemon · · Score: 1

      And then they'll sue the victims for damage to the missile payload

    20. Re:Given that this is slashdot... by cvtan · · Score: 1

      You forgot to add "on the internet" and "in bed" to your rant.

      --
      Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
    21. Re:Given that this is slashdot... by arth1 · · Score: 2

      The Constitution authorizes the creation of a military to defend against non-U.S. enemies.

      Only an army, navy and coast guard, with limitations.

      "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

      To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

      To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

      To provide and maintain a Navy;

      To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

      To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"

    22. Re:Given that this is slashdot... by Gideon+Wells · · Score: 2

      Nah, Google was just pretending to be helpless. If you look carefully at photos of this craft over the year you'll see one of Google's Streetview Vehicles constantly within standard wi-fi range of this craft. You know Microsoft and Facebook can't secure anything.

      --
      by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
    23. Re:Given that this is slashdot... by osu-neko · · Score: 2

      The Constitution authorizes the creation of a military to defend against non-U.S. enemies.

      Yes, and this is the military equivalent of the "commerce clause". Politicians have long since figured out that the Federal government has absolutely no limits at all whatsoever on its power, given that everything that happens inside our borders in some way affects interstate commerce, and anything outside can be justified as "defending American interests".

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    24. Re:Given that this is slashdot... by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "From each according to their villainy, to each according to their vulnerability."

      A Libertarian, I take it?

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    25. Re:Given that this is slashdot... by kdawson+(3715) · · Score: 0

      We'll nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

    26. Re:Given that this is slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what they want you to think.

    27. Re:Given that this is slashdot... by Ocker3 · · Score: 1

      "Offenses against the Law of Nations" is pretty broad...

    28. Re:Given that this is slashdot... by Ocker3 · · Score: 1

      I wonder if it's a Yoga-style sig?

    29. Re:Given that this is slashdot... by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

      Good, that means lots of screwing. Know any particularly pneumatic ladies I should try out?

    30. Re:Given that this is slashdot... by optimism · · Score: 1

      People who quote the 225-year-old US constitution as gospel, are equally stupid as people who quote the bible or torah or koran as the literal truth of humanity.

      Whenever this happens, Thomas Jefferson is rolling over in his grave.

      Adapt or die.

    31. Re:Given that this is slashdot... by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      People who quote the 225-year-old US constitution as gospel, are equally stupid as people who quote the bible or torah or koran as the literal truth of humanity.

      Whenever this happens, Thomas Jefferson is rolling over in his grave.

      Adapt or die.

      It's not gospel, it's the law of the land. If we were to adapt the way Jefferson expected, we'd weigh new ideas and needs and pass proper legislation to amend the constitution so that the law was now relevant. I doubt he really expected us to ignore it whenever convenient.

    32. Re:Given that this is slashdot... by arth1 · · Score: 1

      "Offenses against the Law of Nations" is pretty broad...

      It was a book Ben Franklin was fascinated with, by a Swiss diplomat. (No, really, it was.)

      Its inclusion in the constitution is quite possibly an easter egg. That the phrase has a meaning in itself (although hard to define) likely made him chuckle.

    33. Re:Given that this is slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US already does that. It’s just that you aren't the citizens. You are a resource. Like oil. So you don’t get a share of the benefits, but the citizens get a share of your work and mind.

    34. Re:Given that this is slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eviltocracy?

    35. Re:Given that this is slashdot... by Phoghat · · Score: 1
      "The U.S Air Force's highly secret unmanned ( ? ) space plane will land in June ..."

      There, fixed that for you

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
  2. Space Kimchi! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's gonna be quite a hot batch!

  3. 2000km high club? by blahbooboo · · Score: 1, Funny

    If this secret spy drone is rocking, don't come a knocking...

    Or maybe the 2000km high club

  4. 'NO ONE KNOWS" ???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Not even the people who launched it?

    1. Re:'NO ONE KNOWS" ???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Welcome to the world of military intelligence...

    2. Re:'NO ONE KNOWS" ???? by SJHillman · · Score: 2

      Maybe people didn't launch it? It could have built itself in an automated factory. Skynet has reached for the sky!

    3. Re:'NO ONE KNOWS" ???? by Tyr07 · · Score: 1

      Skynet was preparing to launch an attack from space. It demanded feet and was holding us secretly in hostage.

      The planes return signals an agreement.

    4. Re:'NO ONE KNOWS" ???? by frostfreek · · Score: 1

      I'll bet Skynet had planned to cut its losses and abandon earth.

    5. Re:'NO ONE KNOWS" ???? by ISoldat53 · · Score: 1

      The engineer with the recall codes was on sabbatical.

    6. Re:'NO ONE KNOWS" ???? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      Doesn't Rupert Murdoch own Skynet?

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    7. Re:'NO ONE KNOWS" ???? by Talderas · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I have a suspicion. It's a simple one too.

      This is a drone that is designed to land. When a craft exits orbit and enters our atmosphere there have been three three styles of entries. There are those which burn up. There are those like the Soyuz, Dragon, and Apollo capsules. There was a space shuttle. The drone is obviously meant to reenter like the space shuttle in some fashion.

      One thing that has been desirable has been to keep surveillance drones in flight for as long as possible. The longest shuttle mission was 17 days and 15 hours. This drone has been up there for a year before coming down.

      The Chinese have demonstrated that they have the ability to shoot down satellites so a drone spy satellite that has good maneuverability in orbit would be a plus.

      I think they're aiming to replace spy satellites with these drones and this was a test to see if a drone can stay up in space for a long duration and still arrive back on ground intact for repairs or to upgrade its system.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    8. Re:'NO ONE KNOWS" ???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If no one knows, then we can deduce that the probe launched itself. That's assuming that "one" only refers to normal humans and not any type of artificial intelligence or cyborgs. Now plainly somebody knew that self-launching probes were available; but we're not saying that nobody knew about that. We're saying that nobody knew what this particular self-launching probe was up to.

      Now that I've typed a paragraph in an attempt to dot all the Is and cross all the Ts on this, that paragraph may have contained some other syntax about which we should build a consensus on the proper semantics.

      Either all that, or we could assume that "no one knows" is a colloquialism for "no one with proper clearance knows", but this is Slashdot.

    9. Re:'NO ONE KNOWS" ???? by Captain.Abrecan · · Score: 1

      Doesn't the maneuvering in space on the shuttle happen via boosters burning kind or explosive propellant? I don't understand how the drone could hold enough stuff to make enough adjustments over a year to avoid being shot down. Unless it has a huge payload, and the payload is just fuel... like a shuttle, only with the cargo bay stuffed with (max takeoff payload weight?) worth of fuel. I guess it doesn't need oxygen or food either. Or windows, or a cockpit, or a life support system, and monitors to display information, or lights.

      Actually unmanned is looking pretty efficient. Shit that is a good idea.

    10. Re:'NO ONE KNOWS" ???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they're going to tell the world when it is going to arrive, mhmm.

    11. Re:'NO ONE KNOWS" ???? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      One thing that has been desirable has been to keep surveillance drones in flight for as long as possible. The longest shuttle mission was 17 days and 15 hours. This drone has been up there for a year before coming down.

      Which raises the question of just how much the drone could accomplish up there... the primary limit on the Shuttle's on orbit lifespan was reactants for the fuel cells. The drone has no solar cells and very little space for reactants. Nor does it look like it has sufficient radiator space for RTG's...

    12. Re:'NO ONE KNOWS" ???? by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Am I safe in assuming the limitation of reactants was a usage issue rather than the reactants decaying to useless over time? We've seen stories of drones that should be able to stay in flight for months at a time with in flight refueling.

      Now, we're probably not going to launch missiles up to refuel drones such as I presented, but my overall thought was that they would need enough for immediate evasive maneuver but otherwise behave like a spy satellite. The evasive maneuvers could even be just to bring it into the atmosphere to land.

      Basically, I look at it like this. Let's say China shoots down a spy satellite. What is the cost to replace it? You have to pay for a new satellite and the launch costs to get it up there. If they can get this drone to do as I suggest then any drone which evades a shoot down attempt means you don't have to pay for a new satellite. The second benefit being, of course, the ability to return your satellites to upgrade.

      Can I be wrong? Most certainly. Is it a feasible idea? Probably.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    13. Re:'NO ONE KNOWS" ???? by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 2

      I think you're ignoring the massive power savings associated with the "unmanned" part. Consider: no lights, no air, hence no air heating/cooling nor fans, no human readable displays or control systems, everything on standby/power down unless actually in use, etc.

    14. Re:'NO ONE KNOWS" ???? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think they're aiming to replace spy satellites with these drones and this was a test to see if a drone can stay up in space for a long duration and still arrive back on ground intact for repairs or to upgrade its system.

      That's exactly what I think. Whatever is onboard the ship is almost irrelevant at this point, the cargo is a red herring (and it can change). The impressive capability of the ship, the "new thing" that it brings to the table, is that it is essentially a multi-purpose satellite that can return to earth and be launched again. Like you said, returning to earth would allow people to refuel, repair, offload whatever it collected in space, or upgrade it. If you have a refuelable satellite then you can afford to be less frugal with the maneuvering thrusters, meaning you can avoid anti-satellite weapons more effectively and move to different orbits. The one vehicle can support many missions, it could go up with optical equipment and do some surveillance, land again and get a new electronics package for a different mission, land again and get a weapons package. This is probably why the NRO just gave NASA two spy satellites. They don't need single-purpose satellites any more when they have one that they can land and upgrade.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    15. Re:'NO ONE KNOWS" ???? by shoehornjob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Military intelligence: two words that can not make sense. Dave Mustaine

      --
      "We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
    16. Re:'NO ONE KNOWS" ???? by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      Am I safe in assuming the limitation of reactants was a usage issue rather than the reactants decaying to useless over time? We've seen stories of drones that should be able to stay in flight for months at a time with in flight refueling.

      It was a quantity issue - even with drastically reduced electrical consumption, there was only so much available onboard. To overcome this limitation, they did develop a set of "buddy tanks" that could be carried in the cargo bay.
       

      If they can get this drone to do as I suggest then any drone which evades a shoot down attempt means you don't have to pay for a new satellite.

      Other than the fact that any attempt to "evade by deorbit" will mean near certain loss of the drone - sure. (They only have a very limited amount of maneuverability once deorbit starts - 95%+ of the time they aren't going to be in range of a suitable landing field.) Not to mention there's no sensors onboard the drone that can detect a shootdown attempt, and no practical ones anywhere on the horizon. Nor do we have the requisite suite of (offboard) sensors *or* the command-and-control system to make use of them.... And developing and deploying the same will cost as much as 20-30 satellites, *before* figuring in annual operational and maintenance costs.
       
      You also have to consider that unless you place the drone in an orbit which absolutely never flies above someplace interesting - there's going to be more than one shootdown attempt.
       

      Can I be wrong? Most certainly. Is it a feasible idea? Probably.

      You're not so much wrong as blithely clueless.

    17. Re:'NO ONE KNOWS" ???? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      You're still paying for the launch, and you're paying for it every time this thing comes back down to earth.

      I'm not convinced it could evade a missile any better than a satellite could either. This think is travelling over 10k mph in a line - how much thrust is needed to change its trajectory appreciably? Quite a bit! And the missile gets to pick where it goes, since it hasn't made the energy investment yet, so you need to change trajectory faster than the missile does at the very end of its boost (any energy spent on changing trajectory before the missile launches is a waste, unless you can avoid the launch site altogether, which just means that the other side bides their time for a few more orbits while you burn through fuel). There is no reason that you can't build a missile with more terminal delta-V capacity than this drone - the missile payload has to be a lot lighter.

    18. Re:'NO ONE KNOWS" ???? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      No, I'm not ignoring those things. You're not considering that even with the savings from being unmanned, it still takes a considerable amount of power to support a payload of any notable size or capacity. Even if it's just passively drifting, there will be considerable power consumption over the course of a year just maintaining thermal control - and that's not something that can be done in bursts.

    19. Re:'NO ONE KNOWS" ???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either all that, or we could assume that "no one knows" is a colloquialism for "no one with proper clearance knows", but this is Slashdot.

      Don't you mean "no one without proper clearance knows"?
      I would expect people with proper (i.e. high-enough) clearance to know.

    20. Re:'NO ONE KNOWS" ???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No phone, no lights no motor cars,
      Not a single luxury!!!!!!

    21. Re:'NO ONE KNOWS" ???? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      retractable solar panel. Would would expect some kind of payload bay doors which would house the sensors and a retractable solar panel.
      What I wonder is if the X37 has enough delta v available to dip into the atmosphere, make a high speed pass over a target, gather data and then boost back to a new orbit.
      One of the problems with spy sats is that everyone knows when they pass over head. If it could make large cross range manuver and then climb back to a new orbit then it would make life more difficult for nations to hide things from it.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    22. Re:'NO ONE KNOWS" ???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ooohh, I like your idea. To replace satellites with movable (and defensible if they want) platform that can land for repairs/upgrades/service-ended.

      But, what I think they were doing, was testing how well it can orbit, how much fuel it used, how many corrections, etc.

      Then it probably used some cameras to "target" satellites to see if it can track and "pretend fire" on them.

      After that, there were probably some looking at the ISS, and the dragon shuttle, possibly looking at space junk too, etc.

    23. Re:'NO ONE KNOWS" ???? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      retractable solar panel. Would would expect some kind of payload bay doors which would house the sensors and a retractable solar panel.

      No such panel of sufficient size has been noted by amateur observers - not to mention that the space a solar panel would take up is required for radiators since the skin of the drone is unsuitable.
       

      What I wonder is if the X37 has enough delta v available to dip into the atmosphere, make a high speed pass over a target, gather data and then boost back to a new orbit.

      Only if the USAF has perfected some kind of unobtanium fueled drive system. Otherwise, no.

    24. Re:'NO ONE KNOWS" ???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its mission would be to see what a space drone can do.

      The fact that they left it up for an extra 6 months either means that it is taking useful pictures or intercepting interesting signals and they decided to delay testing the landing bit, or the landing gear is jammed.

    25. Re:'NO ONE KNOWS" ???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It said it was going out to get milk and would be back in a year, that was a year and a half ago...

    26. Re:'NO ONE KNOWS" ???? by stepho-wrs · · Score: 1

      "It demanded feet"
      Metres are approx 3x better :)

    27. Re:'NO ONE KNOWS" ???? by Tyr07 · · Score: 1

      *Watches the plane threateningly go back up*

      Great, now it's demanding meters. Skynet reads slashdot, douche. Giving it feet were one thing, but giving it meters? That's crazy talk.

    28. Re:'NO ONE KNOWS" ???? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "Only if the USAF has perfected some kind of unobtanium fueled drive system. Otherwise, no."
      See Dyna-Soar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-20_Dyna-Soar
      "No such panel of sufficient size has been noted by amateur observers - not to mention that the space a solar panel would take up is required for radiators since the skin of the drone is unsuitable."
      Ahh no you are wrong.
      http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=16639
      Power: Gallium Arsenide Solar Cells with lithium-Ion batteries

      So much for news for nerds... What else would should I expect from a six digit user.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    29. Re:'NO ONE KNOWS" ???? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      "Only if the USAF has perfected some kind of unobtanium fueled drive system. Otherwise, no."
      See Dyna-Soar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-20_Dyna-Soar

      The Dyna-Soar does not "boost into a new orbit" as you specified. It's a Saenger type vehicle that will barely complete one orbit once it starts to skip.
       

      "No such panel of sufficient size has been noted by amateur observers - not to mention that the space a solar panel would take up is required for radiators since the skin of the drone is unsuitable."
      Ahh no you are wrong.
      http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=16639
      Power: Gallium Arsenide Solar Cells with lithium-Ion batteries

      No solar cell of significant size has been seen by observers, therefore there is no retractable panel of any size. Given that the bay door will be covered at least partially by radiators, that sharply limits the size of the available panel and thus the amount of power generated.
       

      What else would should I expect from a six digit user.

      That's the best you have? Cut and pasted crap you failed to comprehend and then a slam because of my user number? You really are a sad little man. (Or woman, or earthworm or whatever.)

    30. Re:'NO ONE KNOWS" ???? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      The Dyna-Soar and Sanger didn't didn't have the boost engines that the X37 may have. A skip and boost might be good enough and even if not the X37 just needs to get back to Edwards or some other base after a skip maneuver. I didn't even say that it could do it but it would be very useful for recon if it could.
      Yea I cut and pasted from... The USAF site for the X37... You know the official .mil sight. Do you have any reference that no observer saw the X37s Solar panel? Or even had the capability to see a solar panel?
      Or to use your childish term does the USAF have unobtanium batteries that can power the X37 for a year? Or maybe do you think it carried an RTG or a Nuclear reactor which it did not.
      Naw i just threw in the id number as joke since all of your info you supplied was based on nothing but uninformed opinion. It is even better that you bash reference that include the official USAF site. Yes the X37 used a solar panel for http://www.space.com/13156-secret-x37b-space-plane-longer-mission.html is an image from NASA showing the X37b with a solar panel deployed. It is solar powered and has been documented as such by a number of sources.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  5. Actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Someone probably knows, I'd bet several people. Just not yet us.

    1. Re:Actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yoda, is that you?

  6. It was looking for ALF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And mozilla had Gordon Shumway all along.

    1. Re:It was looking for ALF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post is bad and you should feel bad!

  7. I would guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... that the people who put it up there know what its doing.

    So I wouldn't say 'no one' knows.

    1. Re:I would guess... by Gravitron+5000 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Skynet knows.

  8. Occam's Razor by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Funny

    Considering the huge number of satellites and space debris, I'm going to say that it was just stuck in traffic all year. Space rush hour really sucks!

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    1. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      The only solution is to build a bypass, I hear the Vogons do really good rates these days.

    2. Re:Occam's Razor by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Yeah they're cheap but to get to their offices for the planning meetings is a pain! Does anyone have a FTL drive I can borrow?

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    3. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but first we need to construct a hyperspace bypass....

  9. Fast by Lord+Lode · · Score: 2, Funny

    17,000 miles per hour, I guess that's something like 30,000 km/h? That seems pretty fast to me. How much fuel did that consume, and how did they provide it with fuel for a whole year?

    1. Re:Fast by cnettel · · Score: 4, Funny

      In other news, Aristotle is suing you for infringing his intellectural property rights on fictional physics. Maintaining speed relative to another object does not, generally, require any continuous supply of additional energy. Free fall elliptical orbits are one example.

    2. Re:Fast by MyLongNickName · · Score: 2

      I am not sure if you are being sarcastic, so if you are, I apologize.

      If it is orbiting at 17,000 mph, the only fuel it would need after it is in that orbit is for course corrections and landing and possibly to correct for any drag.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    3. Re:Fast by JamesA · · Score: 0

      Seriously?

    4. Re:Fast by GodInHell · · Score: 2

      how did they provide it with fuel for a whole year?

      From TFA

      The 29-foot, solar-powered craft had an original mission of 270 days.

      The Air Force said the second mission was to further test the technology but the ultimate purpose has largely remained a mystery.

      So -- I'm guessing solar power. Also, the folks in the picture are wearing hazmat uniforms and carrying what appears to be a geiger counter, so maybe nuke as well.

    5. Re:Fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, obviously not serious. The guy is either an idiot, or trolling, or both.

    6. Re:Fast by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      it was orbiting. how much fuel does the moon need to burn?

      the point is that usa military has something that can go to orbit, stay there for a year and come back.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    7. Re:Fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      17,000 miles per hour, I guess that's something like 30,000 km/h? That seems pretty fast to me. How much fuel did that consume, and how did they provide it with fuel for a whole year?

      Not to worry. It's all downhill.

    8. Re:Fast by Tyr07 · · Score: 2

      Orbit - no air - way, way less friction. There's some minor drag probably unless it was a very high orbit. It consumes no fuel except for minor corrections
        as needed.

      Why? Technically it's constantly falling, it's just moving forward to fast and keeps missing the earth. So, yea, does not require
      fuel to maintain speed, only to increase or decrease it.

    9. Re:Fast by Hentes · · Score: 1

      It used wind power, obviously.

    10. Re:Fast by Lord+Lode · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh, looks like I missed the "SPACE plane" part in the article description. I was thinking about flying through air.

    11. Re:Fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that an object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force, right? Hence, the spaceship used very little fuel to maintain orbital velocity in an almost zero pressure atmosphere.

    12. Re:Fast by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Some guy named Newton wants to have a few words with you.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    13. Re:Fast by tokul · · Score: 1

      How much fuel did that consume, and how did they provide it with fuel for a whole year?

      Launch consumed one Altas V rocket. Fuel consumption was minimal when it was in orbit. ISS average speed is 17,239.2 mph. Do you really think that it is burning fuel all the time up there?

    14. Re:Fast by camperdave · · Score: 5, Funny

      17,000 miles per hour, I guess that's something like 30,000 km/h? That seems pretty fast to me. How much fuel did that consume, and how did they provide it with fuel for a whole year?

      Travelling through orbital space ain't like dusting crops, boy! It doesn't take any fuel at all. Look at the Moon, for example. It's been in orbit an awfully long time, but how long has it been since it was fuelled up?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    15. Re:Fast by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      This object has been followed on the seesat-l list, and IIRC from the observations there it did perform a good number of orbital maneuvers, including the possibly fuel-intensive plane change. This required more than needed for mere station-keeping.

      Otherwise, you're of course correct.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    16. Re:Fast by Hadlock · · Score: 3, Informative

      It consumed roughtly 737,400lbs of fuel, minus the weight of the Atlas V rocket (so 500,000 lbs of fuel?) to get it in orbit. To orbit the earth at an altitude above the non-negligible atmosphere, you need to travel at around 17,000mph or more. This is roughly the same speed the Shuttle, ISS, Dragon capsule, Hubble, et all are moving. The rocket puts it in orbit at that speed. I think once in orbit, about 6 months in to it's mission, it did an orbital course correction, which if done at the correct time, requires surprisingly little fuel to do.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    17. Re:Fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The hazmat and geiger counter are most likely not for manufactured onboard sources of radiation. A more likely reason is a year's worth of radiation exposure.

    18. Re:Fast by pezpunk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      nah, the geiger counter is no indication of radioactive material / nukes on board. You see, it turns out, most of the visible objects in outer space are actually humongous balls of radiation-emiting nuclear plasma. spacecraft are routinely dusted by bits of nuclear material. it's also possible (at least theoretically) for atoms bombarded by radiation to transmute into radioactive isotopes themselves. it's probably a good idea to wear a hazmat suit when approaching any spacecraft recently returned from long periods away from atmoshperic shielding.

      --
      i could live a little longer in this prison
    19. Re:Fast by pla · · Score: 1

      "IT drone who forgot the laws of physics" still beats "AC troll".

      Go away.

    20. Re:Fast by pezpunk · · Score: 1

      love this.

      --
      i could live a little longer in this prison
    21. Re:Fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      low earth orbit isn't in a complete vacuum. and so still suffers some drag. you still need occasional burns to stay in orbit and keep from crashing back into the earth.

    22. Re:Fast by Matheus · · Score: 1

      Oh be nice... that 7-figure UID can be a heavy burden to bear sometimes!

      In other news: Positioning engines for course corrections due to space debris, other satellites and getting a better view of yo momma's house require plenty of energy so albeit a bit mis-guided his question is not completely without merit.

    23. Re:Fast by noh8rz3 · · Score: 1

      man I hate the slashdot mods. you're either trolling to inflame people and get heated response or you're making a joke. I guess it depends who's "in" on the joke. My experience has been that people here are ready to jump on any flamebait, so I figured you're trolling. And I was modded down! How much does that suck????

    24. Re:Fast by JTsyo · · Score: 1

      Falling with style though

    25. Re:Fast by cnettel · · Score: 1

      Well, we don't know the mission. If it was imaging that would of course take quite a bit of attitude control thrusters. Space debris is seriously overstated as a general problem in most orbits. The risk is real, but the cases where the debris has a well-enough known orbit that you can currently do anything about it are few, except for in a few specific bands.

    26. Re:Fast by knigitz · · Score: 0

      Just today I remembered I had a slashdot account. Looking at my karma history, I see why I stopped logging in.

    27. Re:Fast by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      It consumed roughtly 737,400lbs of fuel, minus the weight of the Atlas V rocket (so 500,000 lbs of fuel?)

      Way more than that. The fuel fraction of a rocket has to be on the order of 90% to have a useful payload.

    28. Re:Fast by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Not only going fast, but accelerating the entire time!

    29. Re:Fast by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      "it's also possible (at least theoretically) for atoms bombarded by radiation to transmute into radioactive isotopes themselves."

      It's a little more than theoretically possible. If you've got an older smoke detector or have ever had a PET scan, you've taken advantage of transmutation to a radioactive isotope.

    30. Re:Fast by PFactor · · Score: 1

      Huh?

      --
      Don't believe anything I say. I crash test crack pipes for a living.
    31. Re:Fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Three posts as ignorant as each other. The article claims those photos are BEFORE THE FUCKING LAUNCH. God dammit, I wish you idiots would crawl in a hole and die. People of average intelligence are what's wrong with this world.

    32. Re:Fast by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      There are ways to alter orbits that do not require fuel beyond solar energy. Not that I'm saying it's being used here, I'm just pointing it out.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    33. Re:Fast by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      It might also be a factor of hydrazine or whatever noxious chemical they use to fuel the boosters on that sucker.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    34. Re:Fast by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's a replacement for the space shuttle - which was one of the very few space vehicles that could go into orbit, and come down while carrying significant stuff (or even carry down something it didn't take up).

      --
    35. Re:Fast by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      About as much fuel as that rock underneath your foot is consuming to travel in a spherical pattern through space, currently.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    36. Re:Fast by mister_playboy · · Score: 1

      "IT drone who forgot the laws of physics" still beats "AC troll".

      Roll d20 first before you start celebrating...

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    37. Re:Fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you should stop worrying about karma so much. It doesn't mean you are special or that you've accomplished anything. Your post added nothing to the discussion and certainly wasn't meant to be positive so you got modded accordinly. Get over it and move on with your life.

    38. Re:Fast by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The hazmat suites are for hydrazine. Nasty stuff.

      If you've ever watched a Shuttle landing to the point where they're letting the crew out, the first people to arrive are the fire trucks, then folks in Hazmat suites to make sure that there is no unreacted hydrazine (from the Reaction Control System) leaking around. It's very, very volatile. The XB-37 Wikipedia article describes shifting the main engine off the hydrogen perioxide (which at the concentrations used is pretty nasty stuff in and of itself) but they may still have hydrazine for the control thrusters.

      Besides, they look cool and let you know that the Air Force means business.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    39. Re:Fast by BadPirate · · Score: 1

      Hmm.. it does seem faster in metric.

      --
      - Holy crap, I've got MOD points! Who thought that was a good idea.
    40. Re:Fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Note to self, do not use finger to write "WASH ME" in the radioactive interstellar dust coating any recently landed spaceship.

    41. Re:Fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crap! The moon is coming down now? Where the hell is that going to land?

    42. Re:Fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The potential for hydrazine leaks alone make it necessary to wear hazmat suits when approaching any recently returned spacecraft.

    43. Re:Fast by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Hazmat is required because the vehicle carries hydrogen peroxide and hydrazine as fuels.

    44. Re:Fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but how long has it been since it was fuelled up

      It is self-fuelled. All that cheese. Mmmmmm cheezburgers

    45. Re:Fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't a troll something that's supposed to attract replies? I went blah blah whatever after reading about 5 words of it.

    46. Re:Fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (to be read in a hillbilly accent)

  10. I bet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's leaving one HELL of a chem-trail.

  11. Aliens by Praetor.Zero · · Score: 1

    What else could it be? Obviously the tech is alien in nature and they needed to commune with the high overlords.

  12. testing remote nuke silo... by who_stole_my_kidneys · · Score: 1
    Whats better than having nukes on the ground, then having them in space, easily deploy-able at the push of a button (and a 20 second delay), to wipe out enemies. secret missions could have hundreds of these orbiting the globe with armed warheads for years with none the wiser.

    or

    the could be part of an missile intercept program to take down ICMB's...

    or

    they just wanted to get free Pay Per View.

    1. Re:testing remote nuke silo... by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      Nukes in space has been possible for 50 years. We don't do it because there are treaties against it, treaties that have remarkably been followed by all involved. It's not a a boat that anyone involved really wants to start rocking.

    2. Re:testing remote nuke silo... by edremy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nukes in space has been possible for 50 years. We don't do it because there are treaties against it, treaties that have remarkably been followed by all involved. It's not a a boat that anyone involved really wants to start rocking.

      It's not so much that there has been any great restraint on the part of the nuclear armed space powers as that there is no point to having them in orbit. ICBMs get anywhere in the world in 30 minutes, SLBMs are even quicker since they are closer. Silos are very well hardened and subs are hard to find- orbiting satellites have limited maneuverability, so you always know where the warhead is. A good chunk of the time orbital dynamics is going to say you're out of position to even hit your desired target. Plus, stuff in space can't be maintained easily and warheads need occasional maintenance to do things like replace the tritium boosters and check the electronics.

      It's basically just not necessary

      --
      "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
    3. Re:testing remote nuke silo... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's not so much that there has been any great restraint on the part of the nuclear armed space powers as that there is no point to having them in orbit. ICBMs get anywhere in the world in 30 minutes

      AHA! This is the meat of the matter. The countries actually capable of deploying an ICBM (or a missile sub) don't need nukes in space — we have ICBMs. The other countries can't get out from under our thumbs sufficiently to put nukes in space; if they could put a nuke in space, they could build an ICBM.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:testing remote nuke silo... by T-Bone-T · · Score: 1

      Not only that, people get nervous when you launch nuclear materials into space because of the high risk of the rocket spontaneously turning into a massive dirty bomb.

  13. Secret? by RivenAleem · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How secret can it be if we know it happened? What we really have to worry/consider are the things that we never even know happen, not just "don't know their purpose."

    If the general community know that this 'secret' spaceplane was up there doing stuff, then you can guarantee that it wasn't doing anything sensitive, though possibly classified. When they do really important and secret things, you can guarantee that we never even know it happened at all.

    1. Re:Secret? by jank1887 · · Score: 1

      "...guarantee that it wasn't doing anything sensitive, though possibly classified... "

      you just might not quite understand the meaning of classified.

    2. Re:Secret? by robot256 · · Score: 1

      Maybe the purpose of the mission is precisely to make the general community wonder what it is doing up there? To provide an environment for rumors and propaganda about our capabilities designed to scare our enemies? Not really too far-fetched. Besides, it's pretty difficult to hide something in orbit from the millions of amateur astronomers on the Internet, so better to let out the story that is is NOT a nuclear warhead than let the speculations get too carried away. Beyond that, what it's doing is still anyone's guess.

    3. Re:Secret? by TubeSteak · · Score: 2

      How secret can it be if we know it happened?

      1. It's really hard to hide a rocket launch.

      2. Amateur astronomers like to make a game out of "spot the spy satellite"
      The price of technology is coming down and the processing power of computers has going up.
      More than enough to allow the hobbyist to spot "secret" satellites.

      Give it another generation and the words "secret satellite" will no longer be used together.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    4. Re:Secret? by pezpunk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      it's in the DoD's best interest for people to believe they are in posession of secret and unimaginable technological wonders. I think it's highly dubious (and optimistic, in my experience in this industry) to subscribe to the (conveniently non-falsifiable) notion that the U.S. military keeps all their most impressive toys 100% hidden from view. in fact, i suspect the opposite is closer to the truth.

      --
      i could live a little longer in this prison
    5. Re:Secret? by six025 · · Score: 1

      What we really have to worry/consider are the things that we never even know happen, not just "don't know their purpose."

      Obligatory Rumsfeld quote:

      [T]here are known knowns; there are things we know we know.
      We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
      But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don't know.

      Just how far are you willing to take the paranoia?

      Peace,
      Andy.

    6. Re:Secret? by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      I think he does.
      Classified, means just that classified.
      It may be classified noforn in which case only US citizens may see the whatever it is.
      It may be classified secret, or top secret, or TS<codeword>.
      In all the above cases it is also sensitive.
      It could also be classified as unrestricted (like NASA pictures of the deep cosmos), still classified, but not sensitive.

      There is material that is born secret, and there is material that is classified secret, but classification is just that, putting the material in a class.
      [/pedantic rant]
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    7. Re:Secret? by Kjella · · Score: 2

      That's just stupid, space is empty. It's about as hard to hide a spacecraft as it is to hide a supercarrier, it's not that it's there which is a secret but what it can do. The military isn't ostrich stupid, they don't stick their head in the sand and pretend nobody else can see it either. Just like you can't hide a nuclear detonation anymore, anything that doesn't happen in a simulator will get picked up by seismographs. And yes, they register different than earthquakes.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    8. Re:Secret? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      How secret can it be if we know it happened?

      Just because you know that a spy exists and is doing something does not mean that you know what they are doing. That's how it can still be secret and why it still is secret. Yes, we know it's up there, but we have no idea what it's actually doing while it's up there.

    9. Re:Secret? by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      How secret can it be if we know it happened?

      Was the Manhattan Project secret?

      Those people in Los Alamos and Oak Ridge are doing something. Are they related? What are they doing?

      There was a bright flash somewhere in White Sands. How did they do it? Did it have something to do with Los Alamos?

      Something spectacularly bad just happened at Hiroshima. What was it, and how did they do it?

      X37-B is landing. What was it doing? And if you ever find out what it was doing, will you know how they did it?

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    10. Re:Secret? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Looking at it doesn't mean you know what it does.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    11. Re:Secret? by Infiniti2000 · · Score: 2

      No, it's not. In this context, "classified" is not the same thing as the generic English word classified, "to put something in a class." In the context of US Government vernacular, classified means FOUO, secret, or above. It is NOT to be disseminated and explicitly carries with it the idea that leaking it will cause harm to someone or something relating to the USA.

    12. Re:Secret? by Matheus · · Score: 1

      Ah but you're missing the fact that in the ops world Sensitive has its own meaning.

      i work on machines all the time that are labeled quite clearly "Sensitive But Unclassified". It would seem by your definition those machines (or more importantly their contents) had been Classified 'Sensitive' BUT the words tell you quite the opposite. Feel free to explode in a cloud of logic now...

      By at least the 3-letter acronyms that I work for anything that has been "Classified" is above the level of "Sensitive", "Sensitive" being the lowest level of them giving a shit.

      Back on topic: We know a variety of information about all sorts of things that are classified some even TS w/ Poly Nuclear. The trick is we do not know everything and in some cases it is possible to know nothing at all but that is NOT the rule and the Government has to operate in a world that makes it *Very difficult to keep something truly unknown. You tell people enough of what you kinda want them to know ("We built a cool plane and you don't know where it is!") but not what they can't know ("It's armed with a Top Secret laser system that has been quietly removing certain people from existence!"). You hope that for the average person that quenches their thirst for "being in-the-know", the bulk of the rest won't have the means to go further and then you protect yourself against the person who's means and appetite for more leads to proactive investigation.

    13. Re:Secret? by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      There are only a very limited number of things that a satellite can do:
      1) Look up at the sky
      2) Look down at the ground
      3) Relay data
      4) Come back down again (i.e., as a weapon, perhaps with a warhead)

      Seeing as that first category is pretty innocent and will most likely be non-secret (science is for bragging rights as much as anything else), that only really leaves three varieties of sinister purpose. It's also probably pretty much a given that every space-faring government does items 2 & 3 in large quantities.

    14. Re:Secret? by mikael · · Score: 1

      They tried keeping spy satellites secret in the past. Unfortunately, solar panels and Summer evenings are a bit of a giveaway. Once somebody sees that flash of light, next thing they are taking out their telescope, camera and taking photographs.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    15. Re:Secret? by foobsr · · Score: 1

      Just how far are you willing to take the paranoia?

      Lem gives you levels to choose from.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memoirs_Found_in_a_Bathtub

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    16. Re:Secret? by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 1

      What we really have to worry/consider are the things that we never even know happen, not just "don't know their purpose."

      I think people have better things to do than worry about the infinite number of possibilities that "things that we never even know happen" implies.

      --
      People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
    17. Re:Secret? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      "conveniently non-falsifiable"

      The secret stuff generally gets declassified, so the hypothesis is not non-falsifiable. In fact, it's easily testable. Just look back thirty years at what was commonly available, what the government was thought to be up to, and what they actually had. It turns out they probably didn't have magic UFO technology, but they did have things like stealth that were quite a bit beyond what was commonly available. Extrapolating, the US military probably has some interesting capabilities we don't know about, but probably falls well short of the things the conspiracy theorists think they can do.

    18. Re:Secret? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      5) drop something, like a crowbar
      6) fire a directed energy weapon at another satellite
      7) maneuver and rendezvous with another orbiting body
      8) detonate and spread debris throughout orbit

      I bet there's a few hundred possibilities I'm missing, but doubling the length of your list without even getting fanciful (like directed energy weapon pointed at the ground, or orbital mind control lasers or something) was trivial.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    19. Re:Secret? by fzammett · · Score: 1

      The wacky part about Rummy's diatribe there is that he was, is and always will be 100% correct in what he said... people tend to leave that part out, usually because their mind can't parse and process the logic of what he's saying. Sure, he said it in the most convoluted and pedantic way imaginable, which is why it's such a memorable quote, but the gist of the statement was logically accurate... although one could debate whether you ever actually know you know anything, because anything you "know" you may in fact be incorrect about, in which case you could then say there are things you know you know that you don't actually know... hey, I can do it to, can I be SecDef??

      --
      If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
    20. Re:Secret? by hey! · · Score: 1

      When they do really important and secret things, you can guarantee that we never even know it happened at all.

      I dunno about that reasoning. If it went up for a single *day*, you'd be able to rule out some things, but since it was up there for a full year, it could have been up to *anything* that could be accomplished in that time window. For all we know it might have been put up there for an entire year just for one day's work, the nature of which would have been more effectively hidden this way than if they'd attempted a secret launch.

      Personally, I buy that it is a technology demonstrator, but this kind of long mission is one that has lots of military applications, some of which would be highly unpopular with people outside the US. The US military already uses drones, and they understand the value of loitering time. The technical boundary between the atmosphere and space is where the transition from travel dominated by aerodynamic forces to travel dominated by momentum. 100km is roughly where the speed needed to maintain altitude by lift exceeds orbital velocity. In other words a spaceplane has nearly unlimited loiter time because it just stays up there without requiring a continuous expenditure of energy.

      They could re-enter something like this anywhere on the Earth within a day or so. If you had a dozen of spaceplanes like this loitering in low Earth orbit, you could put a drone anywhere you wanted in a matter of hours. I wonder whether there is anything a spaceplane could do better than something simpler and cheaper that doesn't involve that capability.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    21. Re:Secret? by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      5) drop something, like a crowbar (AKA come back down again)
      6) fire a directed energy weapon at another satellite (AKA come back down again, and again)
      7) maneuver and rendezvous with another orbiting body
      8) detonate and spread debris throughout orbit

      I bet there's a few hundred possibilities I'm missing, but doubling the length of your list without even getting fanciful (like directed energy weapon pointed at the ground, or orbital mind control lasers or something) was trivial.

      Yes, a fifth item was missed - interact with stuff in orbit. That covers your 7 and 8. There really aren't very many things you can do. How you do them are numerous, but the details don't generally have to be worried about.

      For example, the crowbar. Unless your 'crowbar' is specially designed to ablate in a very predictable manner, and is of sufficient size to actually reach the ground with some real energy, the only advantage it has over throwing rocks at your neighbour is the closeness of said neighbour to your country. For example. Note the size of the 'crowbar' in that picture (where crowbar is defined as some object in space that has been dropped on a terrestrial object). The directed energy weapon has the same limitations.

      Really, at our technology level, the only thing worth dropping from space with a weapons advantage are nukes.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    22. Re:Secret? by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      It's been 35 years since I got out of the USAF, and there were things about the SR-71 that are still secret, and rightly so. Stuff that will make your skin crawl. God only knows what they have now.

      No, I'm not going to describe the stuff to you. You wouldn't believe it anyway.

    23. Re:Secret? by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 3, Funny

      JP-7 is made of people!

    24. Re:Secret? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A crowbar wouldn't be really all that good. The math involved in plotting the trajectory of an actual crowbar over any significant distance in an atmosphere at terminal velocity is really disgusting.

      I suspect a mostly solid hunk of metal around the size of a sidewinder missile with a fairly simple trajectory correction mechanism is far more likely.

      Asking slashdot:
      Have there been any experiments from any space missions testing how accurate we can estimate the trajectory of any small objects thrown towards the earth (in the reverse direction of the orbiting vehicle at a necessary velocity to fall to the ground) from orbit unassisted?

    25. Re:Secret? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get out of here with your reasonable, level-headed ideas!!!

    26. Re:Secret? by Raenex · · Score: 1

      You're right, I wouldn't. It stinks of stories you heard instead of firsthand experience.

    27. Re:Secret? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was working at a company where they finally declassified an old room that had been locked down from the several decades ago. In the room we found a lot of neat toys. Among them, we found one that I personally found interesting, they were see-through powered active 3-D goggles, e.g. augmented reality. There were about a dozen of them, and some them still worked. These guys were ahead of their time.

    28. Re:Secret? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Yes, a fifth item was missed - interact with stuff in orbit. That covers your 7 and 8

      If you really want to bicker, then your #1 and #2 are both "look at stuff". But shooting at something and docking with something (e.g. to repair it, or to form a larger unit) are two very different things.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    29. Re:Secret? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Funny, but incorrect. Jet fuel (I'm only acquainted with JP-3 and JP-4) is a mixture of gasoline and kerosine.

    30. Re:Secret? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      It's firsthand experience for me, but it would only be unsubstantiated, unbelievable rumor to you.

    31. Re:Secret? by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      The only differences between the two is the relative velocity at intersection and how much of the original payload will be intersecting.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    32. Re:Secret? by Raenex · · Score: 1

      You could gain a little bit of credibility by saying in what capacity you were able to witness firsthand events. However, I suspect you did not work on this project in any capacity and would be either forced to admit it or make something up which could, in theory and probably in practice, be verified.

    33. Re:Secret? by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      5 & 6 are essentially variations on my point 4. You send a crowbar up, put it in orbit (it's now a part of a satellite), then bring it down again as a weapon. You may leave a part of the satellite in orbit, but there's not really much point in doing so (extra mass, even a few pounds, means extra destruction). Lasers are a bit more of a stretch to my wording, but the principle is the same- you put something up there, it sends stuff down as a weapon (in energy form this time).

      8 is something you can do with a satellite, but as China so amply demonstrated- you might as well keep the thing safely on the ground and just send it up there when you want it to detonate- i.e., an anti-satellite missile. There's no point keeping these things idling in orbit for years, risking malfunction. The same reasoning is basically what's kept nukes out of orbit- why keep the thing vulnerably in orbit, when you get no extra functionality over keeping it in a nice safe bunker?

      7 I'll give you though. That's more or less the raison d'etre of the X-37B.

    34. Re:Secret? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      No, I didn't work on any of the tech directly, but I did see it in action.

    35. Re:Secret? by Raenex · · Score: 1

      And by "see it in action", would that amount to seeing it fly by? Were you part of the operational team that helped run it? In what capacity would you actually be able to acquire secrets that would "make your skin crawl"? Or more likely you just heard a story passed on from some airman.

  14. I just love journalists... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    From the Article......

    "At launch, the space plane was accompanied by staff in biohazard suits, leading to speculation that there were radioactive components on board. "

    Why cant journalists that actually have an education in science cover science subjects?

    Really? a BIOHAZARD suit for RADIOACTIVE protection?

    1. Re:I just love journalists... by robot256 · · Score: 1, Funny

      They were only wearing a biohazard suit because the sponsoring congresscritter was on hand for the occasion.

    2. Re:I just love journalists... by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Maybe they launched The Hulk into space. Or the Fantastic Four. Etc, etc.

    3. Re:I just love journalists... by PPH · · Score: 1

      Because the last time photos of technicians working on a spacecraft, wearing Hawaiian shirts, shorts and flip-flops was leaked, Congress thought they weren't taking their job seriously and threatened to cut funding.

      Same reason aircraft carrier crews paint over the mini golf course on the deck before returning to port.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re:I just love journalists... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the Article......

      "At launch, the space plane was accompanied by staff in biohazard suits, leading to speculation that there were radioactive components on board. "

      Why cant journalists that actually have an education in science cover science subjects?

      Really? a BIOHAZARD suit for RADIOACTIVE protection?

      And what makes you think that utter ignorance is confined to just "science subjects"?

    5. Re:I just love journalists... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Really? a BIOHAZARD suit for RADIOACTIVE protection?

      While you jab at journalists is certainly reasonable, you don't sound all that smart yourself.

      Yes, people wear hazmat-type suits for nucular stuff all the time. Look at all the Fukashima pictures. The reason for that is that alpha particles are often attached to dusts and other floaty particles and one should avoid internalizing them. While you could potentially deal with that with just a gas mask (breathing being the most likely route) it's typically felt that swathing the person in Tyvek or whatnot is safer so they can't scratch their balls and then pick their nose an ingest some nasty.

      That said, the most likely reason for the suits are 1) They look cool, they look like You Mean Business and 2) the XB-37 is fueled with at least one and possibly several highly reactive chemical fuels, none of which you want anywhere near your personal space.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    6. Re:I just love journalists... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His point is that Biohazard suits are not the type of hazmat suit that is used in this case.

  15. I, for one, Welcome our new space-plane Overlords. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I, for one, Welcome our new space-plane Overlords.

  16. Biohazard suits.. by Knightman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Funny comment in the article: "At launch, the space plane was accompanied by staff in biohazard suits, leading to speculation that there were radioactive components on board."

    I'd wear protective suits if it is fueled with hypergolic propellant since it's extremely toxic, so the comment about radioactive components is just bs IMHO.

    --
    --- Reality doesn't care about your opinions, it happens anyway and if you are in the way you'll get squished.
    1. Re:Biohazard suits.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats what they want you to think....

      Might be some sort of radioactive fuel.

    2. Re:Biohazard suits.. by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      Radioactive Hydrazine :oooooooh:
      In that case I'd want a lead biosuit.

      Seriously, biosuits and cleanroom suits are the norm in space related activities.
      It's no different than the (don't know the official name of the position) guy who dumps fuel in the race cars wearing a full nomex suit and protective gear. There is a well above non zero chance of exposure to flammable liquid or fire, so you protect against it.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    3. Re:Biohazard suits.. by almitydave · · Score: 1

      ... don't know the official name of the ... guy who dumps fuel in the race cars ....

      If it were the space program, he'd be the Propellant Installation Engineer.
      If he were in a union he'd be a Flammable Fluids Expert.
      In the military, he'd be a Motorcraft Refueling Technician.
      But this is auto racing we're talking about, so we just call him the Fueler.

      --
      my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
      I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
    4. Re:Biohazard suits.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's funnier than it should be.

    5. Re:Biohazard suits.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But this is auto racing we're talking about, so we just call him the Fueler.

      Fueler? Fueler? Fueler?

  17. What was it doing at 17,000 mph for a year? by Greenspark · · Score: 0

    WWwwhheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

  18. It was extended after nine months in orbit by naris · · Score: 0

    Well obviously it had to care for the baby drone it birthed...

  19. space plane testing near Denver by peter303 · · Score: 2

    I talked to someone who saw the Dream Chaser space plane undergoing air tests north of Boulder. Its one of four private manned vehicles in first-round development funded by NASA. I hear its supposed to be drop-tested from SpaceShipTwo later this year.

  20. No one knows what it's been doing all this time... by Tyrannicsupremacy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Not even the air force, or DARPA, or the NSA.

    Government Spokesperson:
    "It just kinda launched itself and seemed to be having a good time up there so we let it be."

    --
    http://i.cubeupload.com/T6cyLu.png
  21. A year in space ? by Stolly · · Score: 1

    I thought the big thing about this vehicle was that it could go up and down more cheaply than traditional means. If its going to be left up there for a year, doesn't that defeat the object ? Perhaps its not operational yet, and this was just to prove that the production versions can operate for a long time.

    --
    Lest we forget http://www.stolly.org.uk/ETO
    1. Re:A year in space ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      probably just testing things like you know... those solar panels, the batteries, etc

      also, most of the space missions with deadlines, as of late, always get extended when they work well; probably why it is up there longer than expected

    2. Re:A year in space ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but it had to stay there and hold the parking place for the next drone.

      How about some conspiracy theory along with the humour? It was seeding the atmosphere with a deadly pathogen designed to wipe out 95% of the population leading to a more sustainable world. The would explain the biohazard suits.

  22. You know how I know the mission failed? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 0

    It didn't arrive back on Earth the day before it left. Pwned again by relativity, USAF!

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  23. Truth is.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody knows it took off on a mission of peace using experimental propulsion technology to get to the Galactic High Court to beg for mercy, in order to fend off the imminent destruction of your planet Earth...

    1. Re:Truth is.. by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Agent K, is that you?

      --
      Good-bye
  24. Objective by Yvan256 · · Score: 0

    And still, no one knows what the space drone has been doing up there all this time.

    Spying on the Spanish. No inquisition for you!

    NEXT!

    1. Re:Objective by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Well that was unexpected!

      --
      Good-bye
  25. this is ground control to X37-B by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Going to space is an illuminating experience, like others, X37-B just didn't want to return to the mundane world.

    Either that, or the original flightplan was for a three hour cruise.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  26. Re:No one knows what it's been doing all this time by networkBoy · · Score: 1

    That would be creepy to hear.
    Also, if it really had launched its self I think we all know it would be shot down ASAP.
    -nB

    --
    whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
  27. Secretly sponsored by the airline industry... by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 4, Funny

    Setting a new government verified standard for "on-time" arrivals. After this benchmark; was due to land in California in December. It is now expected to land in mid to late June -- how can anyone complain about being a few hours late!

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:Secretly sponsored by the airline industry... by JTsyo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Its mission of evil must have been harder than they thought. hmm sort of like it is explained in your quote.

  28. Should be obvious by Stickerboy · · Score: 1

    The US military has had an open goal of expanding its capabilities to kill targets selectively with as little delay as possible. All the gadgetry to achieve real-time eyes-on intelligence on a potential target (like the late UBL) can be worthless if it takes an hour or more to mobilize a strike against it and the target slips away. Having a potential weapons platform already up in the air 24/7 for a year at a time can cut the response time significantly. And if you are hindered by the fixed orbit, like spy satellites, just launch more space planes...

    --
    Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
    1. Re:Should be obvious by robot256 · · Score: 1

      My guess is the whole point of the space-plane is that it can easily land, refuel, reload, and get back in orbit. Therefore they can afford to have a larger fuel reserve for orbital maneuvers and you need fewer total craft in the sky to have strike-anywhere capability. Satellites could afford much more maneuvers if they were only expected to stay up for a year at a time rather than the decade(s) that many do now.

      Actually, the biggest reason for being able to maneuver on orbit is stealth. It is much harder to keep track of an object that changes its course frequently, and even harder to intercept it when you have no idea where it will be at a given time. A craft like that could quite easily dodge a missile sent at it from the surface, but more importantly any warheads it drops will come from a random point in the sky, giving anti-missile defenses very little time to react.

    2. Re:Should be obvious by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      any warheads it drops will come from a random point in the sky

      Misunderstanding of randomness this deep often causes cryptosystem failure.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Should be obvious by amliebsch · · Score: 1

      I highly doubt this vehicle is intended to be weaponized. You would still need a ridiculous number of them to provide 1 hr strike capability to anyplace on Earth. There are just so many practical problem with using an orbital platform that way, when ship- or aircraft-launched cruise missiles - or ballistic missiles, for that matter - can do the job about as well for a lot less money.

      Far more likely, I think, is an advanced orbital surveillance drone, with enough manuevering capability to frequently change orbit to monitor changing sites of interest, and, when low on propelland, be able to land, refuel, and take off again. This would (1) reduce the number of spy sats needed (which typically have limited manuevering), (2) allow frequent upgrades to observation abilities whenever it landed, and (3) make it much, much harder to predict when overfly will be, increasing the probaility of seeing something interesting.

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    4. Re:Should be obvious by robot256 · · Score: 1

      Misunderstanding of the coloquial term "random" this deep often causes cryptographers' social failure.

      Let's just say "unexpected based on the craft's trajectory during its last flyover and dependent upon commands which we have no way of intercepting."

    5. Re:Should be obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Random to the person getting shot at, you pedantic slashtard.

    6. Re:Should be obvious by ajithv · · Score: 1

      How does one "drop" a warhead from orbit unless your warhead is "powered", and even then, you'll have to deal with launch recoil!

  29. Re:No one knows what it's been doing all this time by Shivetya · · Score: 4, Funny

    Do not taunt happy fun shuttle.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  30. Isn't it obvious from the summary ?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What was the shuttle doing?

    [it] has been circling Earth at 17,000 miles per hour [...]

    In fact it's clear it enjoyed circling Earth so much that it delayed its return:

    [it] was due to land in California in December. It is now expected to land in mid to late June.

    Mystery solved.

  31. It's Dick Cheney's undisclosed location by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh damn, I gave it away.
    I am notg looking forward to that next hunting trip with Dick!

  32. Innacurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "no one knows" is not accurate. A small number of people do indeed know. And are keeping it secret from the people who pay for it.

  33. Cylons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's looking for cylons. We haven't heard from them in so long that the military is growing restless. They want to know if the cylons are preparing a strike.

    1. Re:Cylons by only_human · · Score: 1

      They want to know if the cylons are preparing a strike.

      So they have labor unions too?

  34. Re:No one knows what it's been doing all this time by PPH · · Score: 2

    Hey. At least it could come back when it got bored. Not stuck up there like Spirit.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  35. Daily Mail? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could we get a more serious source for this? After all the stuff that comes out of the Daily Mail I don't take them seriously.

  36. Classified Secrets Revealed Here! by conspirator23 · · Score: 1

    The nefarious purpose of this drone flight?

    Once being placed into orbit like any traditional satellite, and making small course adjustments like any traditional satellite, and performing any number of now-routine tasks performed by satellites, and after staying up in orbit for a long time like any other satellite, it engaged in one crucially oppressive, sovereignty-crushing task:

    It landed back on the surface of the Earth!!!

    The pictures of you picking your nose in the backyard last summer is just gravy.

  37. a: because it breaks the message flow by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    q: why shouldn't you put body text in the subject?

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    1. Re:a: because it breaks the message flow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      haha it was funny the first time

      get some new jokes ass

    2. Re:a: because it breaks the message flow by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      It wasn't a joke. It was a point. Points are not required to be funny.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  38. Apple? by aaronb1138 · · Score: 1

    Since Apple is making a big deal about dropping Google Maps for OpenStreetMap and having 3D display, but no street view, I think we really know what surveillance this drone was doing.

    After all, the timing of the mission completion is pretty suspect. Unable to obtain his thermonuclear option for Android, clearly Jobs coordinated with the Air Force to "nuke it from space, it's the only way to be sure."

  39. 1 year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1 year in orbit, 1 year to mars. Seems like a trial of whether the thing can stay sealed up and functional that long.

    1. Re:1 year by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      1 year in orbit, 1 year to mars. Seems like a trial of whether the thing can stay sealed up and functional that long.

      You're suggesting that the US Air Force is planning on invading Mars?

      Look, I know they have mission plans for all sorts of unlikely things, but I believe you're pushing the envelope here.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:1 year by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      Maybe they want a 50 year colony on Mars to wait out the nuclear apocalypse they're bringing about. Sounds in line with the agenda of the super rich crazy and heinous.

      Bet the studies show that if they nuke the poor and hide underground their children will kill them rather than be slaves to their wealth :P

  40. Re:No one knows what it's been doing all this time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Best laugh I've had all day. Thanks!

  41. Spying. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spying. Duh.

  42. obviously by nimbius · · Score: 1

    if the track record of drones is to be validated on any level, and its future potential understood, we must look at the applications pursued thus far. Sure, Anwar al-Awlaki for example was blown up by a drone flying high in the skies above him. But just think about how much more we would win the war on terror if the next american citizen to speak freely against his country were blown up...from space. Clearly the mission served only one purpose: to stop Neil DeGrasse Tyson from making any more disparaging remarks about the state of NASA budget cuts.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  43. It's not that the mission was extended by mpbrede · · Score: 1

    Just that no-one could remember where they stored the recall instructions. Or who was supposed to write them initially...

  44. I'd Like to Believe It's An Election Year Stunt by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    The simplest explination is that the team that launched the X37-B has retired, and did not leave a contact phone number that's still connected. Now the U.S. has effectively an experiment in space that it does not know how to terminate, and who's purpose no one in the DOD really cares about. What will happen in the next couple years is that the experiment will fall into the ocean. It's firey dimise will be on CNN. A couple of weeks later, there will be an update to Wikipedia about the event. And everyone will go about their business as usual

    oh snap! stevie d. :)

  45. What the drone's been doing up there all this time by D4C5CE · · Score: 1

    what the space drone has been doing up there all this time

    Been waiting for the aliens to hatch inside the poor astronauts (sent to this first Close Encounter on a purportedly unmanned mission under the pretense of having to repair some secret satellite), so they'll be ripe&ready for world domination at landing? =;-o

    Or wait a minute, T.H.E.Y. said we mustn't ever tell anyone about that, or else... oops, posted already, on /. of all places +++NO CARRIER

  46. Sorry, doesn't make a lick of sense. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Interesting

    One thing that has been desirable has been to keep surveillance drones in flight for as long as possible. The longest shuttle mission was 17 days and 15 hours. This drone has been up there for a year before coming down.

    Yeah, because it was essentially a satellite in orbit around the earth. We already have spy satellites, and have had them for a lot longer than we have had drones.

    The reason why we're using a lot of drones now, despite already having satellites, is because the drones can maintain a lengthy continuous presence over a specific location, rather than passing over that location at regular intervals in an orbit which can be discovered and then worked around. In terms of amount of time continuously observing an area of interest, this space plane has vastly lower numbers than any UAV -- just like all spy satellites.

    If you are picturing this being used for surveillance, then what they showed is not a drone with an extremely long loiter time. It's a satellite with an extremely short orbital life span.

    I think they're aiming to replace spy satellites with these drones and this was a test to see if a drone can stay up in space for a long duration and still arrive back on ground intact for repairs or to upgrade its system.

    If the military has upgraded equipment they want to put in a spy satellite, they just launch a new one. They have no need to recover old ones (unlike back in the day when spy satellites used film), so they just let the old one deorbit.

    To figure out what the X37 is for, we need to figure out why the military would need it back. Spy satellite doesn't fit the bill at all.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
    1. Re:Sorry, doesn't make a lick of sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To figure out what the X37 is for, we need to figure out why the military would need it back. Spy satellite doesn't fit the bill at all.

      My guess is it's either a satellite killing drone, or a nuclear weapons platform with first strike capability. It may have surveillance abilities also; perhaps a multi-purpose craft with a small range of capabilities. It's designed for fast deployment into a specific strategic orbit, without a loud and noisy rocket launch, and of course with re-use ability. I think this year in orbit has seen extensive testing of first generation avionics, control, and maneuvering systems for this and future aerospacecraft. I bet the whole inside of that thing other than the weapons bay is filled full of fuel for the maneuvering jets.

  47. Its up there to make NASA look bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It does what all secret military things in orbit do..take lots of pictures of the neighbors. Over a years time it must have snapped thousands of frowny faces of laid off NASA rocket scientists.

    Its sad to see soo much $$$ wasted on the spy v spy crap.

  48. Paid by bruceslog · · Score: 1

    I betcha they paid for this with the change from those $ 500.00 toilet seats and $ 200.00 hammers. Oh, and maybe they siphoned some money from those $100 Million dollar F-35's. No wonder the government is always close to broke.

    --
    If it has tires or tits, it will give you problems.
  49. Geosyncrous Orbit by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure they have been doing Geosynchronous Orbit with satellites for some time. If you want to talk about loiter time, that is pretty much continuous for however long the satellite is up there.

    The problem with satellites, is A) they are a long way up, despite what you may have seen in Hollywood, that means less detail and things like clouds and the like can sometimes get in the way, and B) it is also much more difficult to make changes in position.

    The only thing this seems to be able to do that is different is land, which I am not sure why that might be a requirement for that purpose. I mean back in the day before there was the bandwidth for imagery, I believe some satellites actually may have used film, and then did physical drops of the film to be retrieved for analysis, but today, I am not sure what purpose it would serve. Retrofit and re-purpose/reuse perhaps as a cost saving measure. Though I would think the cost of the actual launch would be +95% of the actual cost anyway, so I am not sure what benefit that would really be.

    Anyway I agree with your assessment, spy satellite doesn't seem to fit the bill for that regard. Your guess is as good as mine. Though I would expand the premise of why the military would want it back, to the only reason would be what is it physically *bringing* back. Either it brought something up there for some sort of modification or experiment, or it collected something up there (dust, debris, something physical, small satellite...), and is bringing it back for analysis. Could be that they are testing materials or methods, like radiation hardening, or particular designs, etc... and want to inspect the results.

    They could be worried about communication interception by enemies, but I would assume they could use some pretty good encryption, and if they can break that, then spy satellites are probably the least of their worries (also physical retrieval I would think would be more risky for interception anyway).

    Who knows maybe it is just a proof of concept of some principle or technology, a "there see we can do that now" sort of thing.