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."

54 of 243 comments (clear)

  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: 5, Funny

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

    3. 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?

    4. 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."
    5. 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
    6. 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
    7. 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;"

    8. 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?
    9. 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."
  2. '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 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
    4. 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.

    5. 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
    6. 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
    7. 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.

  3. Actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

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

  4. 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.

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

    Skynet knows.

  6. 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 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.

    4. 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.
    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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!
    8. 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.
    9. 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
    10. 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!
  7. 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 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!
    2. 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
    3. 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
    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.'"
    7. 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.

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

      JP-7 is made of people!

  8. 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 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!
  9. 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.
  10. 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.

  11. 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
  12. 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.

  13. 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!"
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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!
  17. 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