Slashdot Mirror


It's Baaack! XB-37B Finally Lands

ColdWetDog writes "The US Air Force / DARPA 'baby shuttle,' the Boeing-built XB-37B has just landed after 469 days in orbit. No official explanation of why controllers kept the mission going past the original duration of 270 days other than 'because we could.' I, for one, welcome our long duration, unmanned orbital overlords."

77 of 123 comments (clear)

  1. Of course you welcome it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    After all, you pay for it, you dimwit

  2. Coincidental timing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Same day the Chinese launch their most ambitious manned mission thusfar? Mmmkay.

  3. Possibly they wanted to observe the Chinese launch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Possibly they wanted to observe the Chinese space launch. It would provide a good evaluation of what Chinese missiles can do.

  4. Re:Possibly they wanted to observe the Chinese lau by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Or, they brought it down because the Chinese thought they might swing by to look at the XB-37B while they were up there.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  5. man in space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    uhh, you do realize that unmanned generally means that it doesn't havel ife support systems. We can get shit to the space station; we demonstrated that with the dragon capsule. However, we still don't have a way to get a man in space.

    1. Re:man in space? by million_monkeys · · Score: 5, Funny

      uhh, you do realize that unmanned generally means that it doesn't havel ife support systems. We can get shit to the space station; we demonstrated that with the dragon capsule. However, we still don't have a way to get a man in space.

      We could cryogenically freeze the astronauts and send them up as popsicles. Then, once we invent equipment to defreeze them, we can send that up and thaw them out. Problem solved. With enough creativity, nearly anything is possible.

    2. Re:man in space? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that might be a way... if it even existed. But if we're going with imaginary tech, why not simply beam them to the ISS?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    3. Re:man in space? by Bevilr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      While the craft itself operates unmanned, it could be easily adapted for human cargo in a not so ridiculous way. In fact, 2 seconds of searching revealed the plan to used a modified (scaled up) version of this design to transport astronauts into space. http://www.space.com/13230-secretive-37b-space-plane-future-astronauts.html

    4. Re:man in space? by istartedi · · Score: 1

      Frozen Spam in a can!

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    5. Re:man in space? by mister2au · · Score: 1

      165-180% scaling of the size is a pretty material difference - particularly when considering 3-dimensions making for 4.5-6x increase in volume.

      The current vehicle has a footprint that is 15% the size of an F-22 Raptor (while the FUTURE scaled up version is roughly the same size) and a payload capacity of 7ft by 4ft .... that is not enough to carry life-support system let alone the systems and 1 or more human passengers

    6. Re:man in space? by f3rret · · Score: 1

      uhh, you do realize that unmanned generally means that it doesn't havel ife support systems. We can get shit to the space station; we demonstrated that with the dragon capsule. However, we still don't have a way to get a man in space.

      We could cryogenically freeze the astronauts and send them up as popsicles. Then, once we invent equipment to defreeze them, we can send that up and thaw them out. Problem solved. With enough creativity, nearly anything is possible.

      Also it takes a while to die from exposure to the vacuum of space so technically we could also just get them up there REALLY quickly and hope for the best.

      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
    7. Re:man in space? by daveschroeder · · Score: 2

      Actually, the Dragon capsule that just docked with ISS is the first cargo vehicle also designed to take things back from the station.

    8. Re:man in space? by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      That approach is unrealistic. Here's why:

      We need someone to operate the defreezing equipment. That means we need to send more people up. Since the procedure for diong that is to freeze them, send them up and then send someone after them to defreeze them that's what we do. Of course that someone will be frozen, which means we need someone to defreeze them. After enough iterations of this the entire population of Earth will be frozen in space and no one will be able to defreeze them.

      I think the best approach to solve this issue would be to raise the ambient temperature of space so they thaw out on their own. That would also save us the cost of the defreezing equipment.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    9. Re:man in space? by timeOday · · Score: 2

      More seriously, if you really, really wanted to get somebody to the ISS on the cheap, could you not just stuff a guy in a space suit with a jumbo oxygen tank into the cargo bay of the Dragon capsule?

    10. Re:man in space? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Walt Disney and Steve Jobs are dead. You want to thaw out corpses and reanimate them in space?!? That's how the zombie apocalypse will start.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    11. Re:man in space? by arisvega · · Score: 1

      We could cryogenically freeze the astronauts and send them up as popsicles. Then, once we invent equipment to defreeze them, we can send that up and thaw them out. Problem solved. With enough creativity, nearly anything is possible.

      Or, in this case, with enough astronauts.

      --
      The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
  6. The future of spaceflight is robotic by warewolfsmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Lets face it, it's just too expensive to keep puny humans alive in orbit, the advent of highly advanced space faring robotics will see the end of long endurance human spaceflight.

    1. Re:The future of spaceflight is robotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It *does* really cost that much. Both in energy (sustaining human life is much more costly, energy-wise, than simply keeping circuits working), and in weight - when you ship people off into space, you have to feed them, water them, house them, carry oxygen for them, dispose of their waste, give them room to live, work, exercise... all of that material you have to ship off into space takes up space, adds additional weight to haul out of Earth's gravity well, and fundamentally limits the distance and duration of any mission you have planned.

      We have space probes launched *decades* ago that are still traveling through space and sending back data. What's the useful life of the ISS again?

      And frankly, I get more enjoyment and benefit out of my pet than I do out of manned space travel, so fuck your manned space dreams. You can use my tax money to send robotic probes and like it, or you can have nothing. How about that?

    2. Re:The future of spaceflight is robotic by CRCulver · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Lets face it, it's just too expensive to keep puny humans alive in orbit, the advent of highly advanced space faring robotics will see the end of long endurance human spaceflight.

      20 years ago, I was all rah-rah for human spaceflight. Then I started reading more speculations of technological singularities and the integration of man and machine. I now see two futures as much more likely than manned spaceflight with life support systems as traditionally conceived.

      If wacky AI prophets like Kurzweil are right, the human race that expands to the stars and robotic unmanned exploration might be one and the same. If humans transcend biology, there is no longer a need for packing oxygen, radiation shielding and water into a spacecraft.

      Another possibility, proposed by Vernor Vinge in Marooned in Realtime is that an intelligent race like ours might simply move into a virtual reality, populating and exploring that inner world of infinite possibilities instead of the cold, hard reality of outer space. Yeah, yeah, there's the possibilities of a catastrophic asteroid strike etc., but the human face is not especially adept at planning for the very longterm future, and simply moving towards the core of the planet might prove an attractive solution for the shorter term.

      Incidentally, the AC who also responded to you is a well-known troll (easily distinguished by his use of the term "space nutter"). While I agree with him that manned space exploration is not a likely future, his purpose here is more to mock and tear down than to contribute to meaningful discussion. Avoid his trap.

    3. Re:The future of spaceflight is robotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I'm glad to hear I'm well known. Sorry friend, but if you're behaving like a space nutter, I call it like I see it. Every time this type of article pops up, a bunch of naive idealists crowd in to tell us how stupid it is that we're not spending multiples of our GNP to send a handful of people to another planet to establish a colony, or mine iron ore from an asteroid, or some other foolishness that they claim (without justification) is "absolutely indispensable" to humanity's future.

      They take great joy in shouting down anybody who puts forth the rational (and quite likely) point that "manned space travel" is a dream, and barring a fundamental revolution in physics and our understanding of the universe, will always remain a dream. You want to explore the stars? Start launching robotic probes, because that's the only way any of us will ever learn what it's like in another solar system. And once those probes are launched, turn your vast intellect towards solving actual problems in the here and now on earth, because this is the only place we're gonna get.

    4. Re:The future of spaceflight is robotic by JustOK · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We've always boldly gone where no one has gone before, for drugs, for food, for fun, for profit. We're not likely to stop. We'll try not to warp on your lawn, though.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    5. Re:The future of spaceflight is robotic by Teun · · Score: 1

      That's basically what they told Christophorus Columbus and see what has come out of it...

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    6. Re:The future of spaceflight is robotic by f3rret · · Score: 1

      But that doesn't change the fact that an obnoxiously loud contingent here on Slashdot watched Star Trek as children, and really, truly believe that they're going to get to bang vaguely ethnic looking space girls with pale green skin and silver hair on Proxima Centauri IV, just like Kirk did..

      Nah, I just wanna go to space cus' I'm tired of Earth, it's full of idiots.

      Also cus' it's cool, if some guy with verifiable credentials came up to me and said "Wanna go to space? It's a one-way trip and you might die on-launch or shortly after" I'd say "yes" in a heartbeat.

      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
    7. Re:The future of spaceflight is robotic by f3rret · · Score: 1

      Well fact of the matter is, The Earth is by the very definition of the word "planet" a limited resource. Even if we get a thousand times better at conserving resources and all that eventually we are going to use up all the resources on Earth and then we're gonna need to go to space, if nothing else with robots.

      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
    8. Re:The future of spaceflight is robotic by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      The last time we actually went where non-one has gone before was during an Ice Age. How, exactly, is it an imperative?

    9. Re:The future of spaceflight is robotic by KeensMustard · · Score: 2

      I think what they told him was that the earth was 40000km in diameter whilst he insisted that it was considerably smaller - and he was comprehensively proven wrong, albeit he never admitted it. is that what you are referring to?

    10. Re:The future of spaceflight is robotic by guruevi · · Score: 1

      You also need plenty of energy to take things apart and build things on an atomic level, actually it requires so much energy that the classic alchemic grail of modifying eg. lead to gold (which is possible) is not even worth it.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    11. Re:The future of spaceflight is robotic by waimate · · Score: 1

      I think they're talking about how he discovered Cuba

    12. Re:The future of spaceflight is robotic by f3rret · · Score: 1

      Perpetual motion is forbidden by the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
    13. Re:The future of spaceflight is robotic by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Do you know what the "I" in ISS stands for? Can you guess why it wasn't a US only mission?

    14. Re:The future of spaceflight is robotic by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      Except for Lisa Simpson.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    15. Re:The future of spaceflight is robotic by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      Except he didn't discover Cuba.

    16. Re:The future of spaceflight is robotic by ganjadude · · Score: 3, Insightful

      no, usually we complain when the budget of nasa is around 4 days in iraq, we arent asking for a majority of funding, just a reasonable amount in relation to the other bullshit we waste money on.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    17. Re:The future of spaceflight is robotic by KeensMustard · · Score: 2

      Of course such arguments (that we ought to go into space to get more resources) ignore the fact that the energy budget required to move any significant mass from space to the earth is too cost prohibitive - and if we had an energy source dense enough to make it work we wouldn't need those resources anyway.

    18. Re:The future of spaceflight is robotic by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Electronics are even more vulnerable to radiation than meat. You definitely need shielding if you don't want your data scrambled by cosmic radiation (or use big chips where bits are too big to flip by radiation but that limits your computing power).

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    19. Re:The future of spaceflight is robotic by f3rret · · Score: 1

      The sun will also run out of energy.

      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
    20. Re:The future of spaceflight is robotic by JustOK · · Score: 1

      The last time we actually went where non-one has gone before was during an Ice Age.

      Your assumption is invalid.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    21. Re:The future of spaceflight is robotic by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      I doubt its going to happen, it makes it too easy to borg the entire human race.

    22. Re:The future of spaceflight is robotic by f3rret · · Score: 1

      I don't really wanna go to space, at least not for the next hundred years or so.

      I'd be perfectly happy with industrializing LEO and maybe the moon. Also, we already *have* the source of energy you mention, it'd be controlled fusion. I know we cannot do it now but we will figure it out eventually, hopefully within the next 50 - 100 years.

      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
  7. Re:But the US can't get into space?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Allow me to assure you that the United States military does not have any manned spaceflight capability. At all. Whatsoever. Period. The end. So you'll stop asking about it if you know what's good for you. In addition rumors of a secret base in the asteroid belt are simply that. Wild, baseless rumors. Nothing to see here citizen. Move along.

  8. Re:Possibly they wanted to observe the Chinese lau by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You've been watching too much Firefly.

  9. Esxplanation by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Funny

    "No official explanation of why controllers kept the mission going past the original duration of 270 days"

    No official explanation, but anonymous sources on the inside report that spacecraft's internal clock was off by 199 days. Aliens could not have been reached for comments.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  10. Re:Does there have to be an explanation? by Noughmad · · Score: 1
    --
    PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
  11. Re:Possibly they wanted to observe the Chinese lau by Jeng · · Score: 2

    Since one of the supposed roles of the XB-37B is repositioning satellites I would have to assume that it has the ability to change it's own orbit.

    --
    Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
  12. Re:Possibly they wanted to observe the Chinese lau by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We should start a kickstarter to bribe the chinese to plant a chinese flag where ours was, just so congress will get all fired up and get our space program going again.

  13. Super green by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

    We could cryogenically freeze the astronauts and send them up as popsicles.

    CORBIN...DALLAS!!!!

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    1. Re:Super green by axlr8or · · Score: 1

      Holly sugarsmax I was just about to pop the same line. Hehehehe. SMOOOKE YOUUUUUU!! Wrong answer.

  14. Re:Possibly they wanted to observe the Chinese lau by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    On another note, I noticed that all the North American news agencies are calling the Chinese female, going into space, an "astronaut". Isn't the correct term "taikonaut"?

    No. "Taikonaut" is a term some western media outlet came up with to sound cool. The Chinese government themselves refer to them as "astronauts" in their own English press releases.

  15. Re:Possibly they wanted to observe the Chinese lau by JustOK · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No quite, it actually moves the earth with special space warping technology. If that's not true, why hasn't the Air Force denied it?

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
  16. Small reusable manned craft by Animats · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Although it's been proposed many times, nobody has ever put up a small, reusable manned spacecraft. The USAF had the DynaSoar program in the 1960s, but that was cancelled. Virgin Galactic is making noises about a small orbital spaceplane. Nothing like that has ever flown, but there's no fundamental obstacle.

    The near future of earth orbit space may be Space-X's Falcon Heavy for freight, something from Virgin Galactic for humans, and robotic vehicles for military tasks.

    1. Re:Small reusable manned craft by ModernGeek · · Score: 3, Informative

      Look up the X-37C

      --
      Sig: I stole this sig.
    2. Re:Small reusable manned craft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah--it's basically a smaller shuttle designed to carry astronauts/pilots. From Wired:

      "At a conference in California last week, Boeing program manager Art Grantz unveiled plans for an 'X-37C' that would be nearly twice as long as the current B-model, with a commensurate boost in payload. A pressurized cabin would have space for five seated astronauts plus one on a stretcher — presumably for medical evacuations from the International Space Station (ISS). The C-model space plane could be robotic like its predecessor, or piloted by one of the astronauts.

      'Once qualified for human flight, these vehicles could transport a mix of astronauts and cargo to the ISS and offer a much gentler return to a runway landing for the space tourism industry,' Grantz said, positioning the X-37C as a potential rival to Space Ship Two and other near-orbital vehicles being developed by a host of ambitious start-ups."

      Also more info at Space Safety Magazine.

      The X-37C makes me want to shout something like "The space shuttle is dead! Long live the space shuttle!"

      The "death of manned US space flight" is proving to be anything but--probably quite the opposite.

    3. Re:Small reusable manned craft by waimate · · Score: 1

      From the Wired article: "Capsules, being more streamlined, must shed just 5 percent as much energy as a winged transport while re-entering the atmosphere. That makes them safer."

      Arrant nonsense on all counts. But other than that, quite informative.

    4. Re:Small reusable manned craft by ks*nut · · Score: 1

      They better hurry because within a very short time low Earth orbit is going to be a pretty dangerous place. Once things start running into one another the bits and pieces will multiply, I don't know whether it's geometrically or exponentially, okay, it's got to be astronomically, but there's a hell of a lot of shit out there that is not under anyone's control.

    5. Re:Small reusable manned craft by tomhath · · Score: 1

      The Soviets considered that option, but concluded that a non-reusable system was cheaper and safer. Once they had a reliable design they just kept building copies (and still do).

  17. Re:But the US can't get into space?? by mister2au · · Score: 1

    In a pinch maybe yes ... but this is 1/2 size unmanned version of the non-yet-existent X-37C that was designed to fit in the cargo bay of the Shuttle

    You know, like a 1/2 size version of bicycle designed to fit in your car's trunk might get you to work in a pinch ... not ideal and not even practical, but theoretically possible.

  18. Re:Timetravel by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1, Redundant

    In other words, they now know how the presidential elections will turn out.

    Lemme guess, the Goldman-Sachs candidate is going to win?

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  19. It's looking for whales by gelfling · · Score: 1

    To bring to its homeworld.

  20. Re:Kerbal Space Program by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

    That was a sad day for kerbals everywhere.

  21. An Explanation by McGruber · · Score: 1

    No official explanation of why controllers kept the mission going past the original duration of 270 days other than 'because we could.'

    DARPA needed the extra time to ensure that the XB-37B would not get fooled by the Iranians' GPS spoofing.

    1. Re:An Explanation by daveschroeder · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah, and drone missions over Iran continued unabated after the RQ-160 loss, why, then? Could it be that Iran didn't "spoof" anything, and it just made for a good propaganda win?

      (Hint: no, we didn't "quick patch" the "problem" — the aircraft simply malfunctioned and crashed in Iran. And you're buying Iranian propaganda hook, line, and sinker. Congratulations.)

    2. Re:An Explanation by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      kinda funny iran got one of our drones, and soon followed a worm in their systems... just sayin, trojan horse? (if true oh the irony)

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  22. Re:Does there have to be an explanation? by blackpaw · · Score: 1

    damn blurry monitor ...

  23. Re:Possibly they wanted to observe the Chinese lau by tomhath · · Score: 1

    Not unless it had a big honking fuel tank that nobody saw. Changing orbit takes a huge amount of energy.

  24. Re:Possibly they wanted to observe the Chinese lau by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    Could have been "out of gas"...

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  25. Re:Possibly they wanted to observe the Chinese lau by axlr8or · · Score: 1

    Wait, we went to the moon? I thought that was a hoax. (waits to duck flying beer cans)

  26. Re:Timetravel by bryan1945 · · Score: 2

    Can 2 candidates win at the same time?

    --
    Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
  27. Re:But the US can't get into space?? by LWATCDR · · Score: 2

    You do realize that nothing is so crazy that no one on that internet will believe it.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  28. Sounds sufficient to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why would they need anymore reason than 'because we could'? Of all places, Slashdot should be full of people who would understand...

  29. Re:Possibly they wanted to observe the Chinese lau by slashmydots · · Score: 2

    I think it's a lot simpler than that. Stuff in space that can do stuff is rare and expensive so you don't remove it when it's up there. If it doesn't "have to" come down, it won't until the reasons to land exceed the reasons not to. Experimental devices often are used for actual useful work while being tested if they're tested long enough anyway.

  30. Re:Kerbal Space Program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Oh, you're overstating Jebediah toughness. Sometimes he wasn't grinning, but when Jebediah wasn't smiling you knew you were in some deep sh*t...

  31. You Should Not Believe by frankgerlach11 · · Score: 1

    ..all the things the gobbermint tells you. Even if gobbermint talks to you in the name of NASA.

  32. Or At Least by frankgerlach11 · · Score: 1

    ..take some press releases metaphorically. If you can't decipher the metaphorical message, forget it. By default, forget gobbermint propaganda immediately. Helps a lot.

  33. How Do You Know ? by frankgerlach11 · · Score: 1

    The "crashed" drone looked quite perfect. How do you explain this, and how do you actually know ? Because you are in the All American Rah Rah Club ?

  34. Is That Correct ? by frankgerlach11 · · Score: 1

    "military P code is encrypted and the US protects it heavily" As a crypto-nazi comment, there is only proper crypto and your-sister-cannot-break crypto. "heavily" is a stupid word next to "encrypted". Also, I recall people stating that only the "precision bits" are encoded, but the "coarse" bits are in the plain. Also, all of it does not seem to be crypto-checksummed. Can someone explain ?

  35. Re:Possibly they wanted to observe the Chinese lau by arisvega · · Score: 1

    Yes, but does it run Linux? [ducks]

    --
    The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
  36. Quite perfect, eh? by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

    That's why the underside of the drone was completely concealed with banners, and why BOTH wings had clearly been reattached?

    Your definition of "quite perfect" must be quite different from mine. Your reply also doesn't address why drone flights had gone on for three years prior and continued uninterrupted if Iran had such a capability. I guess they downed it with their UFO technology!