It's Baaack! XB-37B Finally Lands

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

It's Baaack! XB-37B Finally Lands

Posted by timothy on Saturday June 16, 2012 @04:29AM from the ready-for-a-nice-classified-nap dept.

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."

27 of 123 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Coincidental timing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-16 04:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

Same day the Chinese launch their most ambitious manned mission thusfar? Mmmkay.
Possibly they wanted to observe the Chinese launch by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-16 04:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

Possibly they wanted to observe the Chinese space launch. It would provide a good evaluation of what Chinese missiles can do.
Re:Possibly they wanted to observe the Chinese lau by MightyYar · 2012-06-16 04:57 · 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.
man in space? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-16 05:02 · 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 · 2012-06-16 05:08 · 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 Bevilr · 2012-06-16 06:06 · 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
3. Re:man in space? by daveschroeder · 2012-06-16 10:18 · 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.
4. Re:man in space? by timeOday · 2012-06-16 13:54 · 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?
The future of spaceflight is robotic by warewolfsmith · 2012-06-16 05:28 · 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 · 2012-06-16 06:03 · 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 · 2012-06-16 06:06 · 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 JustOK · 2012-06-16 06:16 · 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
4. Re:The future of spaceflight is robotic by KeensMustard · 2012-06-16 10:13 · 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?
5. Re:The future of spaceflight is robotic by ganjadude · 2012-06-16 16:03 · 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
6. Re:The future of spaceflight is robotic by KeensMustard · 2012-06-17 00:50 · 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.
Re:But the US can't get into space?? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-16 05:32 · 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.
Esxplanation by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-06-16 05:39 · 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
Re:Possibly they wanted to observe the Chinese lau by Jeng · 2012-06-16 05:58 · 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.
Re:Possibly they wanted to observe the Chinese lau by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-16 05:59 · 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.
Re:Possibly they wanted to observe the Chinese lau by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-16 06:02 · 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.
Re:Possibly they wanted to observe the Chinese lau by JustOK · 2012-06-16 06:11 · 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
Small reusable manned craft by Animats · 2012-06-16 06:19 · 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 · 2012-06-16 07:05 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Look up the X-37C
  
  --
  Sig: I stole this sig.
Re:An Explanation by daveschroeder · 2012-06-16 10:17 · 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.)
Re:Timetravel by bryan1945 · 2012-06-16 13:25 · Score: 2

Can 2 candidates win at the same time?

--
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Re:But the US can't get into space?? by LWATCDR · 2012-06-16 13:34 · 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.
Re:Possibly they wanted to observe the Chinese lau by slashmydots · 2012-06-16 17:37 · 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.