Slashdot Mirror
Robotic Space Plane Launches In Mystery Mission This Week
mpicpp writes: The United States Air Force's robotic X-37B space plane will carry a NASA experiment into orbit when it launches on its next mystery mission Wednesday. The liftoff will begin the reusable space plane's fourth mission, which is known as OTV-4 (short for Orbital Test Vehicle-4). Since it's classified it's not entirely clear what the space plane will be doing once it leaves Earth Wednesday. This has led to some speculation that the vehicle might be a weapon, but officials have repeatedly refuted that notion, saying X-37B flights simply test a variety of new technologies. The X-37B looks like a miniature version of NASA's now-retired space shuttle. The robotic, solar-powered space plane is about 29 feet long by 9.5 feet tall (8.8 by 2.9 meters), with a wingspan of 15 feet (4.6 meters) and a payload bay the size of a pickup-truck bed. Like the space shuttle, the X-37B launches vertically and lands horizontally, on a runway.
Space weapons aren't illegal. You just can't have orbital weapon platforms for weapons of mass destruction (think nukes).
It's perfectly legal for any country to send up a satellite that could attack other satellites or space stations. It's even fine to put one up there that uses conventional warheads or kinetic weapons against targets on earth.
It's also perfectly legal to put up weapon platforms that are capable of launching nukes from space - it's just not legal to arm them with actual warheads.
The reason we don't do much of any of that is because a) we have no reason to attack anyone in space (yet), b) we can shoot down satellites from earth just fine, and c) we can attack other places on earth more efficiently and with less cost without orbital platforms.
Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
4) NASA does some really great stuff that benefits every american citizen immensely. Like your 10 day weather forecasts? LIke your GPS navigation. Thank NASA.
NASA does do some really great stuff that benefits every american citizen immensely, but your examples are horrible.
Weather forecasts are handled by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA - I love that acronym for a weather agency!), who operate their own birds (though a few were launched by NASA).
GPS is built, launched, and operated by the U.S. Air Force. NASA has literally nothing to do with GPS.
4) NASA does some really great stuff that benefits every american citizen immensely. Like your 10 day weather forecasts? LIke your GPS navigation. Thank NASA.
Ah, no:
Weather? That's NOAA, not NASA. Yes, 4 letters and starts with "N" and they both do stuff in space, but that's about the limit of similarity. Oh, and the US DOD has their own weather bureau as well--what better way to waste lots of money than duplicating the functions of a "civilian" agency?
GPS? That's the US Air Force, just like the X-37B, not NASA. The fact that the US Military Industrial Complex controls GPS is one of the driving reasons behind Galileo (and, to some extent, other GNSS's), despite Galileo being built by the European Military Industrial Complex but assumably under "civilian" control. Suuure...
Negative on the space pen ( 0-G ball pen ). That was private industry but the myth of NASA creating it continues to thrive.
Weather forecasts are handled by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA - I love that acronym for a weather agency!), who operate their own birds (though a few were launched by NASA).
NASA provides the design, launch, and project management for the NOAA satellites up until they are in orbit at which point the operations is turned over to NOAA. The last system they tried to launch with a reduced role for NASA was NPOESS--which was a complete failure. (Not all of which was NOAA's fault, it was a horrible idea that tried to merge NOAA & DOD requirements, but the reality is that there was no more appetite for NOAA to try to take on tasks that were being handled well by NASA and the successor project, JPSS, returned to the historic model of NASA program management driven by NOAA requirements.)
In case you haven't looked at the pictures: Take a look. So, is it true that the internals are lopsided so that that one engine actually is thrusting colinear with the center of mass, like you seem to assume? Nope! If the internals were lopsided then the wings would need to be asymmetric or it would suffer some pretty serious torque when gliding. The reason the engine is offset is that the origional design called for two engines. This was overkill for the amount of thrust required, so they cut one out. It would have taken some redesign to have the single engine back in the center, and since it gimbles far enough that it can still produce a thrust vector colinear with the center of mass, there was no reason to do so.
So to answer the actual question "It works by turning the engine a little bit to compensate".
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI