Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

After Almost Two Years, The Air Force's Mysterious X-37B Space Plane Lands (space.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the it-came-from-outer-space dept.

An anonymous reader quotes Space.com: The record-shattering mission of the U.S. Air Force's robotic X-37B space plane is finally over. After circling Earth for an unprecedented 718 days, the X-37B touched down Sunday at the Shuttle Landing Facility at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida -- the first landing at the SLF since the final space shuttle mission came back to Earth in July 2011... The just-ended mission, known as OTV-4 (Orbital Test Vehicle-4), was the fourth for the X-37B program... The 29-foot-long (8.8 meters) X-37B looks like NASA's now-retired space shuttle orbiter, only much smaller; indeed, two X-37Bs could fit inside a space shuttle's cavernous payload bay...

Most of the X-37B's payloads and activities are classified, leading to some speculation that the space plane could be a weapon of some sort, perhaps a disabler of enemy satellites... But Air Force officials have always strongly refuted that notion, stressing that the vehicle is simply testing technologies on orbit. "Technologies being tested in the program include advanced guidance, navigation and control; thermal-protection systems; avionics; high-temperature structures and seals; conformal, reusable insulation, lightweight electromechanical flight systems; and autonomous orbital flight, re-entry and landing," Captain AnnMarie Annicelli, an Air Force spokeswoman, told Space.com via email in March.

116 comments

  1. Refute vs. Rebut by gtall · · Score: 0

    The Air Force rebutted arguments it was a weapon. It did not refute them. The latter requires evidence, the former is mere PR.

    1. Re:Refute vs. Rebut by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

      Rebut can also mean to prove false, and refute can also mean simply to deny (though it's not how I would read it).

      "But Air Force officials have always strongly denied that notion" would have been much simpler.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    2. Re:Refute vs. Rebut by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Nawww, the spaceplane isn't a weapon (which is technically true). What's in the cargo hold includes these experiments..."

      Probably included bleeding edge spy electronics in actual service, the only reason for such an extended mission beyond exercising for stress test reasons new electron8cs and materials, which Nasa would have covered already in ongoing missions.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    3. Re:Refute vs. Rebut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      well... using it as a weapon for two years before re-landing would seem odd, unless it is using an extremely light and small form of ammunition

      Monkey-wrenching other satellites may be another purpose, but it would require phenomenal amounts of fuel to match orbit and approach a single satellite, much less many satellites

      I am inclined to believe that it is an observation platform that can make up for weaknesses in our current surveillance satellites, which have well known orbits and periods of observation of certain areas.

      just my 2 cents

    4. Re:Refute vs. Rebut by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      well... using it as a weapon for two years before re-landing would seem odd, unless it is using an extremely light and small form of ammunition

      Monkey-wrenching other satellites may be another purpose, but it would require phenomenal amounts of fuel to match orbit and approach a single satellite, much less many satellites

      I am inclined to believe that it is an observation platform that can make up for weaknesses in our current surveillance satellites, which have well known orbits and periods of observation of certain areas.

      just my 2 cents

      IDK. How important is the satellite network to communications in so-called first world nations? Pretty damn.

      Not just for your internet and cable, either; as a prelude to a military offensive, blinding your opponent is a sweet sucker punch.

      To paraphrase Eddie Murphy, "I could whoop Stevie Wonder's ass!"

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    5. Re:Refute vs. Rebut by tri44id · · Score: 2
      Using the atmosphere to obtain enhanced orbital maneuverability is my guess. With the retirement of the SR-71, if some event happens that needs to be observed from an air/space vantage point, you either need to wait for dozens of hours for a drone or piloted reconnaissance aircraft to arrive, or wait for more hours for some satellite's orbit to rotate into sight and try to watch from an angle of several hundred miles away. If a spaceplane could dip into the extreme upper atmosphere it could make a turn to adjust its ground track and get a closeup look within as little as two hours, or less if you have the luxury of coordinated planning..

      The X-37B's test objectives, "advanced guidance, navigation and control; thermal-protection systems; avionics; high-temperature structures and seals; conformal, reusable insulation, lightweight electromechanical flight systems; and autonomous orbital flight" are almost exactly the technologies that you need to accomplish this. The only thing that's missing is in-space refueling.

      --
      Taxation without representation is tyranny! Statehood for DC, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands & Pacific Territories!
    6. Re:Refute vs. Rebut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Rebut can also mean to prove false, and refute can also mean simply to deny (though it's not how I would read it).

      "But Air Force officials have always strongly denied that notion" would have been much simpler.

      No, actually "We can neither confirm nor deny" would have been much simpler, would have eliminated the bullshit semantics around rebut vs. refute, and quite frankly, would have conformed to governmentspeak tradition.

    7. Re:Refute vs. Rebut by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Yes AC, its all about the dreams from that Corona (satellite) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... project.
      Part of the US thinks that with ever better look down it will never need the services of a CIA or MI6 with humans on site.
      No amount of fences, restricted areas, sealed off parts of a nation or secure mil sites can be protected from now random reconnaissance times.
      No nation can now track most of the traditional US reconnaissance satellites and take measures not to be doing things under the US satellites.
      But with a space plane the US can be over different nations at very unexpected times capturing their complex projects out in the open.
      Lots of contractors, support, over time, funding, new hardware.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    8. Re:Refute vs. Rebut by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 4, Funny

      Actually it was launched to temporarily replace two of the mind control satellites, which had been put out of action by collisions with space debris. The new replacements were launched from the government's secret facility in Dwaynesville, PA. Unfortunately there was a brief interruption of service in late 2016, around November 8, but there don't seem to have been any major consequences.

    9. Re:Refute vs. Rebut by BigBuckHunter · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Nawww, the spaceplane isn't a weapon

      In unrelated news, police and firefighters were called to the scene of a house bursting with popcorn early this morning. Homeowner Jerry Hathaway was unavailable for comment.

    10. Re:Refute vs. Rebut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's too small to do "actual service". Dedicated spy satellites simply have way more in terms of size and mass that can be used for functional payload like the kind of large mirrors & antennas you need to actually spy on something. The govt is also perfectly capable of throwing bleeding edge spy electronics into space with conventional platforms on a shorter notice than the X-37b. Therefore this space plane is unlikely to be a fancy spy satellite. The main reason why one might build a spacecraft with wings is to bring things back to Earth gently - i.e. test how materials and gear behave when exposed to space, then bring it back for study without contaminating the results by landing with a thud. Some of that gear is no doubt "spy electronics" being tested before it gets attached to an operational spy sat, but you couldn't fit the other parts that make a spy satellite function into the tiny payload bay (a pickup truck can hold more).

    11. Re:Refute vs. Rebut by wtfbill · · Score: 1

      Actually, not true. He said, "I HATE POPCORN!!!"

    12. Re:Refute vs. Rebut by johnw · · Score: 1

      and refute can also mean simply to deny

      Not really. It's just another instance of the media and politicians picking up a nice new technical-sounding word and not bothering to check what it means before using it. Of course the sheer volume of mis-use does in time change the actual meaning, but I don't think "refute" is quite that broken yet.

      See also epicentre, code, chad, hacker, etc...

    13. Re:Refute vs. Rebut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These are not the shuttles you are looking for.

    14. Re:Refute vs. Rebut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Devils advocate here

      If one looks at science fiction and the types of sensors and controls it envisions, it would be very hard to develop sophisticated sensors and guidance systems with ultra high resolution which would not begin to look like espionage gear. At least in theory, I imagine.

    15. Re: Refute vs. Rebut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for the fact that anyone with eyes can look up and see the x37 and calculate its orbit as it goes over.

    16. Re:Refute vs. Rebut by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Yes really. When people misuse a word often enough, it stops being a misuse.

      https://www.merriam-webster.co...

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    17. Re:Refute vs. Rebut by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Weapons in space are illegal under treaty law. Refusing to deny illegal activities is not usually the best way to go.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  2. Re: Dolts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Kinda sad he still makes you so angry. Do you want to have sex with him, but can't? Is that why you're so angry?

  3. not convinced by czert · · Score: 2

    "the vehicle is simply testing technologies on orbit" -- why is it so secret, then?

    1. Re:not convinced by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Just because it wasn't a weapon, doesn't mean they weren't testing technology to develop weapons.

    2. Re:not convinced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why is the chinese space station not allowing any cameras to see 100%, and why will the CPLA not allow none Chinese on it?

    3. Re:not convinced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The aliens have asked us to keep it on the down-low, and when an alien asks, well, you do what they say. That's straight out of Alien 101.

    4. Re:not convinced by TimSSG · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Because we do NOT wish to share the technologies that pass the tests. And, this way when something breaks and it has to land, no one knows if it was an scheduled landing or because of a system fault. Tim S.

      "the vehicle is simply testing technologies on orbit" -- why is it so secret, then?

    5. Re:not convinced by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 5, Funny

      -- why is it so secret, then?

      The Air Force is just protecting their IP . . . they are worried that Über will hire away one of the Air Force's colonels with stolen design materials, and offer a competing Secret Space Plane Service, that can be hailed with an App!

      Actually, the really secret news, is that, although the Secret Space plane took off unmanned, . . . it landed with three passengers!

      The "guests" will be working on the Air Force's super secret Götterdämmerung project, which is being developed at the follow-on virtual site to Area 51. The virtual site is not in one place, but uses advanced distributed technology, based on Git, Blockchain and BitTorrent in an Internet of Things. If one node of the virtual site gets destroyed by Russian Hackers, the other nodes can recreate the work of node.

      The Air Force stated that the purpose Götterdämmerung is "no what you think it is", and that they also have no idea what you think.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    6. Re:not convinced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The technology is a life support system. There's a body in cryogenic stasis inside.

    7. Re: not convinced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The LGMs too longer than expected to pick up their sleeper, so the Secret Space Plane had to stay in orbit longer than anticipated.

    8. Re:not convinced by TimSSG · · Score: 1

      I take it you really do NOT use this site very much. Tim S.

    9. Re:not convinced by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, or to put it another way, "What do you think a secret phase conjugate tracking system is for?"

      One obvious stepping stone towards weaponizing space would be developing advanced surveillance and precision tracking technology, and experimenting with it without actually building the weapon part. After all, once you build the weapon and use it, you're committed. Everybody knows you have it, and if the outcry is too strong, you've lost the PR war, and you're never going to get money for new R&D. So it makes sense to limit your laser testing to labs (because location doesn't matter much for that), and test only the tracking/optics in a real-world environment until you get that part exactly right, then merge the two after you have all the key pieces for your superweapon.

      I'm not saying they're doing this, because how would I know, but that's certainly what I'd do if I wanted to pull a fast one on the general public. Just saying.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    10. Re:not convinced by ayesnymous · · Score: 1

      They said "technologies being tested in the program include advanced guidance, navigation and control" but they left out "of other satellites".

    11. Re:not convinced by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

      Or someone finally agreed to the Uber fare to land them.

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    12. Re:not convinced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One obvious stepping stone towards weaponizing space would be developing advanced surveillance and precision tracking technology, and experimenting with it without actually building the weapon part.

      We have all the technology we need, in fact way beyond, do deploy space-to-space or space-to-ground weapon systems. The reason they don't exist is because we are bound by treaty not to deploy them, not because we need to develop and test the technology further.

      The Air Force's statements about testing new space technologies makes a lot of sense. Further, it seems that the most likely end goal of this development platform is to have a surveillance platform that can repeatedly change orbits to get coverage over hot spots when needed.

    13. Re:not convinced by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      We have all the technology we need, in fact way beyond, do deploy space-to-space or space-to-ground weapon systems.

      Depends on what you mean by "space-to-ground weapons systems". If you mean something that can hit a building from space, sure, we could do that today. But for any weapons system to be useful in modern-day asymmetrical warfare (e.g. terrorism), you need to be able to identify a target reliably. If you use ground-based surveillance to find the target, you're already in harm's way, so there's not much point in putting the weapons themselves in space. To some degree, this is also true for aircraft. So at least in my mind, the minimum level of resolution you really need to make those sorts of weapons truly useful is about 1 pixel per centimeter—high enough resolution to maybe identify a human face.

      Unfortunately, atmospheric interference makes that sort of completely impractical from geostationary orbit; I think the state of the art is something like 25 cm per pixel, which means a human head is only one pixel tall. Right now, even from low Earth orbit, AFAIK, the state of the art is something like 8 cm resolution, which means a human head is only three pixels tall. So we're still a good order of magnitude away from satellites being even marginally useful for surveillance in modern warfare against anything other than an actual national military force or other large group of individuals working out of something resembling a traditional "base", and we're two orders of magnitude away from the images being what most people would consider acceptable for reliably identifying an assassination target.

      But a platform that starts in LEO, dipping down far enough into the atmosphere to identify a target and shoot it before going back into space... that just might be within the realm of possibility, or if not, then it is at least a lot closer to being possible than it would be from orbit.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  4. In space ... by PPH · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... nobody can hear you go "Pew, pew, pew."

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:In space ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Space... nobody can hear you go "Pew, pew, pew."

      Somebody forgot to tell George Lucas.

    2. Re:In space ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are chasing a ship, and its exhaust is hitting your hull, you should be able to hear that. If you blow up a ship, and the debris hits your ship, you will most definitely hear that. If you have a wideband analog radio, you should pick up all kinds of noise from any kind of engine that uses strong electromagnetic fields, such as a TIE fighter's ion engines. If your analog radio has a highly sensitive directional antenna, then you might even be able to hear your enemy's droid chatting with their ship's computer.

      Space isn't silent, it just sounds by different rules.

    3. Re: In space ... by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      So when we're watching early 1900's dogfights, we should actually hear the roar and hiss of air and fuel flowing through updraft carburetors?

    4. Re: In space ... by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      You'll hear the roar and hiss... no updraft action. I owned one of those planes. You don't hear that.

      You'll also hear the rat tat tat of the machine guns... and if you're hit the blap blap blap (splat if it hits the other guy).

    5. Re:In space ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The X-37B was routing output from the HAARP array to the greys. Their anal probing initiative required an orange & strangely compelling, bombastic occupant in the White House in order to coordinate the brainwaves of large numbers of passive recipients. They meditate to the nonsense phrase "The Mexicans Will Pay for the Wall".

  5. I've seen it by Billy+the+Mountain · · Score: 2

    I've observed this satellite, OTV4, in orbit several times over the last couple years; it being large and reflective enough to be easily seen by the unaided eye. I figured the day would come when it would be brought in but since it was a secret project the landing date was anyone's guess. Glad it was a happy landing.

    --
    That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
    1. Re:I've seen it by umafuckit · · Score: 1

      If you have access to a even a modest sized telescope it's possible to see details on the ISS. I've seen the solar panels on visually with a 10" reflector.

      --
      soylentnews.org
    2. Re:I've seen it by tquasar · · Score: 1

      I've seen it too., thanks to Heavens Above. http://www.heavens-above.com/

    3. Re: I've seen it by bestweasel · · Score: 1

      Must be fun trying to track it through a telescope.

    4. Re: I've seen it by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      A long time ago, a friend told me about his new telescope. He'd set it up and it would checkout the GPS satellites to figure out its location and orientation and time. Then, if he gave it something to look at, it would (if possible) turn itself to aim at that. I believe that, if he wanted to look at a satellite, it would keep the scope on the target as long as possible.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  6. plane? by John.Banister · · Score: 2

    Isn't "drone" the word we use for "unmanned plane?" "Classified X-37B orbital drone" sounds to me like a better description for this machine.

  7. Re:Dolts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Damn, Trump's win has caused the greatest whine fest in all of human history. Grab your pacifier and head for your safe space, it'll all be OK.

  8. Re:Dolts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Oddly enough, it is the Trump voters who are doing the most whining while the rational members of the conversation point out a constant barrage of lies and inconsistent statements coming out of the President's mouth and spokes-people

  9. One small detail... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    "Technologies being tested in the program include advanced guidance, navigation and control; thermal-protection systems; avionics; high-temperature structures and seals; conformal, reusable insulation, lightweight electromechanical flight systems; and autonomous orbital flight, re-entry and landing," [...]

    Coming to a Walmart near you!

    1. Re:One small detail... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The Air Force had their fingers deep in the Shuttle program - mostly to it's detriment. Cross-range landing capability, payload size and a host of other goals were stuffed into the project making it one of the largest human kludges ever designed.

      Now they get to play with their own toys. If we're very nice, they might let NASA take a peek. But probably not. There are both valid reasons for keeping the military technologically ahead of the civilian space program and some institutional / paranoia reasons.

      Hopefully everyone remembers enough of the Shuttle program to not try to make a one size fits all high technology vehicle.

      Like the F-35.

      Sigh.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:One small detail... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Like the F-35.

      But with the F-35, it is the Marines, not the USAF, that are ruining it.
      The V/STOL capability has required a lot of compromises in other capabilities.

    3. Re:One small detail... by thesupraman · · Score: 2

      For example the dysfunctional (and almost useless even if functional) gun, the abysmal helmet, and the serviceability?
      Yeah, those were the marines...

      US pork procurement procedures are what ruined it, and pretty much every other US military project in the last 20+ years, not the marines.

      Meanwhile the Russians and the Chinese are making actual progress..

    4. Re:One small detail... by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

      The V/STOL Marine version of the F-35 is completely separate from the Air Force and Navy versions.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    5. Re:One small detail... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      The V/STOL Marine version of the F-35 is completely separate from the Air Force and Navy versions.

      Yet the ability to create a V/STOL version required compromises in the airframe, engine placement, and many other areas of the base design, that weaken all the versions. Likewise, the Navy's need for an airframe that can handle steam catapult launches and arresting cable landings, means that the Air Force is getting a heavier airframe than they need, resulting in a slower plane with a reduced range.

    6. Re: One small detail... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could have a healthcare system befitting the first world for all that money.

      Nah, stupid idea.

    7. Re: One small detail... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Marines needed a new plane first. It's the other services who should have thought twice about adapting the design to their needs in an attempt to save money through commonality.

    8. Re:One small detail... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Space Shuttle design makes perfect sense what you understand what it was intended to do: Fly to space, capture Soviet spy satellites, and return them safely to the ground. Oh, and also make everything look peaceful-like by flying 7 people around doing civilian crap. Two birds, one stone.

      Funny how the Hubble fit in there so well huh?

    9. Re:One small detail... by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking winged space vehicles have some advantages like returning high value items to an air force base with a hard surface so it can easily be towed to a building. No need to call the Navy to fetch out of water or drag item out of a dusty desert. Or do a high risk mid-air retrieval like in the early days of film return recon sats. However, scaling up to Shuttle size increases costs way beyond anyone wants to pay for it.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    10. Re:One small detail... by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      It reminds me of an attempt in the early '60s to do similar. We ended up w/ the F4 Phantom II. Pretty much living proof that a pig *can* fly given sufficient thrust.

      Through upgrades, re-thinking tactics, and training, it was turned into an adequate, if expensive weapon.

      It appears that every generation needs to make the same mistakes as their forebears.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  10. First landing since...? by NEDHead · · Score: 1

    I guess they don't count the SpaceX booster returns

    1. Re:First landing since...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did those land at the shuttle landing facility or another part of the Kennedy Space Center? I don't think KSC staff would be happy about a rocket landing flame-first on a runway that meticulously maintained after all.

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

    Go look at the OP post, then come back, and we'll discuss why snowflake is going to be the word of 2017.

  12. Re: Dolts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Do you want to have sex with him, but can't? Is that why you're so angry?"

    Yeah, Vladimir is having all the fun.

  13. Re:Dolts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Damn, Trump's win has caused the greatest whine fest in all of human history. Grab your pacifier and head for your safe space, it'll all be OK.

    Christ, don't you remember how people whined about Obama? You must have a very selective memory.

  14. Re: Dolts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe you should suck some more cock, you stupid snowflake. All I hear are snowflakes like you bitching and crying. Die.

  15. Re:Dolts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn, you retarded faggots have nothing to keep you from getting impeached personally, not just Presidentially...

  16. Mount a Ma Deuce on that sucker by Snotnose · · Score: 1

    Remote tracking from earth, or advanced software that lets someone on the ground say "shoot that", and who can prove it wasn't random space junk that took out that satellite.

    Oh shit, if you don't hear from me tomorrow start a gofundme to get me a lawyer.

    1. Re:Mount a Ma Deuce on that sucker by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Remote tracking from earth, or advanced software that lets someone on the ground say "shoot that", and who can prove it wasn't random space junk that took out that satellite.

      Anyone who tracks pieces of space junk, I would think.

      Look at this device in context. China, Russia and the US are all working on hypersonic weapons. With such a weapon, you could potentially strike any point on the Earth within an hour, combining the global reach of an ICBM and the precision terminal guidance of a smart bomb, without the political ... well, fallout you'd get from the brute force of a nuclear strike.

      You obviously could weaponize a space drone, but once you'd actually used it the cat would be out of the bag. Everyone would know you're stationing weapons in space, so next time there's a chance of a conflict all your space assets are a target, which of course is especially bad for the country with the most space assets. Oh, don't get me wrong. You'd surely keep your options open, probably even discreetly study the problem, especially in an cost-is-no-object procurement atmosphere.

      But the thing that a military who's increasingly emphasizing precision from afar needs most is to know is the right chimney to drop the bomb down. So while I wouldn't be surprised if the program did have some space-based weapons goals, I'd be really surprised if it didn't have intelligence-gathering goals.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  17. Lots of uses by BlueCoder · · Score: 1

    I think it's primary mission is as a roving spy satellite platform which can change orbit. Maybe even as a platform for the deployment and possibly retrieval of micro satellites. Lets say you want to observe an area that you think is active only when typical satellites are not overhead. You could launch a micro sat with stealth tech to do short term undetectable observation. This is highly likely I believe. Less probable but maybe even more useful would near silent reusable small sats that could sync back up and refuel as well transfer it's data.

    Another future use (after they perfect the former) would be as a platform to launch interceptor drones that could sync up and to other satellites so as to be ready to disable the satellite on command either though temporary jamming (likely) or permanently from small EMP/Xray like devices which would be preferable to blowing the satellites up. Prime targets would be all the global positioning satellites going up from Russia and China as well as of course foreign and commercial spy satellites. This one is more of a theoretical.

    1. Re:Lots of uses by Snotnose · · Score: 1

      Let's say it has a .50 machine gun on it with a few thousand rounds of ammo. Let's say it can change orbits. Let's say someone on the ground can say "that one".

      Let's try to argue we shot it down as opposed to space junk hitting it.

      / then again, with it's payload it probably has a few million rounds of ammo

    2. Re:Lots of uses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Air Force is a branch of the US armed forces. It would follow that their top secret X-37B program could serve as a weapons platform if necessary. I am surprised that no other country has yet developed their own vehicles since they have to be aware how vulnerable their satellites are.

    3. Re:Lots of uses by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      Why the hell would anyone mount a machine gun on a satellite? The bullets will be moving 1.5 km/s, and the thing it's shooting at is moving at 7.8 km/s. If the 2 satellites weren't on a collision course already, the bullet has no chance of hitting anything. Not to mention the recoil will put your satellite out of alignment instantly.

      Oh and changing orbits takes a ridiculous amount of fuel. You're better off using a normal satellite, one without all of the added weight of thermal protection necessary for reentry.

    4. Re:Lots of uses by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Why the hell would anyone mount a machine gun on a satellite?

      Why, indeed?

      These days there are such things as guided bullets. It's not hard to imagine a large projectile (in the tens of mm range, perhaps) which would be guided not by fins, but by jets. Then you could make a course correction.

      Not to mention the recoil will put your satellite out of alignment instantly.

      Obviously, you take that into account.

      You're probably right anyway, though. You'd use something more like a rocket and less like a bullet. For example, you could use a Gyrojet.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Lots of uses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets say someone doesn't understand the physics of firing a .50 cal in space :)

    6. Re:Lots of uses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I think it's primary mission is as a roving spy satellite platform which can change orbit."

      Can it change useless apostrophes? it's means it is.

    7. Re:Lots of uses by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Lets say someone doesn't understand the physics of firing a .50 cal in space :)

      Ha!

      I still want to see the movie, though.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  18. Re:Dolts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is your point that Trump's voters are violent, thin skinned, fruitcakes and uneducated hillbillies?

  19. Re: Dolts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shouldn't you be investigating Podesta's pizza parlor to deflect attention for you love of teen boys, twinkle toes?

  20. Re:Dolts by MrKaos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Grab your pacifier and head for your safe space, it'll all be OK.

    Space is not safe. Apart from not having any air to breathe it is really hot and cold at the same time. Also stuff is fast and if it hits you it hurts. There are these invisible wells full of gravity which tend to suck.

    In safe space nobody can hear you scream 'SAFETY'

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  21. Re:Dolts by mcswell · · Score: 1

    What does that have to do with the article? If you're going to complain about him, at least do it somewhere relevant. Otherwise you look like a (worse) fool.

  22. Re:Dolts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (Shrug) Whatever. They'll be saying worse things about him, themselves, when they realize what they bought into.

  23. Re:Dolts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn, Trump's win has caused the greatest whine fest in all of human history.

    Yeah, by himself and his own supporters. I've never seen such a bunch of sore winners.

  24. Why? by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

    What is with the decontamination suits they're wearing? Why are they necessary?

    1. Re:Why? by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      Those are heat shields. Even ceramic doesn't cool from 3000C very quickly.

    2. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So they won't catch the Andromeda strain.

    3. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very unlikely. Those suits include respirators. This is obviously a radiological payload, in violation of treaties.
      This shuttle is a nuclear first strike capability, and mark my words, it will be tested on North Korea before the decade is through. It's much harder to detect and defend against a low orbit attack, this shuttle makes ICBMs obsolete in terms of first strike.

    4. Re:Why? by Jzanu · · Score: 2

      No. Breathing superheated air even at 150C causes burns inside human lungs - that leads to drowning in the fluids released after.

    5. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Long-term storable propellants are currently all toxic. The vehicle will have used them to make its landing burn, so it's just fired an engine with a toxic exhaust. A bunny suit keeps the poisonous crap away from delicate human skinflesh.

    6. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because the hydrazine fuel almost every spacecraft uses is incompatible with human life. That cart and big hose they have hooked up to the craft are draining the remaining tank contents. There are later pictures where workers are approaching the craft in plain clothes.

    7. Re:Why? by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      You sound reasonable. But I am going with the psycho. Must be a nuclear bomb.

    8. Re:Why? by jdc_slashdot · · Score: 1

      Those are protective gear for hypergolic propellants. Wikipedia says the X-37 engine was changed to use nitrogen-tetroxide/hydrazine. Those are both toxic, but deliver much more reliable engine restarts, hence consistent with the X-37's long-duration mission objectives.

    9. Re:Why? by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      same reason the first group that arrives to a Shuttle orbiter after wheels stop. Decontamination suits protects them from any leaky hydrazine or nitrogen tetroxide fumes from reaction control jets. One whiff of those gases and you are dead. Notice these guys in decontamination suits carry a sniffer detector.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    10. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hydrazine is given and "well explainable", but could you really say that there is NO radiological payload?

  25. Re: Dolts by runnymedecourt · · Score: 0

    I thought snowflakes melted in the spring.

  26. Re:Dolts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bad luck dumb cunt, Nobody wants to visit a shithole full of inbred morons.

  27. Re:space.com is owned by chinese gov by rsmith-mac · · Score: 3, Interesting

    space.com is owned by chinese gov

    Uh, no.

    Space.com is owned by the Purch Group, which is an American media company based in New York.

  28. Re: Dolts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Can you explain why all Trump supporters are so obsessed with cocks and cuckolding please.

  29. Re: Dolts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought snowflakes being unique was an interesting fact meant to increase peoples understanding of the world.

  30. Re:Dolts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait - who's talking about visiting San Francisco?

  31. Re:Dolts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't recall "Obama is the devil" being the top comment on a story about a spaceplane... How is no one talking about the spaceplane?

  32. HAZMAT suits worn by crew at landing by Danathar · · Score: 1

    Can somebody explain to me what the need is for the elaborate suits the ground crew is wearing? They look like full on Biohazzard suits.

    1. Re:HAZMAT suits worn by crew at landing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hydrazine?

  33. Re: Dolts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sort of like how the left were all fixated on "teabaggers" when talking about the TEA party?

  34. reconfigurimable by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    "It wasn't carrying any weapons this time."

    --

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

  35. Nothing to see here. by NoSalt · · Score: 1

    The plane is simply using the Air Force's new warp technology to check out some neighboring solar systems for conquering ... ummm, I meant colonization.

  36. Re:Dolts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And yet, this entire line of conversation started with a trolling "Trump's a dolt. His voters are fucking fruitcakes and uneducated hillbillies."

  37. Jet fuel can't melt steel beams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to work in front of molten iron all day before they closed the foundry down. We didn't need suits to breath yet the iron was at 2300F. You obviously couldn't get super close to it, but the square-cube law kept us in relative comfort.

    1. Re:Jet fuel can't melt steel beams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's F, C is twice as hot for a given number.