Slashdot Mirror


SpaceX Rocket Launches X-37B Space Plane On Secret Mission, Aces Landing (space.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Space.com: The fifth mystery mission of the U.S. Air Force's X-37B space plane is now underway. A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket carrying the robotic X-37B lifted off today (Sept. 7) at 10 a.m. EDT (1400 GMT) from historic Launch Complex 39A at NASA's Kennedy Space Center (KSC) in Florida. About 2.5 minutes into the flight, the Falcon 9's two stages separated. While the second stage continued hauling the X-37B to orbit, the first stage maneuvered its way back to Earth, eventually pulling off a vertical touchdown at Landing Zone 1, a SpaceX facility at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, which is next door to KSC. The Air Force is known to possess two X-37Bs, both of which were built by Boeing. The uncrewed vehicles look like NASA's now-retired space shuttle orbiters, but are much smaller; each X-37B is 29 feet (8.8 meters) long and 9.6 feet (2.9 m) tall, with a payload bay the size of a pickup truck bed. For comparison, the space shuttles were 122 feet (37 m) long, with 78-foot (24 m) wingspans. Like the space shuttle, the X-37B launches vertically and comes to back to Earth horizontally, in a runway landing. Together, the two X-37Bs have completed four space missions, each of which has set a new duration standard for the program. Exactly what the X-37B did during those four missions, or what it will do during the newly launched OTV-5, is a mystery; most X-37B payloads and activities are classified.

93 comments

  1. Manned space flight of consequence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is over for 100 years.

    1. Re:Manned space flight of consequence by michelcolman · · Score: 2

      I, for one, welcome our new robotic spaceplane overlords.

    2. Re:Manned space flight of consequence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How cute. You apparently think that orbital dynamics means that the difficulty of reaching a destination in space is related to its "distance"

    3. Re:Manned space flight of consequence by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      I believe he was referring to sending humans there.

      In that case the difficulty is certainly related to distance.

      --
      No sig today...
  2. What about Irma? by wisebabo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Just wondering, now that they have an 11 story (I think) tall empty, lightweight booster sitting on the pad, will they be able to get in indoors before Irma comes and literally blows it away?

    Even if they do, are the structures strong enough to take a direct hit? (I guess so, they've been around since the space age).

    Kudo's as always to Space X and their flabbergastingly awesome repeat landings of their booster stages! No matter how cheap the competition (China?) makes their expendable boosters, you can't beat reusing them. I understand that the Falcon Heavy has passed its engine tests (a cluster of three Falcon 9s). Good luck for their November launch! Please, please make getting to orbit 10x then 100x cheaper! (Unrealistic maybe but I can dream).

    Too bad that the X-37Bs don't have enough delta-V to get themselves to orbit without using a second stage (with external fuel tanks?). Then we'd have an (almost) completely reusable launch system!

    1. Re:What about Irma? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Main Cape hangar that SpaceX has is rated for strong Cat 4.

      Most of the Cape infrastructure is rated to handle Cat 3.

      They are pretty quick in getting the booster horizontal and carted away. I would expect it to be in a hangar today, well before Irma gets there.

      I'm bit more worried about the two older spec boosters that they have stored outdoors... tho I'd assume they can find some place to stash them into before the storm gets there. These are boosters that are not planned to fly again, but might end up as museum pieces somewhere.

    2. Re: What about Irma? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jose says, "No way."

    3. Re: What about Irma? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel threatened by the hurricane, so I am going to go out and shoot it. Yee-haw! Surely that will deter the thing.

    4. Re:What about Irma? by deviated_prevert · · Score: 0

      I'm bit more worried about the two older spec boosters that they have stored outdoors... tho I'd assume they can find some place to stash them into before the storm gets there. These are boosters that are not planned to fly again, but might end up as museum pieces somewhere.

      Like somewhere in Munchkinland? Who knows the used spacex boosters might wind up in the side show of Professor Marvel given the power of Irma. With the amount of scrap metal being created in Florida and Texas this year it is going to become cheap as hell. Might be a good idea to start to develop some very advanced building material recycling technologies in a hurry, looks like a large portion of the Southern US is going to need it!

      --
      This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
    5. Re: What about Irma? by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Don't give him any ideas, he has nukes, you know.

    6. Re:What about Irma? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you been drinking? You post like you have been drinking.

    7. Re: What about Irma? by Reverend+Green · · Score: 2

      Get over it. You're boring.

    8. Re:What about Irma? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Kudo's as always to Space X

      Kudo's what? And what or who is a Kudo?

      Learn to use apostrophes, or in this case, not use them.

    9. Re:What about Irma? by wisebabo · · Score: 1

      Oops sorry, you're right it should be "Kudos". (I've got a bad cold and am not thinking straight)

    10. Re: What about Irma? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should go on twitter and shame the hurricane for making you feel unsafe in your safe space

    11. Re:What about Irma? by OldMugwump · · Score: 1

      Falcon 9 first stages do have enough delta-V to get to orbit by themselves - no 2nd stage. But with virtually no payload, and no way to get back down. So not much point in it.

      --
      "Shoot, a fella could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff."
    12. Re: What about Irma? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He doesn't need to get over it, it's awful, but he does need to stop posting that shit -- it's definitely boring.

    13. Re: What about Irma? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      You have no right not to feel threatened by a hurricane. It's not responsible for your feelings.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    14. Re: What about Irma? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That brings up a good question, what would happen if we dropped a nice big nuke into the eye of a hurricane?

    15. Re: What about Irma? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Found this link in an old xkcd for nuking a hurricane http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/C5c.html

    16. Re:What about Irma? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You meant "Kodos", right?

  3. Video... by taiwanjohn · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here's the video webcast, in case you missed it. (22min) Does not include 2nd stage coverage, since it's classified.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    1. Re:Video... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 0

      Does not include 2nd stage coverage, since it's classified.

      Well, here on Slashdot, "Nudes for Nerds", we always say, "GIFs or it didn't happen!"

      Not to split too many hairs, but if it's "classified" . . . this kinda sorta of implies that it is "classified as something". Like, "classified as safe for human consumption", or "classified as very likely to start WWIII on the Korean Peninsula".

      So what is this critter classified as . . . ?

      On another note, I would just absolutely love to see SpaceX hire the late Gerry Anderson to design their spacecrafts.

      That would be really cool.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:Video... by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      I love the way they describe the X-37B, as a platform for perfectly normal scientific experiments, nothing more, yet the trajectory is classified. Yeah, right.

    3. Re:Video... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Classified as secret and not for the consumption of plebs like you and me.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re:Video... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The military/intelligence complex and its contractors do mindboggling science. The Hubble telescope was built with lens polishing techniques that the NRO taught NASA from its experience with spy satellites. Whatever the X37b is testing (and it usually is doing just that: testing, which is science) is a generation ahead of anything NASA has developed.

    5. Re:Video... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The word classified has more than one meaning. When the meaning is 'secret', as opposed to 'identified as something', the GP's grammar is correct. You indeed split too many hairs.

    6. Re:Video... by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      But then why exactly is its orbit such a secret?

    7. Re:Video... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      But then why exactly is its orbit such a secret?

      Why do you think?

      So the folks who might want to know where this thing is cannot find out easily. Of course, it's not like you can hide a satellite from those who are intent on finding it. Amateur astronomers have found and tracked past X37b flights pretty quickly by knowing the launch time, launch location and making a few assumptions about the kind of orbits would be used.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    8. Re:Video... by PPH · · Score: 4, Funny

      So what is this critter classified as . . . ?

      That's classified.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    9. Re:Video... by Strider- · · Score: 2

      There's no such thing as a secret orbit, national actors will have the orbit nailed down within hours, amateur observers within a week or two.

      You look for the unknown warm thing against the coldness of space, and measure its movement against background stars. Not exactly easy, but also not ridiculously hard either.

      The reason why the orbit is secret, and there was no coverage of Stage 2, is that it's simply easier to just classify the whole thing, and have a clean breakpoint, than to pick and choose what parts of a mission are or are not classified.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    10. Re:Video... by Strider- · · Score: 1

      The Hubble telescope was built with lens polishing techniques that the NRO taught NASA from its experience with spy satellites.

      Well, not to nitpick too much, but Hubble's mirror (not lens), was manufactured by Perkins-Elmer, the same company that produces the mirrors for the NRO. Other than the fact that the figure on the mirror was incorrect, and that the test plans/QA process failed to detect this, going with PE was a sensible choice. They had significant experience building space qualified, lightweight, large diameter parabolic mirrors.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    11. Re:Video... by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      So it can't be intercepted. Another possibility is they use it for spying on other satellites in orbit and don't want anyone else to know about it.

    12. Re:Video... by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Another possibility is they use it for spying on other satellites in orbit and don't want anyone else to know about it.

      My point exactly...

    13. Re:Video... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of what it does is probably pretty mundane, testing out new orbital computer hardware/software, new solar panels, materials, camera modules, batteries, thrusters, etc. Things you would want to test in orbit and then retrieve to inspect for wear/tear before building billions of dollars of satellites out of them. They're simply things that will be going into the next generations of military satellites so they don't want to clue people into where they're going techwise. It probably does a few more interesting things as well (testing stealth tech, nuclear weapons monitoring, advanced propulsion, etc) and possibly a few more things that are "just ideas" for it (orbital weapons delivery, ASAT, ballistic missile targeting, etc).

    14. Re:Video... by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      On another note, I would just absolutely love to see SpaceX hire the late Gerry Anderson to design their spacecrafts. That would be really cool.

      Or, you know, very quiet.

  4. Another landing? Boring. And that's awesome! by RhettLivingston · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I can't wait to see them launching three at a time (Falcon Heavy)!!!!

    1. Re:Another landing? Boring. And that's awesome! by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Amazing that the fact that landing skyscraper-sized objects with pinpoint accuracy after a hypersonic reentry from outer-freaking-space has now become "boring" ;)

      I love living in the future.

      --
      "Casual hello, it's me, Zoidberg, act naturally."
    2. Re:Another landing? Boring. And that's awesome! by peragrin · · Score: 1

      You forgot doing that on the edge of a hurricane.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    3. Re:Another landing? Boring. And that's awesome! by WrongMonkey · · Score: 1

      Going to the moon got boring after six trips. That was almost half a century ago.

    4. Re:Another landing? Boring. And that's awesome! by Kjella · · Score: 2

      Amazing that the fact that landing skyscraper-sized objects with pinpoint accuracy after a hypersonic reentry from outer-freaking-space has now become "boring" ;) I love living in the future.

      Not to take away your personal sense of awe and wonder, but I think most people for the last few hundred centuries has felt that way. Apollo program? The wonder. Radio? The wonder. Horseless carriages? The wonder. Electricity? The wonder. Telephones? The wonder. Airplanes? The wonder. Photography? The wonder. It just happens to be what is possible now, that wasn't possible when you were born. The next generation will think, duh rockets land. They've always landed, what's the big deal. It would be kinda fun if you could pull someone out of the distant past and watch their awe and wonder at things we consider mundane. They'd probably flip the first time you hit a light switch.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    5. Re:Another landing? Boring. And that's awesome! by ncc74656 · · Score: 1

      It didn't even take all six trips for the press to consider going to the moon "boring." Apollo 13 had trouble getting media coverage until the shit hit the fan, and then they were all over it like white on rice.

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    6. Re:Another landing? Boring. And that's awesome! by torkus · · Score: 1

      I'd rather go backwards and show them all the cool stuff...granted I'd be hanged as a heretic in about 15 minutes (or die from the plague) but who cares?

      I'd still have my 15 minutes.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
  5. a 'secret' mission? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    i don't think anybody is really wondering what this 'secret' could be. expect some flattering closeups of dprk's supreme leader and his arsenal, along with companion shots of nearby chinese activity, to be sitting on analysts desks by the end of the weekend.

    1. Re:a 'secret' mission? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My bet would be on a near space component of for anti ballistic missile vectoring. The more mysterious star wars tech is to ponder the more the space components become obvious. If the idiots in dprk try something stupid or if they continue to send missiles over Japan blowing one of the fucking things out of the air might just send them a strong enough message. Why do you think Putin is still shitting bricks, star wars is happening whether they like it or not.

    2. Re:a 'secret' mission? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      The problem with working on a technology to counter your enemy's technology is that it assumes your enemy is not working on his own technology... Politicians are willing to stake all our lives on an expensive tech which has been sold to them as foolproof but human history will show who the real fools were.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re: a 'secret' mission? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      North Korea is an ideal use of a Star Wars setup. It's useless against the Chinese or Russia who can just throw hundreds of vehicles into the air or use their new supersonic ones, but to an enemy that has a brand new ballistic system for the first time, it actually has a nonzero chance of reducing 1 impact to 0.

      It will not reduce 1000 impacts to 0. At least not in the next 20 years.

    4. Re: a 'secret' mission? by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      I would be much more afraid of a Korean diesel electric boat sailing right into LA harbor or San Francisco and detonating a nuke that way. Or the cargo ship. Or the cargo plane. The crew are fanatic enough to die for their leader... heck you don't even have to tell them. If someone wanted to fuck up America's shit there are lots of ways to do it. Remember the surprise on 9/11? Star Wars is a nice toy. It prevents NOTHING. It does however make a lot of money for a lot of weapons contractors.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  6. Secret? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their mission may be officially secret, but I'm pretty convinced that they are actually a replacement for the SR-71.

    Someone take a look at their orbit, and tell me they don't fly pretty close to either Syria (ISIS) or North Korea.

    1. Re:Secret? by YuppieScum · · Score: 2

      It's in a polar orbit, so at some point it will pass over *everywhere*...

      --
      This sig left unintentionally blank.
    2. Re:Secret? by Strider- · · Score: 2

      Not if launched from Florida. Achieving polar orbit from KSC would require overflight of land, which isn't permitted. Polar orbit is why Vandenberg exists.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    3. Re:Secret? by Strider- · · Score: 1

      Their mission may be officially secret, but I'm pretty convinced that they are actually a replacement for the SR-71.

      It's not big enough to carry the cameras/optical systems needed for a mission like that, nor the power systems to power it. Also, the NRO is responsible for the intelligence birds, so your theory is pretty unlikely. A more likely scenario is that the system is used to test various technologies in orbit for future Airforce missions (say updated Bhangmeters, atomic clock designs for GPS, guidance systems, etc... ) and then return them to earth so they can be torn down and examined.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    4. Re:Secret? by torkus · · Score: 1

      I could be wrong, but isn't the large majority of the SR-71 fuel and engines? I don't think the recon pod takes up all that much room because there isn't all that much room to begin with.

      I wouldn't be surprised if they were testing various things including some cameras and optics. Granted anything that can see a place to spy on it can also be seen from that place.

      TBH I think it may be part of a long term plan for a space-based drone fleet of some sort. Either for space based warfare or other high-altitude warfare. If you could park a dozen ships in storage orbits for multiple years you could have one available over anywhere in the world faster than an ICBM could hit the USA from NK.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    5. Re:Secret? by Strider- · · Score: 1

      I could be wrong, but isn't the large majority of the SR-71 fuel and engines? I don't think the recon pod takes up all that much room because there isn't all that much room to begin with.

      Yes, but it was flying a lot closer to the ground than the X-37B is orbiting. Yes, the SR-71 is one of the highest flying air-breathing aircraft ever built, but its service ceiling is only 85,000 feet. The karman line is defined as 100km, so roughly 330,000 feet, roughly 4 times that distance, and being that low isn't a very stable orbit at all (certainly not suitable for something staying up for 6+ months).

      Why is this important? Well, the further away you are, the higher the angular resolution you need to see the same level of detail. The optics of your observation platform is limited by a) atmospheric distortion and b) the diffraction limit of your camera. Basically, to see the same level of detail from orbit, you would need a (much) larger optical system than you need when at 85,000'.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
  7. Captain Obvious here by Jimbookis · · Score: 1

    They are probably doing nifty quantum entanglement experiments. But that is a ruse - the true mission is to see how well a Hostess Twinkie's "freshness" is sustained when exposed to a hard vacuum and unadulterated solar and cosmic radiation.

    1. Re:Captain Obvious here by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      "...the true mission is to see how well a Hostess Twinkie's "freshness" is sustained when exposed to a hard vacuum and unadulterated solar and cosmic radiation."

      The intelligence community is saying Kim Jung Un's recent nuclear tests have a similar purpose.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  8. AI or rather military rockets? by Max_W · · Score: 1

    I remember Elon Musk said that the AI could can cause the WW3. I've got an impression at that time that he was kind of a pacifist.

    1. Re:AI or rather military rockets? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      I remember Elon Musk said that the AI could can cause the WW3. I've got an impression at that time that he was kind of a pacifist.

      It's all about the adulation for Musk... He will say anything to get folks to praise him, especially if it means he gets rich at the same time. it's his way of proving to himself that the taunts of his childhood are not true.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:AI or rather military rockets? by WrongMonkey · · Score: 1

      I remember Elon Musk saying that reality is a simulation. Which makes any fears about AI a moot point. But cranks are under no obligation to be consistent.

    3. Re:AI or rather military rockets? by cdsparrow · · Score: 1

      Until the AI figures out how to break out of the VM and crash the universe...

  9. i dont believe poeple were on the moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if that were true there would be colonies on there by now

    1. Re:i dont believe poeple were on the moon by deviated_prevert · · Score: 2

      if that were true there would be colonies on there by now

      The reason why a moon base has not happened is simple economics. Essentially the military spending on space technology outstripped the scientific spending in both the Soviet Union/Russia and the USA. The space shuttle program was a compromise with a huge portion going to military jug head flights and any other manned space programs Nasa had plans for were all gutted. The advancements that Van Braun and the real geniuses behind space flight were all castrated and sunk into the single lift technologically of the very limited space shuttle program. The moon was forgotten and technology to do anything other than earth orbit was restricted to robotic tech. Now even the low earth orbit craft capacity of the US is gone and we rely upon Putin to transport our people to the ISS.

      Only a fool would think the moon landings were faked. Essentially the people of USA have lost their balls and scientific curiosity about space flight and instead sold their collective soles to the military exploitation of space.

      --
      This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
    2. Re:i dont believe poeple were on the moon by Dunbal · · Score: 0

      Because it's so hard to believe in government inefficiency and incompetence.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:i dont believe poeple were on the moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no stupid the're no colonies on mars because theres no air there

    4. Re:i dont believe poeple were on the moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just one nitpick:

      Essentially the people of USA have lost their balls and scientific curiosity about space flight and instead sold their collective soles to the military exploitation of Earth.

      Now it's much better.

    5. Re:i dont believe poeple were on the moon by Strider- · · Score: 1

      The real reason why things stopped after Apollo 17 is that it was pretty much a big political dick waving exercise, to prove that the US was better than the Soviet Union. It was enormously expensive, had less support at home than most people remember, and once the race was won, people really did question why should it continue? That said, once humans set foot on the moon, it meant (really good) science got done, but don't kid yourself. Armstrong and Aldrin set foot on the moon due to world politics, not scientific curiosity.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    6. Re:i dont believe poeple were on the moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Essentially the people of USA have lost their balls and scientific curiosity about space flight and instead sold their collective soles to the military exploitation of space.

      At least they just took our SHOES instead of our souls!

    7. Re:i dont believe poeple were on the moon by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The reason why a moon base hasn't happened is simple economics. It would be extremely expensive, and wouldn't provide any comparable return value. It would be of some use, but there's not much research we can do on the moon that we can't in low Earth orbit. There's no currently valuable resources on the Moon that would pay for the cost of their extraction and shipping to Earth. It would be useful to know how the human body fares at 1/6G (we know it works at 1G and deteriorates badly at 0G, and nothing really in between), but not that useful.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    8. Re: i dont believe poeple were on the moon by billyswong · · Score: 1

      Not economic until space travel is cheap enough for us to dig and trap a 1/6 G swimming pool there and sell tickets for that. https://what-if.xkcd.com/124/

  10. More data expected. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    Exactly what the X-37B did during those four missions, or what it will do during the newly launched OTV-5, is a mystery; most X-37B payloads and activities are classified.

    It is believed top officials of Russia and China already know what those activities are. We expect soon a Russian counterpart of Edward Snowdon to release the Russian government hacked documents and anonymous and WikiLeaks to publish it. .... Just kidding. Not going to happen. They (top officials of all three countries) know. We will never know.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  11. Re:How convenient... it's fake by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    In b4 flat earth

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  12. Say what you will by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Elon Musk is someone a lot of people love to hate. Say what you will, but I think this tech is fucking awesome and he's the one who made it possible. He's a dreamer with the unique ability to make some of his dreams come true. I'm also very happy because I knew private spaceflight was possible when I was younger, only I was never in a position to be able to prove it. I was laughed at more than once. This is a sort of vindication for me.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:Say what you will by Rockoon · · Score: 0

      Simple logic argument you could have used:

      If private space flight was impossible, why was it banned in both America and the European Union, both of which then pressured everyone else (such as Libya) to disallow it?

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    2. Re:Say what you will by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Elon Musk is someone a lot of people love to hate. Say what you will, but I think this tech is fucking awesome and he's the one who made it possible.

      In this case Musk didn't make it possible, he just made it cheaper. Of course that's it's own achievement.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re:Say what you will by WrongMonkey · · Score: 1

      "Private spaceflight" has been around since the Chrysler Corporation and McDonnell built the Mercury-Redstone rocket. SpaceX is a contractor. They have some neat technology, but the business model isn't any different than any other aerospace contractor in history.

    4. Re:Say what you will by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The business model isn't any different? I'd say the switch from cost plus contracts to fixed price ones and the removal of various legal/bureaucratic red tape are major advancements towards space access. Before CCDEV/COTS started to gain traction launch contractors were basically given a blank check for every launch and a lot of them utilized it (and continue to use it for SLS/Constellation) right up to the point where the government was going to pull the plug. By some estimates ULAs launch costs were approaching $420 Million per launch before SpaceX fought their way to the negotiating table. ULA was receiving almost a Billion dollars a year just to "maintain launch readiness". Currently SpaceX appears to be providing launches for roughly a quarter what ULA has been charging, and that's before they get reusability up and going in earnest. Perhaps Blue Origin coming to the table can kick advancements even further, and preferably all under fixed price fairly negotiated contracts.

    5. Re:Say what you will by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      I'm also very happy because I knew private spaceflight was possible when I was younger

      Contrary to the Gospel of the Cult Of Elon - Musk did not invent private spaceflight.

      Private spaceflight got it's start when the booster builders started selling launches to the owners of privately owned satellites - back in the 1970's. You're only happy because you're a moron who is ignorant of fact and history and have bought into NewSpace's revisionist version.

    6. Re:Say what you will by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Actually a lot of the rocket pioneers like Von Braun actually started building rockets outside the military industrial complex. At one time in Germany (1930s) there was a lot of competition between different teams to provide fast commercial delivery of mail with rockets. The work on that was forbidden by the Nazis during WWII.

    7. Re:Say what you will by WrongMonkey · · Score: 1

      True, but I didn't include those because none of those rockets went into space. The first rocket capable of reaching space was the V-2, which was build by a government agency. As were the rockets that launched Sputnik and Explorer I. The Mercury-RedStone Launch Vehicle was the first rocket capable of reaching space built by a private contractor.

    8. Re:Say what you will by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      He made it possible. It's a long way from the drawing board to an actual working business. It takes organization, vision, determination and a lot of money. It's easy to sit around and say "oh these plans have been around for years". No one else did it. The guy deserves credit.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    9. Re:Say what you will by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      You're comparing shortwave with Netflix.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    10. Re:Say what you will by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Private space flight never was banned anywhere.
      Stupid conspiracy theories.

      Of course you need to file a flight plan and show basic security measures, after all: it is a flight!

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    11. Re:Say what you will by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      o.0

      No, I'm comparing apples to apples and working from the facts rather than "fake news". But then, I'm not a clueless idiot.

  13. I'd like to think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're using these missions to test "stasis" technology for long-term space missions; but, it's our government so nearly probability 1.0 that they're surveilling.

  14. Cosmic Top Secret by boudie2 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Five minutes of googling says the top X37B conspiracy is that it's powered by an EM drive (electromagnetic propulsion) that's reverse engineered from alien space ships. Neat-O!

    1. Re:Cosmic Top Secret by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the only bit that's NOT classified.

  15. Re:How convenient... it's fake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just kill yourself already, go drive off the edge of the Earth.