16 ms·
Unmanned U.S. Air Force space plane lands after secret, two-year mission
- Animats 9y agoWhatever the X-37B does, it seems to do it very well. This is its fourth mission. Missions - that don't need people - are the luckiest missions in the world..
- hendzen 9y agoProbably a space equivalent of the USS Jimmy Carter - i.e. hacking/surveilling unfriendly satellites.
- jfoutz 9y agoMy guess was to refuel spy satellites. I imagine those sats are tough and can survive a long time. But when they get low on gas they can only do station keeping. If you can count of fuel coming, there's a lot more freedom to shift the track a half a degree as needed. It may be all electronic surveillance. I guess, you can count on satellites not changing after they're launched, so the electronics package would be good for a couple years. come back, get a new package for new surveillance. Just delivering fuel though, has a lot of value, and you could keep using the same platform for a long long time. Seems to fit better with many multi year missions. I'm sure somebody knows. But, you know, not me.
- gibsjose 9y agoOn-orbit satellite servicing and refueling has not been performed as of yet, but we are currently working on it: https://sspd.gsfc.nasa.gov/restore-l.html https://sspd.gsfc.nasa.gov/restore-l.html
- jfoutz 9y agoWell, Restore-L looks to service satellites not designed for service. If you knew the X-37 was coming, and you knew it was a flying gas station, i'd bet that problem is far far easier. You don't have to take the target apart in space and put it back together. On the other hand, an easily accessible common connector seems like something we could have standardized on and implemented 15-20 years ago. Again, i have no evidence of any of this. But it's my favorite pet theory.
- gibsjose 9y agoAgreed. Most major satellites are now designed with potential reservicing in mind, at least to some degree.
- ceejayoz 9y ago> On-orbit satellite servicing and refueling has not been performed as of yet Declassified on-orbit satellite servicing and refueling has not been performed as of yet. I wouldn't be shocked if the X-37 has refueled a NRO bird or two (or just simulated it) as a test.
- gibsjose 9y agoWhile it's not entirely impossible that some classified mission has done some basic reservicing of a DoD bird, I know from working on Restore-L that we will be the first ever to do what we are doing, namely autonomous rendezvous and capture of another satellite in LEO and reservicing. The X37 does not have the mechanical tools or sensors required to perform the kind of reservicing Restore-L is doing.
- rocqua 9y agoWouldn't those that try to track satellites notice this?
- dogma1138 9y agoHubble fixes? Also it seems that quite a few shuttle missions were satellite servicing missions including relaunching sattlites that failed to get into the correct orbit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-49 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-49
- sandworm101 9y agoRefuelling sats won't ever be a thing. There is no real need. Any refuelling vehicle will need it's own propulsion/rcs system and a docking scheme. Once docked and/or latched onto the target ... job done. The refuelling vessel becomes the new orbital manoeuvring system for the depleted sat. Cost wise, that makes more sense than having a large tanker bouncing around between clients. With the switch to ion propulsion total fuel may also not be the limiting factor. Ion thrusters can become very inefficient and/or useless after years in space. Flying up and bolting on a new rig is simpler than trying to actually service/replace such parts.
- gibsjose 9y agoRefueling satellites will absolutely be a thing :) Restore-L is going to do just that in 2020-2021, and do it autonomously to boot. I work on Restore-L and believe me, there is a huge need for on-orbit satellite refueling and reservicing. The vast majority of satellites reach their end of life due to depletion of fuel, not due to electrical problems or sensor issues. This will be a huge business one day.
- sandworm101 9y agoBut will sats be refueled or will they simply have new service modules attached to them, bypassing all the tricky plumbing issues?
- colechristensen 9y agoThey will be refueled. https://sspd.gsfc.nasa.gov/restore-l.html https://sspd.gsfc.nasa.gov/restore-l.html
- rootbear 9y agoI thought Restore-L was one of the missions who's funding was cut in the budget proposal. I'm partly funded by PACE, which is toast.
- gibsjose 9y agoTurns out we are funded. PACE may be funded as well actually, but there's no clear indication either way. I was at the all-hands a few weeks ago where it seemed to be a bit more grim but lately there has been some talk of PACE surviving.
- nyolfen 9y agoi don't think it's refueling anything. for one it has a pretty small payload, but more importantly it has a low orbit (~320km). there's some decent speculation here: http://www.airspacemag.com/space/spaceplane-x-37-180957777/ http://www.airspacemag.com/space/spaceplane-x-37-180957777/ tldr possibly a test bed for new smaller electronics packages designed for new smaller satellites
- jfoutz 9y agoEh, you're probably right. Those spy satellites have a very elliptical orbit. Probably only a few seconds when they could be close. It sounds cool, and I can think of a few ways that could work, and it would be super useful. So I'm sticking with my personal conspiracy theory. But yeah, it's a low likelihood of being true.
- marsRoverDev 9y agoI think you might be right on this one. Recent US spy satellites such as PAN (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA-207 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA-207) have started using much, much more aggressive manoeuvring strategies in order to do line-of-site microwave dish spying and spying on commercial sats. This is unusual for "geostationary" satellites, as it wastes precious fuel. If there is no restriction on the amount of fuel used, they can stay up a lot longer than a normal satellite could.
- jcims 9y agoI always imagine it creeping up on unsuspecting satellites like some kind of space puma. All up close and personal like, giving them a sniff and then slipping away undetected.
- JshWright 9y agoIt's tough to be sneaky in space...
- jessaustin 9y agoIf the satellite has "local" sensing equipment, then sure there's nowhere to hide. How many satellites have that? If such sensors aren't installed, it's not like anyone down here on the ground will notice. If someone did notice, what could they do in response? Complain to the media?
- dtparr 9y agoActually, most objects of any size are actively tracked pretty much continually from the ground. That's especially true of a state's classified space plane.
- trothamel 9y agoActually, it's pretty easy to keep track of the X-37. You could see where it would have been had it not landed here: http://www.heavens-above.com/orbit.aspx?satid=40651&lat=0&lng=0&loc=Unspecified&alt=0&tz=UCT http://www.heavens-above.com/orbit.aspx?satid=40651&lat=0&ln... If it was to get close to a non-US military satellite, one could expect people to complain diplomatically, at least.
- alkonaut 9y agoIf you wanted to rendezvous with a foreign spy satellite (I have no idea why you would) you couldn't do it in a huge space plane because diplomacy. You'd have to send a tiny non-trackable interceptor thing. If you needed a vehicle to deploy such things from, then perhaps the X-37 would make sense.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- roryisok 9y agoHere's hoping it's secretly cleaning up space junk this whole time, and returning it to earth to be recycled into toys for homeless orphans
- chrisper 9y agoWhy do the workers wear Hazmat suits in the image? Maybe my interpretation is spoiled by all those sci-fi disaster movies and games and they are just wearing protective suits in case of fire etc.
- JorgeGT 9y agoJust a shot in the dark, but hydrazine, a typical hypergolic propellant for spacecraft, is super toxic.
- Animats 9y agoToxic propellants. Nitrogen tetroxide / hydrazine. Both components are highly toxic. The big space shuttle used those for its maneuvering propulsion, and ground crews had to wear all the protective gear after landing until the propellant had been drained.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- azinman2 9y agoIs it all combusted perfectly, or do they lose some and just leave droplets of toxic liquid propellant in their paths as they fly?
- wolf550e 9y agoThe combustion byproducts are toxic and some uncombusted propellants are left in the pipes and can leak out. Has to be washed. The emergency APU on F-16 fighters uses hydrazine and if it was used and the jet landed on a civilian airport (e.g. engine failure) then you need to have it safely washed before anyone can approach the plane. https://youtu.be/Puia_yQxir8?t=178 https://youtu.be/Puia_yQxir8?t=178
- SAI_Peregrinus 9y agoYou hope it's all combusted perfectly, but there's no reason to take the risk based on a hope. And the combustion byproducts aren't that much less toxic than the fuel. Also not all of the fuel will be used, so there's some in the tanks. That needs to be removed, and could leak if there was any damage.
- atlantis2 9y agoTrump mentioned, after he had his first meeting with Obama, that they had spoken at length about "high flying assets".
- Animats 9y agoThis is the X-37B. There's a contract for an X-37C, 1.8x as big and possibly capable of carrying humans.[1] That would be a nice little spacecraft. It's time to get past capsules, without building something as big and fragile as the Space Shuttle. The USAF and Boeing aren't saying much about it, though. [1] http://www.spacesafetymagazine.com/aerospace-engineering/spacecraft-design/boeing-x-37c/ http://www.spacesafetymagazine.com/aerospace-engineering/spa...
- colordrops 9y agoCapsules aren't inferior. In fact they can land on planets and moons without atmospheres, unlike space planes. And once propulsive landing of capsules is implemented, they can land on Earth without a landing strip, and even on boats.
- jessriedel 9y agoYea, wings on spacecraft are about as elegant as parachutes. They can make sense for certain uses, but, as a rule of thumb, they are inelegant and not futuristic.
- blackguardx 9y agoTechnically, the space shuttle and this space plane are lifting bodies, which I think is pretty cool and elegant.
- theoh 9y ago... there's something particularly evocative about this image taken during early lifting body research: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/multimedia/imagegallery/HL-10/ECN-2203.html https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/multimedia/imagegallery/...
- dotancohen 9y agoThank you! I've never seen that photo, but it is obviously the inspiration for the Dynasoar poster: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-20_Dyna-Soar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-20_Dyna-Soar
- zw123456 9y agoSecret rendezvous with Extra-terrestrials? Just kidding of course but was I the only one that had a flash for a great sci-fi plot?
- daodedickinson 9y ago"high-flying assets"
- tammer 9y agoSurprised nobody's mentioned this possibility as it usually comes up re: the X-37B. Terrifying but I think not out of the question given the strategic potential of such a weapon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment
- compton_effect 9y agocool idea but I'm gonna assume its a lot more expensive to send up an X-37 and have it crash back down then it is too just send a few nukes at your target.
- ceejayoz 9y agoIf you look at it purely from a costs perspective, maybe. Don't discount the PR disaster that would ensue from the US using nukes in any scenario other than retaliation for a nuclear attack. Nukes used in anger would likely mean worldwide condemnation, sanctions, and pissed allies complaining about fallout.
- anarazel 9y agoPreface: I don't think this is a likely explanation. But if you think it is, there's a big advantage of kinetic weapons over ICBMs, namely that they are a lot more credible as a first strike weapon. ICBMs launches are quite detectable, allowing counter strikes (hi there nuclear deterrence).
- ntelson1s 9y agoWhat nobody seems to be mentioning here is that under treaties, and especially the space treaties in effect, a kinetic bombardment follows all the guidelines and is completely allowed, while still potentially having the effects of a nuclear yield, especially pertaining to bunker busting.
- dogma1138 9y agoLook at the payload capacity of the X37 it would do about as much damage as a bunker buster.
- bediger4000 9y agoI like the semi-gibberish official explanation: The orbiters "perform risk reduction, experimentation and concept-of-operations development for reusable space vehicle technologies," the Air Force has said without providing details. The cost of the program is also classified. How, pray tell, does anything "perform risk reduction"? Does that phrase have any meaning in English, or any other terrestrial language? "The cost of the program is also classified." - naturally! As someone much, much smarter than me noted, there's very few real state secrets, but there's tons of career-ending blunders, accounting mistakes, ridiculous overcharging and independent validation and verification companies that just happen to be owned by a distant relative. Those categories are not mutually exclusive.
- kens 9y agoMy assumption is that "perform risk reduction" means "try things out to make sure they will work when we use them later". For instance, now they have more confidence that they can leave the spaceship orbiting for two years without something breaking. Kind of like Apollo 8 (fly around the moon without landing) was risk reduction for Apollo 11 (land on the moon).
- JacobDotVI 9y agoRisk reduction can be thought of finding a cheaper / faster / easier way to test a hypothesis than performing a full experiment. Think of it like surveying a sample instead of a population.
- wolf550e 9y agoRisk reduction is a completely normal term in R&D. It just means experiment to raise confidence in a particular proposed approach, before going full scale production. It is meant to raise the TRL[1] of a technology, to gain experience with it. In my software day job, we write throw away code to test out an idea, and we call it proof of concept. It is used to find out early if the schedule for a feature is too optimistic by demonstrating that the approach doesn't work. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_readiness_level https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_readiness_level
- 9y ago
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- maxander 9y agoTwo years would be plenty of time for a run around Mars or Venus, if it had enough propellant.
- ceejayoz 9y agoIt's regularly observed by amateur astronomers. http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/observing-news/how-to-spot-the-usafs-mini-shuttle-x-37b-2010201522/ http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/observing-news...
- cwyers 9y agoOh don't let the F-35 people know about the space plane role or they're going to add another 30 years and $2 trillion onto that program.
- danblick 9y agoIf you read the jobs page at SRI, there's a bunch of stuff about modeling microwave communications/in the atmosphere/for offensive cyber. I wouldn't be surprised if this guy were involved in that sort of mission.
- killjoywashere 9y agoAnyone find it interesting that this thing is landing several days after a North Korean missile failed minutes into flight? Time to re-arm?
- roryisok 9y agoRe-arm with what? Bad advice?
- killjoywashere 9y agoKinetic weapons? Power supply for electronic warfare sources?
- roryisok 9y ago> Kinetic Weapons? If the US has kinetic weapons in space, I very much doubt they would plan to use them against North Korea. NK is decades behind in military technology, and the US/SK forces would have air supremacy over NK in a matter of hours, with the capability to pummel anywhere in the country with conventional weapons with relative impunity. If they have them, using them would almost certainly tip their hand to Russia / China etc, and lose them a significant strategic advantage in any future conflict. Trump and his cronies have been talking tough about China (Bannon literally said 'We're going to war in the South China Sea ... no doubt') and while it is a) doubtful that this will happen, given the recent warming of relations with China (mmmm... chocolate cake) and b) in the event it does happen, unlikely to escalate to the use of previously undisclosed super-weapons, it still makes sense to keep this hypothetical weapon secret from larger, more-powerful potential adversaries, just in case. Also, if they're rearming with Kinetic Weapons it suggests they've already fired a few > Power supply for electronic warfare sources? Since you mention a power supply, I'm going to assume you don't mean dropping EMP bombs, which, even if they exist would be more easily dropped from high altitude aircraft, and would likely be less effective against such an outdated military. I'm going to assume instead you mean some kind of cyber-weapon. The alleged cyberwarfare campaign against NK's ICBM programme most likely takes the form of malware (like stuxnet) introduced through conventional hacking methods or even on-site deployment. Sure, you can send someone a phishing email from space, but it's not any more effective than sending it from an office somewhere.
- jlebrech 9y agoso it's a more serviceable alternative to a satellite?
- sytelus 9y agoSo why are they publishing this super secret mission with photo containing people wearing hazmat suit? This doesn't look like a leak, it's full blown press release!
- shortsightedsid 9y agoIt's a form of propaganda. Release just enough information to pip curiosity and speculation. Then call the rest of it classified. For all you know it could be having a dummy payload but call it classified and the bad guys would think that it has some advanced technology.