9 ms·
A plane has been in space for 500 days
- lugg 12y agoMy guess is spy. Lesser possibility nukes. Reasoning I say spy even though one commenter pointed out that there are spy satellites in orbit is that with the reusability of the craft the cost of getting newer and better spy tech into space faster is helpful on a few levels.
- arethuza 12y agoThe Outer Space Treaty of 1967 explicitly forbids the placing of nukes (or any other WMDs) in orbit around the Earth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty Also, I'm not sure that having a weapon in orbit would actually be any better than existing ICBMs.
- serf 12y agoYeah, it does forbid nukes. Good thing it doesn't forbid Kinetic Kill Weapons. The kind of thing you need to keep in-orbit for long periods of time. No/little launch signature, dynamic positions, and a quicker response than any ICBM. (personally, I think it's a spy rig)
- blueskin_ 12y agoSlower response than an ICBM if you have to move it into position first, although if they were deployed (they aren't; they are completely impractical with current technology), I guess they'd be stationed to always have coverage over Russia/China/North Korea/the US anyway.
- arethuza 12y ago"quicker response than any ICBM" From what I can see it would be a lot slower than most ICBMs as you have to wait until it's orbit passes over or is close to the thing you want to hit. This article seems to have details of its orbit: http://forden.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/2742/x37b-orbit-found-mystery-remains http://forden.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/2742/x37b-orbit-fo...
- serf 12y agoAlthough wikipedia isn't tremendously reliable : "In the case of the system mentioned in the 2003 USAF report above, a 6.1 m × 0.3 m tungsten cylinder impacting at Mach 10 has a kinetic energy equivalent to approximately 11.5 tons of TNT (or 7.2 tons of dynamite). The mass of such a cylinder is itself greater than 9 tons, so it is clear that the practical applications of such a system are limited to those situations where its other characteristics provide a decisive advantage - a conventional bomb/warhead of similar weight to the tungsten rod, delivered by conventional means, provides similar destructive capability and is a far more practical method. Some other sources suggest a speed of 36,000 ft/s (11,000 m/s),[8] which for the aforementioned rod would amount to a kinetic energy equivalent to 120 tons of TNT or 0.12 kt. With 6-8 satellites on a given orbit, a target could be hit within 12–15 minutes from any given time, less than half the time taken by an ICBM and without the warning. Such a system could also be equipped with sensors to detect incoming anti-ballistic missile-type threats and relatively light protective measures to use against them (e.g. Hit-To-Kill Missiles or megawatt-class chemical laser) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment It's not the idea to have one single bombardment weapon, but many in an orbit. That's what makes it a quick reaction. A single unit could likely be a testing platform for such a system.
- dspillett 12y agoSlower for a retaliatory strike, yes. But if you are hitting first and by surprise, you might be able to coordinate around this limitation. Once the object is in the right place it has the delivery speed advantage.
- DanBC 12y agoSlower than ICBM if the target is Earth, but if the target is massive satellite damage by spewing orbital debris then it's probably in the right place.
- iwwr 12y agoKinetic weapons would work better on an airless planet or for space combat.
- serf 12y agofar range space combat perhaps, otherwise the launch should be pretty detectable as the propulsion would need to be provided by the launcher, rather than the mechanics of the orbit (unless , perhaps, a slingshot maneuver was used to propel the mass through the enemy via an indirect route)
- MPSimmons 12y agoSeems like the perfect device for visiting foreign satellites and making changes.
- Shivetya 12y agowith the advances in rail guns being in orbit may not be a necessity.
- iwwr 12y ago>I'm not sure that having a weapon in orbit would actually be any better than existing ICBMs That's kind of the point too. Suborbital ballistic missiles can reach any point on Earth. Putting them in orbit wastes energy and requires significantly larger rockets for the same payloads. Not to mention stuff in orbit is impossible to hide.
- arethuza 12y agoI think the only advantage of having a weapon go into a fractional orbit (rather than being ballistic) is to sneak up on your enemy from an unexpected direction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment_System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment_... Having your weapon sitting in a entirely predictable permanent orbit rather defeats the purpose.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- dalke 12y agoI think it would be worse than an ICMB. Not only is it easier to maintain systems on the ground - though that could be what's being tested - but it takes a lot of energy to change an orbital plane and it takes time to make an orbit. Considering just the last, an orbit in LEO takes about 90 minutes. Even if the target is close to the plane's orbital trajectory, that's an average of about 45 minutes to target. An ICBM takes about 30 minutes. So I can't think of any real advantage for an orbital nuclear weapon over even a small ICBM fleet.
- nknighthb 12y agoDecapitation strike. ICBMs are pretty easy to detect. Little tactical warheads being deorbited, not so much. There is very little you could practically do to defend against such a thing. Even if you could reliably know every time the host vehicle was going to pass overhead (unlikely) and send the relevant leaders to bunkers (impractical), that's no use -- that little warhead could have been released at any time with just enough extra fuel to go into a slightly different orbit, leaving you with no idea when a strike might happen.
- arethuza 12y agoGiven that the two times the world arguably came closest to nuclear wars (Cuban Missile Crisis and Able Archer 83) were, at least in part, caused by the deployment of weapons that looked like they were intended for decapitation strikes I suspect having such a weapon whirling about above our heads would do no good to overall world security. Also, it's fairly easy to work around a possible decapitation strike - have the political leaders tell the military what to do in the event they are killed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_last_resort http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_last_resort
- nknighthb 12y agoNuclear weapons in general do no good to overall world security, that doesn't seem to stop anybody. The UK's strategy is unique, and, for the same reason, probably ineffective. Nobody else uses it because nobody else is willing to leave the matter in military hands. So long as a zombie Margaret Thatcher doesn't reclaim the PM's office, I doubt anyone believes that the letters instruct the captains to do anything other than report to an ally.
- thret 12y agoI'm sure the USA will respect this treaty right up until they decide not to.
- lugg 12y agoGovernments doing something forbidden. Never. /s I find these kinds of treaties idiotic. Can't do that or. Or what? Who exactly is going to do something when the world police breaks the law? The people? Yeah right.
- grkvlt 12y agoOnce a country starts reneging on its treaty obligations, its going to find international trade and diplomacy much harder, and it better not need money or imports...
- samworm 12y ago"NO ONE KNOWS" - Really? No One? In a world of terrible link-bait headlines this one manages to impress with its idiocy.
- jacquesm 12y agoI think this may be because 'no one knows' is the media equivalent to 'nobody that will talk to us knows'. Effectively that in turn translates into 'nobody in the general public knows' and what with headline space being expensive (if you use shorter headlines you can use larger letters) that got shortened to 'no one knows'.
- vidarh 12y ago> what with headline space being expensive (if you use shorter headlines you can use larger letters) At least one of the national newspapers in Norway found a way around the "need" for larger letters: "War type". Can't get larger letters in? Use a suitably aggressive looking font, and you'll make foreigners think you're writing about war when you're writing about a tax increase or the latest minor political scandal.
- frobozz 12y agoIt could have been shortened even further to just "". Then there would be nothing misleading in the headline at all. As it is, the headline suggests that some plane accidentally crossed the Kármán Line, has been floating out there for nearly 2 years, and not even the pilot or ATC could work out how it happened.
- twic 12y agoThis craft was bought by a government bureaucracy, right? So it's just about possible that nobody knows. "Absolutely, we in the 67th Orbital Wing operate the X-37B, but it's there to fly missions for the National Space Operations Office" "The National Space Operations Office's mission is to develop operational capabilities in support of our country's strategic priorities, as implemented by the Near Space Command." "NSPACECOM is proud to be providing this unique Earth-to-Orbit capability in support of front-line forces. The X-37B is currently deployed with the 67th Orbital Wing. You'd have to ask them for details of the current mission."
- jacquesm 12y agoFrom the article: "Plenty of conspiracy theorist have posed the question of X-37B carrying a nuclear payload, to guarantee a ‘first strike’ opportunity (or to have a counter-option in place). If you have any hope for humanity, that can’t be right. The US is a signatory to The Space Treaty, which is no joke. Space-based weapons of mass destruction are banned." That notion of being signatory to treaties still having some weight is so quaint. NPT, CTBT, Kyoto...
- blueskin_ 12y ago>Kyoto Last time I checked, it was Russia, India and China that ignore that. The US definitely never ignored the NPT either.
- icebraining 12y agoThe US may have signed Kyoto, but they never ratified it, so I don't think they have ever broken any obligations in that regard. Same from the CBTB, as far as I understand from the Wikipedia page.
- jacquesm 12y agoThe fact that US uses its internal politics to be a signatory to treaties and then fails to ratify them is as far as a good portion of the rest of the world is concerned a case of 'breach of contract'. Imagine you going to your bank and taking out a loan, then later defaulting on that loan stating that your spouse did not agree with your action and therefore your signature is null and void. The fact that the US can do this because they are beyond being disciplined does not make it right. If a country enters into an international treaty after prolonged negotiations and influencing the terms of the treaty the that country ought to be bound by signing the treaty. If that's not acceptable then you should either not exert influence over the process or you should internally negotiate the mandate with which the representatives of the country are being sent to the treaty negotiations with ratification being a formality after the negotiations end and the treaty is signed. The current situation is one in which internal politics are used for international advantage, a questionable practice at best.
- jokoon 12y agois this some sort of costly competition to space x in a way ?
- narag 12y agoOr cooperation? This is a vehicle. Most news involving Space X are about launchers. Also: It’s versatile, and has worked well enough that Boeing is contracted to create the next model, the X-37C. It will be at least 65% larger and have the ability to carry up to six astronauts, while operating unmanned. Space X reusable rockets and this reusable vehicle seems a good fit.
- bane 12y agoMy understanding is that the Air Force's Space budget is bigger than NASA's. Making news like this [1] make a lot more sense. 1 - http://www.stripes.com/news/air-force/air-force-spending-60-million-to-certify-musk-s-spacex-1.283645 http://www.stripes.com/news/air-force/air-force-spending-60-...
- spiritplumber 12y agoIt's Jebediah Kerman.
- sergiosgc 12y agoNo, Jebediah is stuck on Duna with half a fuel tank. Had he practiced landing in the simulator, I wouldn't have to mount a rescue operation now. I think I'll leave him there for a couple of years for good measure.
- misnome 12y agoI could have sworn he was stuck on Minmus, trapped in an upside-down pod with the solar panels on the top (so no way of righting it). Oh, Jebediah.
- freehunter 12y agoI'm still at the point of having just enough fuel to reach a circular orbit but not enough to de-orbit. Dozens of men floating around the planet, helpless and hopeless.
- jcr 12y agoIf I had to guess, and of course, I do have to guess, my bet is the X-37 has something to do with the DARPA Phoenix program. http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2014/04/02a.aspx http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2014/04/02a.aspx
- HackinOut 12y agoI have no idea how this thing could go into orbit. Anybody there who can enlighten me?
- HackinOut 12y agoApparently, the encapsulation cell seen in the article is of the Atlas V rocket which puts it into orbit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V
- rplnt 12y agoSo now we know why it won't land. There is no way to get it back up. I'm assuming this is the only rocket capable of doing so and the ban by Russia to use the engine for military missions is enforceable.
- jacquesm 12y agoYou make an interesting point but there is a 2 year supply of engines already shipped so the ban will not have much immediate effect, and they are planning a transition to US only produced engines.
- lifeisstillgood 12y agoThere is a simpler explanation - Not getting over-shadowed by Elon Musk. The success of SpaceX and all the private / not-in-military-industrial-complex companies is a direct threat to the budgets and livelihoods of those in the military-industrial complex. This is a demonstration of "whatever they can do, we can do better"
- MPSimmons 12y agoI don't see how this has anything at all to do with the mission profile for any current or projected SpaceX endeavors. SpaceX is building launch and deployment vehicles. While I have no doubt that this plane could deploy satellites, it doesn't take 500 days to do that. There are clearly other goals.
- lifeisstillgood 12y agoI am sure there are many direct project goals - but one overriding meta-goal is to not stand there looking dumb whilst Elon eats your lunch in the minds of the politicians at least.
- lifeisstillgood 12y agoI am really not understanding the downvotes. Elon and SpaceX represent (though are not the whole extent of) a direct threat to the funding of and reputation of a whole slew of US government / closely-tied to US govt companies. If Elon can demonstrate relaunch capabilities for a fraction of the normal cost, then the big question from Congress will be "So why are we paying you guys so much". This is irrespective of whether its reusable space launches, or smaller "mission focused" space vehicles. Any project that is capable of providing an answer to that question is worth tens of billions in continued funding - so the X-37B could be empty and it would still be a worthwhile investment (it isn't empty, of course, but it's value is budgetary defence, not national defence). All of which to my cyncial mind is far more realistic than a secret project to put nukes in orbit.
- 12y ago
- adventured 12y agoThis is a platform test to see if they can run small vehicles in space for extended periods of time, operate them safely, and bring them back. Next up will be real space operations once the capability to safely operate at a basic level is proven. This is more likely about putting robotics platforms into space that can stay there and go to work when needed (persistent presence). It is not a first strike system. That's silly. Any use of such a strike system that has anything to do with nukes will result in massive retaliation from any enemy worth using it on (Russia, China specifically). The US doesn't need small scale first strike options. If you're going to hit China or Russia with nukes, you better destroy everything in the first wave, and that means hundreds of nukes; and it wouldn't just be China or Russia, you have to destroy both, for the same reason that Britain would likely nuke Russia, if Russia preemptively nuked the US.
- unsigner 12y agoI find the "no one knows" angle slightly amusing. It's the famed "military-industrial complex". Do you really expect to know EVERYTHING these guys do? To have a Snowden behind every filing cabinet and in every router?
- icantthinkofone 12y agoExactly. It's like people are surprised that countries have spies and their missions and it should be detailed in the daily paper.
- jsmcgd 12y agoDoes anyone else think that they've lost control of this vehicle and that's why, despite it having re-entry capability, it isn't doing a lot of re-entering?
- tgb 12y agoThe article claimed that it's sibling stayed in space for over 400 days before reentry, so no I don't think that's particularly likely.
- madaxe_again 12y agoNo, it has repositioned and changed orbit repeatedly - while it may all be classified, much like other classified satellites, there's a horde of amateurs watching and tracking.
- LukeB_UK 12y ago"A plane has been in space for 500 days, and no one knows why" (except the people who sent it there...)
- michaelfeathers 12y agoMaybe it contains a vial of microbes that can be used to re-seed the planet in the case of an extinction event.
- josefresco 12y agoYou mean like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard_Global_Seed_Vault http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard_Global_Seed_Vault but in space?
- chiph 12y agoOr it's collecting microbes. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066769/?ref_=nv_sr_2 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066769/?ref_=nv_sr_2
- coldcode 12y agoI still think it makes no sense in a supposed democracy we spend billions on building stuff no one will say what it's good for. Especially stuff the manufacturer admits to building.
- josefresco 12y agoDemocracy or not, national security depends on keeping certain things a secret to adversaries. Democracy != transparency.
- ericcumbee 12y agoI'm going with something completely unsexy, this being what only the second flight? My money is on it was a long duration test, to see how well it held up.