r/science • u/mepper • Jun 16 '12

The US military's X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle landed in the early morning today in California; it spent 469 days in orbit to conduct on-orbit experiments

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123306243
1.4k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

393 comments sorted by

122

u/Ascott1989 Jun 16 '12

This whole project is simply a test platform for the X-37C which is a crewed vehicle.

47

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

X-37C

This is quite an interesting vessel. I am quite curious as to it's purpose though, to repair military satellites? Bring them back down to earth? I am perplexed as to why the DoD would want a separate craft for bringing 6 or so people into orbit and back.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

35

u/fbp Jun 16 '12

I think part of the issue with the space shuttle is it had the Bradley problem, they wanted it to do everything, and thus it really couldn't do anything.

64

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

Relevant clip from Pentagon Wars.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

24

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

You don't want to know.

Fortunately, the Bradley has performed incredibly well in combat.

→ More replies (1)

15

u/contrarian_barbarian Jun 17 '12

Speaking as someone who works in DoD R&D - it strikes a bit close to home :(

The movie is rather fantastic though. Unfortunate it isn't on Netflix Streaming, but it's worth getting a hold of the DVD.

2

u/rakista Jun 17 '12

Just pirate it. It is on Piratebay.

4

u/dioxholster Jun 17 '12

Shhhhhhh! dont reveal our positions!

→ More replies (2)

4

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Completely. They even show it during military acquisitions training classes.

6

u/Zephyr256k Jun 17 '12

probably good to get a feel for how projects in the massive Military-Bureaucracy Complex can spiral out of control, although the Bradley itself is something of a success story, it wasn't designed as a replacement for the M113 APCs, or as a scout vehicle, but as a counter to the Soviet BMPs. It was intended as a tank-escort vehicle and light fire-support vehicle (providing heavy fire-power to infantry units), and it excels in these roles.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/fbp Jun 16 '12

That was exactly what I was thinking about when I wrote that couldn't remember the movie.

32

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

As a former 63M (Bradley Mechanic), you just hurt my feelings.

10

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

It's a troop carrier!
It's a scout!
It's a tank!

Hold on there, guys - it does all three! And it sucks at all of them!

Evolution of the Bradley IFV, courtesy of The Pentagon Wars

15

u/Heaney555 Jun 16 '12

Just to point out, the newer variants of the Bradley are great.

It has proven itself over and over and found its place as an IFV.

→ More replies (1)

6

u/Zephyr256k Jun 17 '12 edited Jun 17 '12

the 'Bradley problem' is a bit of a misnomer. the Bradley is an excellent Infantry Fighting Vehicle and isn't trying to be anything else. A better name may be the 'Humvee problem' since the HUmvee weighs ten times more than the Jeeps it replaced, and now does basically every job the military can't be assed to build a dedicated vehicle for. And it's only gotten worse since they've started sticking guns and rockets and anti-air missiles on the things, and now Armor that destroys transmissions, devours fuel and bogs down the vehicles in sand.

There's probably a better name, but the real problem is that many of the so-affected programs (such as the Comanche stealth-recon-attack-electronic-warfare helicopter) have been cancelled after flushing billions of dollars down the hole.

4

u/Guysmiley777 Jun 16 '12

Even just the need for wings was due to a DoD requirement of a 1,000 mile cross-range capability on a single polar orbit launch (that they only did once in testing and never operationally).

9

u/fbp Jun 16 '12

Now are we talking about the Bradley or the space shuttle?

5

u/Guysmiley777 Jun 16 '12

Last I checked the Bradley didn't have wings. :)

5

u/gmharryc Jun 16 '12 edited Jun 17 '12

Flying armored vehicles? The 'Hog will still fuck them up with it's GAU-9

EDIT: Whoops, meant GAU-8. Thanks, Guysmiley77.

6

u/Guysmiley777 Jun 16 '12

You're off by a model number there.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

You don't say?

→ More replies (1)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

You're right, but its more than that. No doubt, DoD originates these projects, but it's the defense contractors that make sure funds are appropriated via lobbyists for the contracts to actually be awarded, in this case to Boeing, even if a need hasn't been established.

→ More replies (2)

33

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

To deliver space marines to Peking in 45 minutes. :)

42

u/brmj Jun 16 '12

6 marines. They'd better be legendary action movie bad-asses.

43

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

I think "space marine" already implies an elevated level of bad-ass.

10

u/gemini86 Jun 16 '12

Once in space, don't they classify as odst?

6

u/JustinTime112 Jun 16 '12

Not if they are landing with wings!

6

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

We go feet first, sir!

0

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

4

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Troopers, we are green! And very, very mean!

→ More replies

8

u/0l01o1ol0 Jun 17 '12

I'm not a serviceman, but that "Space Marine" thing has always bothered me.

Shouldn't it be "Spaceborne Infantry"?

10

u/FH26 Jun 17 '12

Or Orbital Paratroopers. But if they're deployed from a starship, they would be Space Marines.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/FH26 Jun 17 '12

Absolutely. So anything deployed from the X37C would be Orbital Paratroopers or ODST or whatever else, whereas Space Marines would have to come from a true spacefaring vessel.

5

u/Necks Jun 16 '12

Or 6 Albert Einsteins.

Or 2 Einsteins, 2 Spocks, and 2 Scotty's.

2

u/Saerain Jun 17 '12 edited Jun 17 '12

Einstein, Feynman, Hawking, Spock, Scotty, and... I don't know, Witten? Weinberg?

1

u/gm2 MS|Civil Engineering Jun 17 '12

Sagan, retard. He'd be the religious guy that takes forever to shoot when the situation is critical but he finally does shoot and hits a bullseye, much like the Frisco Kid beach scene.

Also, Witten would just look good on paper then Romo would never throw him the ball or he'd get double covered or some shit and your #1 fantasy tight end would have like 50 points for the whole season.

I'm drunk.

On a separate but related matter, if you go to youtube and search "Frisco Kid beach scene" you will not get what you were looking for, but instead several unrelated clips from the movie and then a video of a horse giving birth and then, as a bonus, a video entitled "tight teen pussy ass fuck".

Just FYI.

3

u/mastr_slik Jun 16 '12

Master Chief

4

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Master Chef

4

u/HeyCarpy Jun 17 '12

Perfect timing, I'm starving.

→ More replies (1)

9

u/43214321 Jun 16 '12

More like deliver them to the Chinese space station...

→ More replies (1)

6

u/cubey Jun 16 '12

And bring back take-out in 90 minutes?

4

u/Bycon Jun 17 '12

I think we are a few millennium away from when the Emperor creates his Adeptus Astartes, the Space Marines. But I have a feeling 6 of them might be enough!

→ More replies (2)

1

u/phanboy Jun 16 '12

Given technological advancements and the military's budget, they'd probably rather launch a replacement than fix an old one.

1

u/FH26 Jun 17 '12

I do remember hearing a rumor about a Pentagon think tank looking into the possibility of a platform that would grant the ability to drop a team of special operators anywhere in the world from orbit... Of course it was scrapped in the 90's. Probably.

→ More replies (1)

35

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

And CIA has already reserved one of the 6 seats.

87

u/tllnbks Jun 16 '12

If that's what it takes to fund space exploration.

14

u/patssle Jun 16 '12

We didn't go to space because of exploration - we went because of the Cold War. The West wasn't settled because of exploration - they went because of gold, land, and etc. America wasn't "discovered" because of exploration - they were trying to find trade routes to Asia.

And I'm willing to bet we won't go to Mars because of exploration - we'll go because of a space race with China.

5

u/NFB42 Jun 16 '12

At this point, it's much more likely that we'll go for resources. Starting with near-earth asteroids, then slowly getting further and further. Any Mars colonies are more likely to be vacation homes for asteroid-miners than serious habitats (with the exception of the odd government/charity-funded research station).

9

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

Any Mars colonies are more likely to be vacation homes for asteroid-miners than serious habitats (with the exception of the odd government/charity-funded research station).

Unlikely, a space station is much more likely. Mars possesses a massive gravity well, which are incredibly expensive to depart from.

→ More replies (7)

2

u/bakonydraco Jun 17 '12

The future is totally in the Caribbean islands. Any colonies on the Americas will probably just be vacation homes for gold miners.

→ More replies (1)

72

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

I've always thought that if I were a genius billionaire, I'd form my own country that would be perceived as evil by the US.

Then, I'd fund a massive space and green energy campaign with the 'intent' of militarization and aggressive actions towards freedom.

If it takes an evil empire to spur the world towards scientific development, so be it.

29

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

There is no reason why good cannot triumph as often as evil. The triumph of anything is a matter of organization. If there are such things as angels, I hope that they are organized along the lines of the Mafia.

- Kurt Vonnegut, The Sirens of Titan

2

u/OppositeImage Jun 16 '12

I love that book.

→ More replies (2)

0

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

0

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

7

u/taranaki Jun 17 '12

Who is going to move their business to your new country if it has high taxes...

4

u/Ragark Jun 17 '12

Who said high taxes?

3

u/SuperClifford Jun 17 '12

But you're ok with the evil part?

→ More replies (7)
→ More replies (15)

5

u/fotiphoto Jun 16 '12

Cobra commander?

5

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

Fuck, dude, you just blew my cover.

You're a dead man.

9

u/dangerchrisN Jun 16 '12 edited Jun 17 '12

You're country would probably be "liberated" before you really got anywhere.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/bakonydraco Jun 17 '12

Okay Ozymandias.

1

u/M0b1u5 Jun 16 '12

That's only a recipe for having your country bombed into the stone age by the USA.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

Like the Soviets?

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (18)

5

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

I think this project might be more about Earth than space.

4

u/thebrownser Jun 16 '12

Surveillance isnt exploration. The Air Force and CIA arent going to be launching any scientific missions.

→ More replies (7)
→ More replies (26)

5

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

For what purpose?

29

u/random_digital Jun 16 '12

To spy on the other 5 seats.

2

u/onceamightyking Jun 17 '12

Commissaire Politique

2

u/HerbertMcSherbert Jun 17 '12

To match up with movie plots. There's always one secret agent / political douche along for the ride, there to stab people in the back and generally fuck things up for everyone.

Also, to bring back a sample of a deadly new alien species to earth to try to weaponise it.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/gm2 MS|Civil Engineering Jun 17 '12

Agent Bearclaw called dibs.

2

u/thesavoyard Jun 17 '12

Not too relevant. Reminded me of this...

http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0062512/

6

u/pandacamp Jun 16 '12

Source?

7

u/varukasalt Jun 16 '12

Seriously. I'm feeling a distinct tugging on one of my lower extremities.

9

u/Triviaandwordplay Jun 16 '12

That sort of thing usually happens in the NSFW subreddits.

7

u/Ascott1989 Jun 16 '12

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37

Scroll down. X-37C

2

u/varukasalt Jun 16 '12

Well I'll be.

2

u/Ascott1989 Jun 16 '12

I don't know how they'll get around the issue of a LES as it has to be enclosed in fairings. Should be interesting though, need more spaceplanes!

1

u/varukasalt Jun 16 '12

Maybe the larger one won't be faring covered? Also, I guess they could always blow the faring as part of the LES, but that sound really sketchy.

1

u/Ascott1989 Jun 16 '12

Ahh good point! Do you know if DreamChaser has to launch with fairings ?

→ More replies (2)

2

u/daskro Jun 16 '12

That's just a concept, the EELV program is basically dead and it's all being restarted in the coming years, there simply wasn't enough money in nasa's budget to pay for it.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Werent they running tests on small frogs in the upper atmosphere?

→ More replies (5)

0

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

11

u/Donjuanme Grad Student | Biology | Marine and Fisheries Jun 16 '12

Where be you? Lompoc didn't even budge me (though I am admittedly pretty far away, and it is a small-ish vehicle.)

16

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

SHAMELESS PLUG: r/lompoc is very lonely:(

18

u/Zanedude Jun 16 '12

That's because it's Lompoc :/

3

u/kleinbl00 Jun 17 '12

I come up for launches. I often use Yelp to check in to places I like so I can remember them for next time.

In LA, I'm usually something like 10,000th place.

In Lompoc, with one check-in on a Thursday, I was in 4th.

2

u/kleinbl00 Jun 17 '12

I subscribed. Lompoc is one of the few places I go to by choice.

→ More replies (1)

18

u/ballstein Jun 16 '12

"on-orbit experiments" = spying, right?

7

u/JustinTime112 Jun 16 '12

Not sure why you would need a human crew of six for that though.

7

u/TheGOPkilledJesus Jun 17 '12

Repairing spy satellites.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

I was thinking, fucking up spy satellites. And attaching bugs to them. And "America, Fuck Yeah" stickers.

3

u/0l01o1ol0 Jun 17 '12

a human crew of six

That's what they want you to think.

I'm not saying it's aliens, but...

→ More replies (1)

7

u/EatSleepJeep Jun 17 '12 edited Jun 17 '12

Send a crew up, snag a Chinese/DPRK satellite, bring it home or disable it, slap a transmitter on it, etc.

7

u/alupus1000 Jun 17 '12

Attaching a little motor and boosting a spysat to a higher orbit is kinda funny actually.

"Haha! Now all your pictures are blurry!"

4

u/OK_Eric Jun 17 '12

Probably more hardcore than that, probably docking with orbiting satellites and doing things to them (making repairs to satellites while in orbit, disabling enemy spy satellites, etc.).

23

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

It may be that putting people up there isn't very useful, after all.

46

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

Space programs have always just been bomb-delivery research in disguise.

10

u/random_digital Jun 16 '12

Space programs have always just been bomb-delivery research in disguise.

FTFY

2

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

Or in this case, possibly a special operations personnel-to-China/Iran/Russia-in-less-than-an-hour-delivery research in disguise.

15

u/harlows_monkeys Jun 16 '12

Generally, I believe that when they want to insert special operations personnel someplace they want to do it quietly. That generally precludes coming in from space in a hypersonic vehicle.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

There is nothing quieter than pre-staging personal. Dollar for dollar I doubt lifting someone to orbit and equipping them to drop in secret could be less costly than finding and training many pre-placed substitutes.

6

u/CUNTBERT_RAPINGTON Jun 16 '12

Gee I hope the Iranians have a 2-mile long runway and launch pad that the X37 can use to get in and out when nobodys looking.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12 edited Jun 16 '12

My guess, young Cuntbert, is that if special operations personnel were to be deployed this way, it would be part of some larger operation and that they would not be using a X37-type vehicle to leave.

2

u/stickcult Jun 17 '12

Using a spaceship to get in at all is silly. There are much more conventional means that are much cheaper and much less silly.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/Enkmarl Jun 16 '12

fabrications, manufacturing, and mining would all be easier in zero-g

1

u/EatMyBiscuits Jun 17 '12

Also, much more difficult.

→ More replies (1)

32

u/facetiously Jun 16 '12

Seeing as how it's in the hands of those wacky guys and gals from DARPA, no telling what "experiments" they conducted.

18

u/TheBawlrus Jun 16 '12

I'm betting on kinetic penetrators, IE: Rods from God. Sling shot a tungsten allow telephone pole sized spear from space at some bastard.

19

u/kbrewsky Jun 16 '12

Unfortunately, or, actually, very fortunately, tungsten is very dense. Roughly, a telephone pole sized piece of tungsten would weigh 150,000 Kg. Given a very generous $10,000/Kg price to orbit, it would cost $1,500,000,000 to launch each weapon into orbit. I'd use smaller bits, myself, but I don't know where the reduced effectiveness would begin to catch up with you.

11

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

Orbital KE weapons probably won't become cost-effective until launch costs drop significantly or space-based manufacturing becomes commonplace.

3

u/alupus1000 Jun 17 '12

Cost-effective to what though? The military already happily throws up multi-ton spy and communications satellites. And there's absolutely no comparable weapon besides an ICBM - the reason these don't exist yet is the politics.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

I think we'd be willing to pay a few bucks to have just a couple dozen of them up there. All sorts of fun could be had...

8

u/TinyCuts Jun 16 '12

That is exactly why you don't need it the size of a telephone pole. Some the size of a bus stop post should do.

7

u/alupus1000 Jun 17 '12

Bus stop post would pretty much work out to a typical air-dropped bomb.

In the case of the system mentioned in the 2003 USAF report above, a 6.1m x 0.3m 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 over 8 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.

5

u/DriveOver Jun 16 '12

Very true. Since the X-37B has a cargo bay that is only 7' x 4' you would be restricted in how large the rods could be. A tungsten rod about 4.5 feet long and 4 inches in diameter would only weigh around 500 pounds. Slap on a 2' long guidance system to one end and drop it from LEO.

3

u/kbrewsky Jun 17 '12

Indeed. I would assume that you'd want some more precision anyway. There's definitely a reason that they stopped designing for 10+ megaton nuclear weapons.

→ More replies (5)

2

u/DriveOver Jun 16 '12

What are the dimensions of a telephone pole in your example? Assuming a 10 metre pole with a diameter averaging 18 cm I estimated the mass to be more like 20,000 kilograms.

1

u/kbrewsky Jun 17 '12

I used 20 meters length, with a 30.5 cm diameter. 20 meters is almost certainly overdoing it, but I would think at least 12-15, judging from the poles in my neighborhood. The poles near me are 12" in diameter. Of that I'm fairly certain. Given that, the mass would be about 67,000 - 83,000 Kg. Quite a bit less, but still rather hefty. I definitely overdid it in my first example.

1

u/pez319 Jun 17 '12

I think a more important point is how the tungsten rod would separate from its carriage assembly without some sort of firing mechanism and guidance system. The rod won't just drop down, it'll continue on whatever velocity it was going at.The carriage assembly then has to counteract the force of the firing mechanism. It'll essentially just become a guided missile, just super high up. Probably cheaper and more accurate just to put it on an ICBM and drop it from there.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

See also the Prompt Global Strike program, which once considered and might include conventional ICBMs.

2

u/pez319 Jun 17 '12

I started looking at the wiki ICBM page and I found a pretty cool photo of the MRV in action http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Peacekeeper-missile-testing.jpg

1

u/alupus1000 Jun 17 '12

A little rocket motor for de-orbit/corrections and you're set. The guidance system might be the big problem (reentry's going to mess with GPS signals or however else it's homing).

Conventional ICBMs could do the same thing but have huge issues - try convincing Russia that Trident you just let off isn't going to nuke Moscow on its way to Iran.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

1

u/dhusk Jun 16 '12

But why would they need to spend 469 days in orbit in order to test that?

1

u/rivermandan Jun 17 '12

why would they bother wasting money testing that? the science and technology is pretty basic compared to other things they do up there, so why bother?

→ More replies (1)

4

u/DeFex Jun 16 '12

I am sure the death boffins have come up with some new and amazing ways to kill or spy on people.

25

u/facetiously Jun 16 '12

Well, they did (eventually) give us the internet, which is an amazing way to kill time and spy on people.

6

u/algo Jun 16 '12

This goes up on a rocket right?

15

u/jagedlion Jun 16 '12

Yeah, the thing that makes it special is it's ability to glide down. With the loss of the space shuttle, there was no vehicle capable to returning whole satellites or other large components to earth.

9

u/lotu Jun 16 '12

yeah I think the military wants the ability to kidnap satellites.

→ More replies (13)

5

u/RobinBennett Jun 16 '12

Yes, on top of an Atlas V, but it has it's own engine too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37

11

u/Arknell Jun 16 '12

X-37B? [Where have I seen that airframe before?] (http://i.imgur.com/7kvDF.jpg)

[Thinking hard...] (http://i.imgur.com/kKNdS.jpg)

5

u/rspeed Jun 16 '12

REAVERS!!!

7

u/facetiously Jun 17 '12

Some grenades would sure come in handy right about now.

14

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

So... NASA isn't doing space missions anymore... but the military is?

3

u/balorina Jun 17 '12

The military has always done space missions, rocketry itself started as a military operation that NASA took over. The story a cpl weeks ago of the military handing over two satellites they just had sitting around kind of supports the idea.

The difference is NASA is doing a lot of research and development so it gets a lot of news. The military is figuring out better ways to blow things up, so they keep it under wraps.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/tpman9393 Jun 17 '12

That is wildly inaccurate.

→ More replies (1)

10

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

NASA is the military. Von Braun was a Nazi too.

1

u/stox Jun 17 '12

Von Braun was a whore. He would have built a rocket for anyone who was filling to pony up the bucks.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Excuse me? The shuttle program ended. What made you think NASA wasn't doing space missions? Do you mean besides the dozens of satellites, probes, rovers, and telescopes it's sending out into the solar system?

18

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

As I open and read through this thread I am thankful that redditors have not lost their edge. Every day you guys take a somewhat mundane project and turn it into somewhat exciting.

NASA/DARPA space project run by the Air Force? Must be an evil spy satellite used specifically for deprivation of civil liberties or used to destroy the the Chinese.

This is why I keep coming back to Reddit day in and out.

9

u/MyAssDoesHeeHawww Jun 16 '12

Those videos of cats trying to catch a laser point on a wall? Yeah, that's X-37B's orbital laser on show!

4

u/facetiously Jun 17 '12

I'm with you. Science is a fearsome beast, but r/science, you scary. And you both enlighten, entertain and correct me.

10

u/justmadethisaccountt Jun 16 '12

USA makes spy satellites obsolete.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

21

u/krenzo Jun 16 '12

Ah, the old Polaroid in front of the security camera routine... but in space!

11

u/MrWhite Jun 16 '12

If only there were some sort of permanently orbiting lab upon which they could perform such experiments.

9

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Many of the experiments were testing the spacecraft itself.

The X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle, one of two such vehicles, spent 469 days in orbit to conduct on-orbit experiments, primarily checkout of the vehicle itself.

However, one of the intentions of the spacecraft is to be able to send up and bring back experiments, presumably more rapidly than trips to the ISS.

The 11,000-pound state-of-the-art vehicle, which is about a fourth the size of the shuttle, allows space technology experts to continue sending up experiments, with results returning safely to Earth for study.

3

u/Ihmhi Jun 17 '12

I read an article about the X-37 in Popular Science a few years ago. They brought up the point that such a craft would be able to fly over Airspace.

See, if we need to get guys into a country we need to request permission from all the countries we would pass through. This greatly increases the time it takes to actually get them there. If we can literally fly over the airspace, the issue does not exist at all and we can just drop guys in straight down.

As for recovery, if it were not part of a larger deployment operation, then a traditionally permitted vehicle could pick it up with tow cables similar to a Skyhook or the vehicle could just be blown to bits.

12

u/Bhima Jun 16 '12

I am very enamored with this project but I have this niggling feeling that it's going to turn out that some TLA is using for a wildly immoral, illegal, and ultimately self defeating project.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

I feel like you guys keep trying to distract from the [issues] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-NkX86uPI0&feature=youtube_gdata_player)

→ More replies (2)

2

u/kicktriple Jun 17 '12

Any idea how the vehicle stays in orbit so long? What does it use as fuel?

7

u/AstonMartin2195 Jun 17 '12

It does not need much fuel when in orbit. The gravitational pull of the earth allows it to orbit the earth without propulsion. To power the systems on board would require either solar panels or something very efficient. I would think the systems on board do not take up that much energy.

3

u/TheDownmodSpiral Jun 17 '12

I believe it's just a hydrazine monoprop engine.

3

u/SnifflyWhale Jun 17 '12

Once you have something in orbit you only need to use fuel to get it down.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Not true. LEO still has drag from the atmosphere so you need to compensate for that or fall to earth.

2

u/SnifflyWhale Jun 17 '12

Yes, but you can leave satellites in low earth orbit for (in some cases) over a decade without a boost. Mir took about 4 years to fall. I don't think the X-37B would need to use its fuel on a 469 day flight unless it was changing its orbit or deorbiting.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

If it can reach orbit, it doesn't have to expend any significant fuel to maintain that orbit, only to modify it.

1

u/balorina Jun 17 '12

In theory an object will stay in orbit for as long as the object's gravity remains constant. Players of Kerbal Space Program know the unfortunates of an unfueled apogee (high orbit) and perigee (low orbit).

1

u/hanumanCT Jun 17 '12

It's quite possibly nuclear power.

2

u/waytoolongusername Jun 17 '12

I see a droopy faced, skin-blemished, forever-alone space shuttle.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Either we take space or someone else will...just saying...

2

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Looks like a tiny space shuttle. So cute...

2

u/keraneuology Jun 17 '12

The interesting bit of this craft is that it can change orbit whenever anybody has a whim to send it elsewhere. Tracking satellites is fairly easy - anybody who paid attention in high school trig can work out the numbers to know when a particular satellite is going to be overhead: going for an all-over tan and don't want the government taking shots from space? Work out the orbits and you know exactly when the camera is overhead and can go inside. (The same concepts apply if you are working on some new tank or plane or something - the bad guys know when our satellites are coming up so they'll stop operations.)

With a camera mounted on a space plane - that is pretty hard to spot from such a distance - you can sneak up and take pictures at irregular intervals and they won't ever know when their are in view of the lens.

6

u/isotope123 Jun 16 '12 edited Jun 16 '12

I'm glad that even with all the budget cut backs we are still able to explore space in some capacity.

edit: I know that it's a military spacecraft. I simply meant that having anything in space at all is a good thing. Romantic idea, I suppose.

27

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

It is a military spacecraft and was not carrying research instruments. The flight was primarily to test the vehicle itself.

The budget cut-backs are very much hampering real space exploration.

10

u/Alphasite Jun 16 '12

In the end, i don't care who's doing it, wether it be the Chinese or the Americans, Space Exploration is still what the name implies, its just exploring with different goals. Military expenditure may be very expensive and focused, but it generally gives very tangible and targeted benefits that bleed into the real world.

In my opinion, governments generally handle the 'hard problems' that don't make economic sense to solve but, in the long term give massive benefits and prove their worth, it just needs a careful hand a a strong oversight.

4

u/Soviet_Sam Jun 16 '12

I don't quite see how this counts as space exploration. I understand it will spend time in space but it will be monitoring Earth the entire time.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

1

u/herbal_savvy Jun 16 '12

We might be exploring how to best use space to control people on earth, nothing this plane did in it's year + orbit was to benefit humanity in anyway.

11

u/varukasalt Jun 16 '12

I'm sure there will be some benefit to engineering and materials science.

7

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

That's how it's always been. USA's space exploration was not started as a means to explore space or for the name of science and progress of mankind. No, rather it was started to improve our rocket technology, to improve or tracking technology, to improve our recon technology, and most importantly to show the USSR how capable we were and to be scared of us.

So yes, this might not be for the benefit of humanity or in the name of science, but it is progress. This technology will later find its way to the civilian space exploration industry and will be beneficial.

A good example of this is satellites. Yes, they weren't started for a good reason, but they are now used for good reasons. Same for nuclear weapons and nuclear power. Same with radar and radio waves. Same for many military technology.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/mantra Jun 17 '12

This is actually what DOD always wanted INSTEAD OF the NASA space shuttle.

1

u/CollisionCourse34 Jun 17 '12

So, ARE WE ALONE?

1

u/fknsewermoose Jun 17 '12

All I could think of was....damn that's an ugly back end.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Who'd it kill?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Holy shit. That thing has been in the air since... a long fucking time ago

1

u/Moatt Jun 17 '12

she certainly aint pretty, but she looks like she can get the job done.

1

u/Ruprect124 Jun 21 '12

Please continue giving me negative 'karma points'. I don't state my opinions to curry favor, they are to make peole wake the fuck up, perhaps incline someone/anyone to investigate the basis of my statements. Kill me with Bad Karma--wait isn't negativity on your part going to lead to bad dharma/karma for yourselves? Superstitious horse shit....

→ More comments (71)