backtop

Print 39 comment(s) - last by fteoath64.. on Dec 5 at 9:30 AM

X-37B  (Source: space.com)
The X-37B was supposed to land 270 days after launch, but the Air Force is extending the space plane's mission with no exact landing date in sight

The U.S. Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office has decided to extend the trip of the secretive X-37B experimental robotic space plane, which is pushing its own orbital record.

The X-37B, also known as Orbital Test Vehicle-2, is a mysterious unmanned craft that was built by Boeing Co.'s Space and Intelligence Systems unit in Huntington Beach. It is a 29-foot space plane that is the second of its kind, and has been circling the Earth since its launch atop an Atlas 5 rocket from Cape Canaveral, Florida earlier this year.

The Air Force has said that the X-37B is used to test new technologies in space, but some industry analysts believe that it is a test unit for a potential orbiting weapon, which could disable foreign satellites or drop bombs as it makes its way around the Earth.

X-37B taxiing on a runway in 2009 [Source: af.mil]

The X-37B was supposed to land 270 days after launch, but the Air Force is extending the space plane's mission with no exact landing date in sight.

"We initially planned for a nine-month mission, which we are roughly at now, but we will continue to extend the mission as circumstances allow," said Lt. Col Tom McIntyre, the spacecraft's systems program director. "Keeping the X-37 in orbit will provide us with additional experimentation opportunities and allow us to extract the maximum value out of the mission.

"We are learning new things about the vehicle every day, which makes the mission a very dynamic process."

Sources: Los Angeles Times, Space.com


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
I don't think it's a weapon
By 91TTZ on 11/30/2011 12:20:12 PM , Rating: 5
It's most likely a temporary spy satellite with an adjustable orbit.

The problem with most spy satellites is that once their position is known, they stay in that same orbit and their location is predictable. You know what times it will be overhead so you can schedule your illicit activities accordingly.

With a temporary spy satellite such as this, you can launch it and then change the orbit slightly once it's in space. You're not going to change the orbit a lot because that would require too much fuel, but you can change it slightly to make it harder to detect. Eventually it will be detected anyway, but the good thing about this is that you'll send it on short missions after which it will return and then you can send it on a different mission using a different orbit.

I'm not sure if it has any stealth abilities so I don't know how detectable it would be by radar. The one in the picture has a white top like the Space Shuttle, but you could probably make it all black as long as you thermally insulate it well enough and have some refrigerant onboard. Making it black would make it harder to detect by telescope since it would blend in with the darkness of space.




RE: I don't think it's a weapon
By geddarkstorm on 11/30/2011 12:47:21 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed. Considering amateur star gazers were able to find and track it last time, it definitely isn't made for secrecy at the moment.

Your analysis seems to be bang on. I could imagine a plane of that size could also carry electronic weapons for satellite interference, since it can dynamically move closer to one, and that sort of thing. There's a lot of potential for a space plane; and temporary spying is a good one.


RE: I don't think it's a weapon
By toyotabedzrock on 11/30/2011 6:59:05 PM , Rating: 2
It is way to small to have a weapon against satalites. You would run out of fuel moving it around to do that.

And electronic weapons are out of the question since it would run out of power without a solar panel.


By geddarkstorm on 12/1/2011 3:58:06 AM , Rating: 2
It can have a deployable solar panel as far as I know, so power shouldn't be an issue.


RE: I don't think it's a weapon
By Reclaimer77 on 11/30/2011 1:05:26 PM , Rating: 1
LOL "drop bombs from space!" hahaha what a load of bull. We can drop bombs anywhere we want or use cruise missiles which can't be detected. Why would we need to weaponize this thing?

I agree with you. This is no "weapon".


RE: I don't think it's a weapon
By Etern205 on 11/30/11, Rating: 0
RE: I don't think it's a weapon
By danjw1 on 11/30/2011 3:23:32 PM , Rating: 2
Who needs a bomb? Haven't you ever heard of kinetic energy? All you need to drop is an object with enough mass that can steer itself well enough to hit a target.


RE: I don't think it's a weapon
By Etern205 on 11/30/2011 3:30:23 PM , Rating: 2
I doubt bombs from WWI are able to steer itself.


RE: I don't think it's a weapon
By Reclaimer77 on 11/30/2011 3:54:47 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Who needs a bomb? Haven't you ever heard of kinetic energy? All you need to drop is an object with enough mass that can steer itself well enough to hit a target.


There are far more practical ways of tanking out tanks and smaller targets than bombing them from space. A kinetic bomb wouldn't do much against large targets like factories, hardened bunkers, underground bases etc etc. Also the lack of an explosive would mean no "secondary" explosions which bombs are so famous for causing.


RE: I don't think it's a weapon
By Paj on 12/1/2011 7:47:40 AM , Rating: 1
A kinetic bomb would do tremendous damage, if travelling at a high enough speed.

For example, a 1kg mass tavelling at the speed of light would release the equivalent energy to a 132 megaton nuke on impact. Obviously that speed is nowhere near obtainable, but if you add mass and slow the speed, you still have a pretty potent weapon.


RE: I don't think it's a weapon
By Gondor on 12/3/2011 4:10:39 AM , Rating: 2
Objects falling from the orbit onto Earth don't move at the speed of light though; they move much slower, resulting in much lower kinetic energy (which goes up as the square of velocity of the object while mass only contributes to the kinetic energy proportionally).


RE: I don't think it's a weapon
By ekv on 12/1/2011 1:53:17 AM , Rating: 2
I remember reading some sci-fi books years ago with kinetic energy "bombs" as the theme. Will have to look up specifics though since reality has caught up and is a little more interesting. Check out Brilliant Pebbles [sorry, can't find the link for the wmv right now] and/or Prompt Global Strike

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_Global_Strike

For the P.G.S. idea the X-51 looks to be better conceptually, and is being pursued actively by the military. [Missiles also avoid Space Weaponization treaties]. See

U.S. Looks to Jump Into Hypersonic Future With X-51 Missile Test

http://www.dailytech.com/US+Looks+to+Jump+Into+Hyp...

Of course, if they could only get the hypersonic missile to work 8)

There is also, ahem, E.K.V.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoatmospheric_Kill_V...

(successfully tested at the beginning of the current administration AND then defunded, draw your own conclusions).

http://www.mda.mil/system/gmd.html

The Raytheon built kill vehicle itself (not the missile) is actually quite small, less than the size of a person.

http://www.mda.mil/global/images/system/gmd/ift9-k...

However, I doubt they are packing a couple of these in the X-37, since that doesn't make sense. [elint makes more sense].


RE: I don't think it's a weapon
By Gurthang on 11/30/2011 1:16:05 PM , Rating: 2
It looks like it may have a bay, so it like the shuttle could be used to deploy small satellites. Perhaps some new stealthy "disposable" micro spy satilites that are shot out in a way and at a time that make it difficult for their trajectory to be tracked.


RE: I don't think it's a weapon
By ksherman on 11/30/2011 1:20:40 PM , Rating: 2
The bay is for a deployable solar panel for power


RE: I don't think it's a weapon
By jemix on 11/30/2011 1:54:59 PM , Rating: 2
The bay is for space tourists ;)


RE: I don't think it's a weapon
By Ringold on 11/30/2011 2:14:22 PM , Rating: 2
Could use a RTG instead, the maybe use the bay to deploy little satellites as suggested, which attach to defunct or enemy satellites and safely nudge them in to the atmosphere, rather than create an orbital death field of debris?

At any rate, probably will be a decade or longer before anyone tells us.


RE: I don't think it's a weapon
By vittek4 on 12/4/2011 1:50:02 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe zey are spying on ze soviets, yah?
After all of ze mischief vith ze verge of necular war and all of zat maybe zey vant levenge?


RE: I don't think it's a weapon
By cocoapuffer on 12/4/2011 1:52:08 PM , Rating: 2
yeah sure. of course that's it. and people who talk like that don't type like that.


Arab Spring and original mission coincide
By Lord 666 on 11/30/2011 2:00:12 PM , Rating: 3
Instead of spy satellite in the optical sense, I'm thinking space-based Internet routing, broadcast, and lawful intercept.

Look at the timelines of the original X37B mission and what is known as Arab Spring... they overlap http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_spring. Social media and access to Internet/SMS became pivotal. Because the X37B platform is mobile, it is possible orbits can be changed if needed per country.




RE: Arab Spring and original mission coincide
By 91TTZ on 11/30/2011 3:07:40 PM , Rating: 2
This definitely couldn't have been used as a communications satellite for the Arab Spring.

This thing is in a low Earth orbit (about 250 miles up), while communications satellites must be in a geosynchronous orbit (about 26,000 miles up). Otherwise the satellite would be out of view for the majority of the time and communications couldn't reach it.


By nafhan on 11/30/2011 3:30:20 PM , Rating: 2
Obviously, not the case here, but if they deployed enough of these, they could potentially be used for communication. Iridium and GPS are both based on non-geosynch satellites in LEO.


By WW102 on 12/1/2011 12:04:37 PM , Rating: 2
FYI there is a differenc between geosynchronous orbit and geostationary. Most comm sats are geostationary.


weapon system in da making
By 1sojournerman on 12/1/2011 1:35:23 AM , Rating: 2
This comment will get a few mocking laughs but gonna say it anyway
In the bible it talks about the man of sin being able to call fire down from heaven this technology could be the base launch tech for which that will be made possible. As far as I'm concerned we live in exciting times both tech wise and biblical prophecy wise.
Let the mocking commence;-)




RE: weapon system in da making
By delphinus100 on 12/1/2011 7:01:15 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, the idea of sending dense kinetic energy weapons gown from orbit for precise attacks, has been referred to as 'Rods from God.'

But that's as far as I'll back you...


Empty Shell..
By steme on 11/30/2011 6:30:13 PM , Rating: 3
They could just send a empty space craft up there, then jot down all our awesome ideas for things to build later.




a weapon? unlikely.
By JZavala on 11/30/2011 9:54:28 PM , Rating: 2
the only way to make this thing a reasonable weapon is for it to have some type of bay with arms, so that it can drag satellites from orbit.

using any type of kinetic weapon or explosives to destroy a satellite is too risky to ours, and everyone elses satellites due to the kessler syndrome, as if we don't have enough space debris up there, the shuttle has been hit a few times, and once in the window.




Riiight...
By ballist1x on 12/1/2011 4:44:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It costs on the order of $5k-$10 to launch 1 kg of payload into orbit. Putting a weapon in space is about the dumbest thing you can do if a similar weapon can be deployed via land, sea, or air.


So how much do you think it costs to keep ICBMs at the bottom of the sea aboard a fleet of nuclear submarines?

Don't underestimate the will of the US to have weapons that can be fired from remote locations that either unstoppable, untrackable and uncounterable...




Railgun
By really on 12/1/2011 1:59:54 PM , Rating: 2
I would think a smaller version of the railgun being tested by the navy would be a great weapon to put on something like this. I believe the current drawbacks are it's current size and the amount of energy needed to fire it. If you could reduce both then you could fire projectiles with similar capabilities of small meteorites but they wouldn't be slowed down by the atmosphere? I'm talkin out by butt right now so I may be way off base.




That's pretty interesting
By IronFusion on 12/2/2011 11:00:19 PM , Rating: 2
is that based on the hypersonic scramjets, or is the X simply the experimental designation. I wonder though. if it's secretive, they wouldn't put it in an orbit not geosynchronous with friendly skies, and out of the tangential view of some nations we might not like to see (opposite side of the earth, geosynchronous orbit, and lowest orbit to attain good data...) Maybe over the midwest, or east coast. If they leave it in orbit so long, will it be returning, or burning up? Wouldn't the best data, at the highest security, come from a low orbit by accompanying satellites, rather than operating in a higher, less interfering (communication) orbit and allow optical tracking and direct monitoring from the ground?

what would that look like in the sky? You can see the space station pass overhead, what about a trio of vehicle/satellites in a testing phase?




By Sneed74 on 11/30/2011 7:58:33 PM , Rating: 1
Some people have been saying that there would be no reason to weaponize the X-37B. Lets see one reason to turn this into a space based weapon is because not too long ago when we proposed to place radars for the anti ballistic weapons system which by the way is a violation of the treaty we signed with the Soviets in May 26, 1972. This would be a perfect platform because one any defense system would have to have a good amount of time to track and target a warhead entering the atmosphere and two there would be no warning what so ever such as satellites picking up heat from an ICBM or IRBM. The soviets had the same plan but with a manned space station as a spy platform or Fractional Orbital Bombardment System. The US did not complain about this because we were in violation of the ABM treaty as well. All the same the X-37B would be more suited to either or both missions specified by the Air Force and those missions that the Air Force deems classified.




i think
By Bubbacub on 12/1/2011 7:19:01 AM , Rating: 1
the air force probably don't know what its for. I'm sure there will some kludge of secret BS reasons for having it - none of which really add up.

i'm sure boeing handed out the right kick backs to the right people to get this built!

in terms of technology development it does nothing that the shuttle didnt do with 70's tech.

i.e. blunt re-entry, falls like a stone then once at sub sonic speeds vaguely glides to a very hard and fast landing

the restartable HTP/R1 hypergolic engine is cool (but was done by the UK in the fifties and sixties) - i wish more rockets used this combination of propellants - non-toxic, hypergolic, can use the HTP as a monopropellant for RCS, very simple turbo pump design - the only drawback is a very slightly reduced specific impulse compared to a LOX engine - the weight, reliability and cost savings make up for this in my mind.

other than that the actual x37 seems pretty pointless - unless there is something very clever and cool inside that teeny tiny cargo bay.




That is a weapon
By faster on 11/30/11, Rating: -1
RE: That is a weapon
By Solandri on 11/30/2011 2:43:39 PM , Rating: 3
It costs on the order of $5k-$10 to launch 1 kg of payload into orbit. Putting a weapon in space is about the dumbest thing you can do if a similar weapon can be deployed via land, sea, or air.


RE: That is a weapon
By Solandri on 11/30/2011 2:44:05 PM , Rating: 2
Grr, obviously that should be $5k-$10k.


RE: That is a weapon
By nafhan on 11/30/2011 3:26:03 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmmm... you know most of the equipment owned by any given branch of the military is not weapons.

Anyway, you seem fairly certain. So, I'm curious; what kind of weapon do you think this is?


RE: That is a weapon
By Isidore on 12/1/2011 8:57:12 AM , Rating: 2
Well, in the last month there have been two unexplained serious explosions at sites related to the Iranian nuclear weapons and missile programmes, the first killing a senior general there to witness a test. Dropping something from an orbiting platform is certainly a good way of making it hard to see it coming or attributing the cause to a particular opponent....


RE: That is a weapon
By 91TTZ on 12/1/2011 9:50:20 AM , Rating: 2
That viewpoint borders on wacko conspiracy theory. Besides that, it's absolutely wrong. The explosions damaged multiple buildings in a widespread area. A small, fast moving projectile dropped from an orbiting platform would cause a lot of damage in a very isolated area.


RE: That is a weapon
By nafhan on 12/1/2011 2:58:37 PM , Rating: 2
While it might be possible to use this as a first strike vehicle, it would be obvious what happened, and who did it. Dropping an object big enough to do damage FROM ORBIT is going to alert a good number of civilian and military personnel, worldwide, and the ballistic trajectory would make it obvious that it came from a US space vehicle.


RE: That is a weapon
By fteoath64 on 12/5/2011 9:30:49 AM , Rating: 2
Yeap, you are right. radar can track and trace back to the source. More likely a particle or scalar weapon without a visible trace.


"We shipped it on Saturday. Then on Sunday, we rested." -- Steve Jobs on the iPad launch











botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki