backtop

Print 27 comment(s) - last by johnsmith9875.. on Jun 26 at 4:57 PM
Shuttle lands safely in California after over a year in orbit

The U.S. Air Force's X-37B unmanned space plane safely landed on Saturday at Vandenberg Air Force Base in Santa Barbara County, California after over a year in orbit.  The plane was launched from Vandenberg aboard an Atlas V rocket in April 2010.

The plane controlled by ground stations is a look alike to the retired Space Shuttle, but carries no human operators and is small enough to fit two of them in the retired Shuttle's cargo bay.  The plane, largely built by contractor Boeing Comp. (BA), is controlled by operators on the ground.

The payload, mission, where it went, and cost are all classified, although the USAF assures "Cost effectiveness is a major consideration."

Our estimates indicate that the cost of the mission was likely at least in the $400M-$500M USD range, given the cost of years of development and the roughly $200M USD cost [source] Atlas V rocket launch, plus ongoing operational costs.

X-37B Landing
X-37B
X-37B landing

Still for an armed force that drops up to a billion dollars on a single stealth jet, which may be considered an "affordable" option, depending on what juicy secret objectives the shuttle achieved.

The USAF insists the shuttle is on non-combat missions and is not part of the weaponization of space, as some have feared.  These comments have led many observers to believe the shuttle may be on some sort of surveillance mission.  

X-37B on runway

One possibility that lies somewhere in-between pure intelligence and militarization is that the shuttle was mapping Earth orbits looking for stealth military satellites from China or Russia, which could be then tracked and destroyed at a later date with (cheaper) conventional land-based rocket payloads if the need arose.

Here's a full video of the safe landing:

Source: YouTube


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Some Missions Require Human Interaction
By Cypherdude1 on 6/19/2012 8:46:49 PM , Rating: 1
Suppose you wanted to repair the Hubble telescope (again) in order to save it (again). How would you do that with an unmanned vehicle? Perhaps you could make the payload a human with the required tools and replacement parts, unless the vehicle was too small to manage.




By StormyKnight on 6/19/2012 8:55:15 PM , Rating: 2
Doubt it would work with this particular craft. Repairing the Hubble takes a team effort with up to three astronauts at a time. This spaceplane doesn't appear to have the cargo capacity to haul two people and the necessary materials to repair anything more than a wristwatch.


RE: Some Missions Require Human Interaction
By Jeffk464 on 6/19/12, Rating: 0
RE: Some Missions Require Human Interaction
By FITCamaro on 6/20/2012 9:37:46 AM , Rating: 1
I guess they should have spent the money on more free cellphones for the "poor". Or maybe on free birth control for Ivy League whores.


By Paj on 6/21/2012 7:58:02 AM , Rating: 2
So secret turkeys are more important than birth control?
Move to Saudi Arabia if you want to know more about this line of thinking.


By Belard on 6/22/2012 6:32:55 AM , Rating: 2
Sucks to be you, eh?


RE: Some Missions Require Human Interaction
By Jeffk464 on 6/19/2012 11:24:14 PM , Rating: 2
I think its generally cheaper to use disposable systems and write off the occasional dud satellite.


RE: Some Missions Require Human Interaction
By Solandri on 6/20/2012 12:50:21 AM , Rating: 3
Hubble cost $2.5 billion at launch (a chunk of that being storage costs for 4 years after the Challenger explosion). A Shuttle mission cost about $1.5 billion. So two manned Shuttle missions to Hubble (one to launch it, one to repair it) would cost you $2.5 + $1.5 + $1.5 = $5.5 billion.

An Atlas V heavy launch costs about $150 million. So for the same price of launching and repairing Hubble with the manned Shuttle, you could've built and launched two Hubbles using the unmanned Atlas V, and still had $200 million left over to throw a party with afterward.

Putting people in space costs a helluva lot more than putting machines into space. Hubble was exorbitantly more expensive any other satellite, so was pretty much the only thing which was ostensibly cost-effective to repair with the manned Shuttle. For any other satellite, the cost of a manned repair mission would exceed the cost of building and launching a replacement satellite.


RE: Some Missions Require Human Interaction
By Calin on 6/20/2012 4:42:24 AM , Rating: 2
While one Hubble was 2.5 billions at launch, two of them would not have been twice as expensive. On the other hand, there's nothing with the capabilities Hubble has (James Webb telescope is more modern, but has different capabilities).


By FITCamaro on 6/20/2012 9:36:28 AM , Rating: 2
The James Webb Space telescope also isn't in space yet.


By johnsmith9875 on 6/21/2012 5:21:20 PM , Rating: 3
Funny how Congress clutches their hands at the cost of Hubble, but they approve without comment the keyhole spy satellites that are the same size as Hubble and probably twice as expensive....not to mention they have at least SIX (6) of them in orbit right now.

NASA would be jumping for joy if they had funding for six Hubbles. Only our proud and paranoid military gets that.


By chµck on 6/19/2012 11:26:12 PM , Rating: 2
robotics?


RE: Some Missions Require Human Interaction
By delphinus100 on 6/20/2012 1:57:45 PM , Rating: 2
The X-37 itself could accommodate one person in its payload bay, coffin style...and standing up on launch. It's not a solution for that.


By johnsmith9875 on 6/21/2012 5:22:28 PM , Rating: 2
Bet you can fit one nuke inside though, or perhaps a rotary launcher for a MIRV style system.


By johnsmith9875 on 6/21/2012 5:26:18 PM , Rating: 2
It was never meant to cart humans around. Its a re-taskable spy satellite. Our present satellites fly around in fixed orbits, easy for people on the ground to predict when they're overhead.
This one's different, it has fuel onboard to modify its orbit. Our presumed enemies never know when it will be above, even Julian Assange can't hide from it.


We need these
By omgwtf8888 on 6/20/2012 10:53:40 AM , Rating: 3
We will need thousands of these droid ships to build our Death Star!

Now witness the firepower of this fully ARMED and OPERATIONAL battle station!




RE: We need these
By freedom4556 on 6/20/2012 11:18:51 AM , Rating: 3
Which is why drones are stupid. Anybody remember what happened when they destroyed the droid control ship? What happens when they hit the Pentagon(or wherever they fly these from) with another 747/suicide bomb? All our drones fall over dead. Then the rebels defeat us. We need clones dammnit, not robots.

Lol


RE: We need these
By vbNetGuy on 6/20/2012 2:24:36 PM , Rating: 2
Execute Order 66


RE: We need these
By MrBlastman on 6/20/2012 2:42:48 PM , Rating: 2
Imperial scum! You will never defeat our Rebel forces, evar!!1111

Those aren't your average birds flying around right now. That isn't even your average bird poop! No, it is a mind altering nano-machine substance that has been falling on your shoulders, your cars, your houses, your stuff... everywhere! And it is too late!

Muahahahahaha

It has already been absorbed in everything. Imperials, cry out in disdain! Belittle our cause but your rallies are for naught! You've already lost!

Your toaster ovens are going to burn your hands in your sleep! Your microwaves are going to nuke your heads. Your pantries... well, they're going to eat you!

Give in to our cause. The Rebel forces are everywhere. Not even your toilets can save you as they've been sending us your genetic data for years now.


RE: We need these
By johnsmith9875 on 6/21/2012 5:23:55 PM , Rating: 2
Just keep the 9 year old kids out of fighter cockpits, problem solved.


RE: We need these
By johnsmith9875 on 6/26/2012 4:57:22 PM , Rating: 2
Don't be so proud of this technological terror you've created.


...
By GuinnessKMF on 6/19/2012 7:26:09 PM , Rating: 4
Neat.




RE: ...
By mars2k on 6/20/2012 9:35:33 AM , Rating: 2
No kidding


By anandtech02148 on 6/20/2012 5:07:24 PM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure China got a missile that take down these things for less than what it cost US taxpayers to foot the bill for this thing.




By xthetenth on 6/21/2012 11:44:55 AM , Rating: 2
Well, the US sure does. The trick is actually finding it and having a missile in the right place. Now we're talking about an integrated orbital defense system. How much does that cost? You don't have one missile, you have a bunch dispersed on likely approaches, a bunch of really fancy radars, and a bunch of command centers and good networking to tie it together. How much does that cost, and does China have all that?


PNG images
By Sivar on 6/20/2012 5:01:24 PM , Rating: 2
This and the "nVidia's response to Linus" post both have photographs in PNG format. That's the appropriate format for most screen captures, charts, graphs, rasterized vector art, cartoons (like XKCD), any anything with large swaths of identical color, but is an awful format for photographs. Photographs should be JPEG, until a better format becomes commonplace.

I hate to only mention image formats in more than half my posts, but I usually think the articles are great -- just that they often use inappropriate image formats for the job.




Looks like...
By Belard on 6/22/2012 6:45:28 AM , Rating: 2
"plane controlled by ground stations is a look alike to the retired Space Shuttle"

In the same way an MD11 looks like a Lockheed L-1011, but are completely different planes... but both sucked. (Selling about 200 or so each).

There are 7100+ 737 built and still being made.

What we need are $1000 rocket rides to low-earth orbit :)




"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser











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