interesting....
It might be the endorphins from my run, but I found this article optimistic.
P.
US Air Force reveals what's inside its top-secret space plane, this time
The US Air Force has responded to fears that it is weaponizing space through its secret space shuttle by providing some details of what it will contain at launch on Wednesday. The now not-so-secret X-37B will lift off at 1045 EDT (1445 UTC) from Cape Canaveral in Florida on an Atlas V rocket operated by the United Launch …
-
-
Wednesday 20th May 2015 00:35 GMT Robert Helpmann??
Penguins In Space!
It'll be hacked already by the Russians and/or Chinese.
So predictable, you might imagine it might be a honeypot? Probably not. From NASA's description of the mission:
"A further payload being carried for the Naval Academy is the USS Langley, or Unix Space Server Langley. A three-unit CubeSat, Langley is indented to demonstrate the use of off-the-shelf components to operate a Linux-based web server in space. This will be connected to the internet via the satellite’s ground stations."
-
-
-
Wednesday 20th May 2015 00:57 GMT x 7
the payload is cheap...but the X-37B isn't, especially with that upgraded ion drive.
It must be a worry though - didn't the last one of these (with a standard payload) fail due to the Russian motors having problems? If memory is right the last four launches using Russian motors (1xUSA, 1xESA, 2x Russia) have all failed in one way or another
-
-
Wednesday 20th May 2015 05:49 GMT Kharkov
The X-37, again.
Ok, first things first. Launching CubeSats, testing materials and ion drives, great, all good stuff, thumbs up and so on.
But, launched on an expensive rocket (one with an excellent safety record though) inside the cargo bay of an X-37. A mini-spaceplane doing expensive research for the US Air Force (when will they get around to renaming it 'Aerospace Force'?) and, by its very existence, encouraging others NOT to do similar research for fear that, half-way through, they'll be told to stop as they're infringing on Classified Research.
Is the X-37 a weapon? No, I don't think so but it is a prototype/test bed for an eventual orbital weapons system. A really expensive system, weaponising space (or at least, it will, in the future).
In short, an expensive system, that will lead to weapons where we really don't want them, that stifles similar lines of research in civilian hands.
-
-
Wednesday 20th May 2015 07:30 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: The X-37, again.
I think the point is they don't need to be space based, if you can fit the x-37 with rockets/Dr Evil style lasers and fire them at earth you achieve the same thing but don't have to stay in space, you could always leave a couple up there at any given time doing "Research".
-
Wednesday 20th May 2015 07:44 GMT Gordon 10
Re: The X-37, again.
I think you are over estimating the US's capabilities if you think they can get an Orbit to Ground laser into an X-37b. They cant even get a shorter range Air to Air laser in a Jumbo.
Anything that fits into its cargo bay is going to be 1 use orbital denial.
It would be far simpler to weaponise a cubesat with a drive and a small explosive charge. Indeed I do wonder if this new ion drive can generate enough delta-v to engage Russian satellites in the time it is out of direct comms with Moscow.
-
-
Thursday 21st May 2015 10:54 GMT picturethis
Re: The X-37, again.
If the X37 isn't permamently in space, does it fall under "space-based" weapons? I don't know.. This may be a way to be able to deploy/use weapons from space without really being space-based and only when needed during a time of war. Maybe the treaty should have stated (or maybe is does?): weapons being fired from space..
-
Sunday 24th May 2015 08:44 GMT imanidiot
Re: The X-37, again.
Yes, if its fired from orbit its banned. Specifically the treaties ban ANY weapon system that follows a non ballistic trajectory. A weapon system is not allowed to get into a state where it would continue to orbit without the use of an engine. Thus, yes, fitting a weapons system to the X-37 would be in clear violation of the weapons treaties.
-
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 20th May 2015 19:00 GMT cray74
Re: Only one Ion Engine?
I understood they worked much better in multiples, usually in a twin arrangement."
The engines don't get any performance enhancement from being mounted in multiples. Instead, multiple ion engines are usually mounted on spacecraft for reliability reasons. They're expected to operate for thousands of hours at high voltages, often with erosive internal conditions. There isn't a normal number, though, two or otherwise.
The Smart-1 probe had a single ion engine, which proved adequate for its full mission. Hayabusa had 4, and all crapped out at some point before remote repairs got at least 1 working for the flight home. Deep Space-1 had a single thruster, which didn't fail; Dawn uses 3 of the same thrusters as DS-1 (no problems to date); the Boeing 702SP uses 4 XIPS engines.
-
Biting the hand that feeds IT
