In a rare disclosure, The Pentagon provides an update on the X-37B spaceplane

https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/10/the-us-militarys-x-37b-spaceplane-is-preparing-for-a-novel-space-maneuver/

by belter • 2 years ago

48 66 2 years ago

55555• 2 years ago

Did we build this so we can nuke anybody on the planet at any time? Serious question. If not, what's it for?

dboreham• 2 years ago

It's for deterring other countries from deploying a thing that can nuke anybody on the planet at any time. See also: Space Shuttle.

ambicapter• 2 years ago

It's testing ability to on-command manipulate orbits in space with very low fuel, which is useful for anything we throw up in space.

andyjohnson0• 2 years ago

Officially its a platform for testing various technologies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37#Speculation_regard...

UltraSane• 2 years ago

I wonder if it is used to detect nuclear bombs in orbit? That would explain the level of secrecy.

devoutsalsa• 2 years ago

> Did we build this so we can nuke anybody on the planet at any time?

This was actually a concern with the space shuttle! I suppose it could be a concern for any spacecraft that can carry a payload into orbit.

I’m not sure what value there’d be in dropping one or two nukes on an enemy. Any nuclear capable power would not be disabled by a few nukes going off, they’d know who dropped they nukes, and they could retaliate. If we had 10K nukes in orbit and could synchronize them to blanket a country & disable its nuclear response capability, maybe that would be worth something if the other side didn’t also fill space with nukes (which they would).

bryanlarsen• 2 years ago

it could be a concern for any spacecraft that can carry a payload into orbit.

No, it's only a concern for spacecraft with significant cross range capability, like Shuttle and X37B.

All other spacecraft have predictable trajectories, like ICBM's.

The upcoming generation of hypersonics are worse: they are significantly harder to detect on top of speed and maneuverability.

triactual• 2 years ago

It would be for indefensible decapitation strikes. A world leader who would launch a surprise first strike is almost certainly narcissistic enough to be susceptible to blackmail by a threat on their own life. A world leader who is not concerned with their own life but that of their countrymen will likely not launch a surprise first strike and so MAD still works.

simplicio• 2 years ago

Is there any one or any time we can't already nuke with an ICBM? Not sure I really see what extra capability would be added by putting nukes on a space plane.

twoodfin4• 2 years ago

It would be another leg in the triad—presumably obsoleting strategic bombers for most potential scenarios.

All the legs have trade-offs, which is why you want more than one:

Silos are immobile.

Bombers are slow, limited-range and vulnerable.

Submarines have to hide and thus are difficult to keep in touch with reliably. They’re also damn complicated and may have systemic vulnerabilities we don’t fully understand.

A long-orbit, large-payload space plane brings some interesting new trade-offs to the strategic nuclear game, though who knows if that’s actually how it might be used.

gpderetta4• 2 years ago

Orbital bombardment capability. Very little early warning compared to a ballistic launch.

Various treaties prohibit having weapons in orbit, but X-37B provides the capability without actively having to have such a system deployed.

Why would the US military specifically need it I'm not sure, but having the option is probably a good thing for them.

onionisafruit• 2 years ago

What would be the benefit of this over an icbm? Is it lower latency that gives the target less time to intercept?

fidotron• 2 years ago

Watching https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiangong_space_station close up.

The lack of awareness of the Tiangong stations in the west is distinctly strange.

causal• 2 years ago

Yeah, very strange. ISS is in the news almost daily by comparison

sixothree• 2 years ago

It's strange how isolated Americans are in terms of international news.

neom• 2 years ago

Didn't realize they had people living on the Tiangong already, seems for quite a while now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBhrq6TuSa0

ungreased0675• 2 years ago

The US military already has the ability to nuke anybody at any time. There are a thousand other more plausible options, assuming you don’t believe the official explanation.

rtkwe• 2 years ago

The other less (directly at least[0]) world ending capability it might unlock is being able to non-destructively interfere with the satellites of other nations. I think they'd prefer to avoid creating huge debris clouds if they could. The X-37B seems like it has the ability to visit and interfere with multiple satellites in a single launch. By being able to drastically change it's orbit it can alter it's orbit to intercept a target satellite and do it's work before the satellite's owner can respond to have the satellites maneuver.

[0] I say less directly because some nations like Russia have doctrine that states they may respond with nuclear weapons to conventional attacks that degrade it's ability to use their nuclear weapons or detect launches so messing with their observation satellites could snowball. According to some reporting one of the big hold ups with the US and other countries authorizing Ukraine to use provided weapons to strike inside Russia is there are dual use facilities that Ukraine would love to strike but also serve as important parts of the Russian nuclear system (early warning radars in the south that monitor airspace over Ukraine and provide launch warnings from places like Turkey/the Mediterranean).

bell-cot2• 2 years ago

Note that between the X-37B's small size, tiny numbers, and extremely limited ability to change its orbit, it is useless for "we can nuke anybody on the planet at any time" missions.

cryptonector5• 2 years ago

If they can miniaturize the re-entry vehicles enough to make them undetectable, or if they can leave them "parked" next to larger satellites so as to hide them, then having such hidden orbiting warheads would seem to allow for plausible deniability in small nuclear bombings. But since everyone would know only we have this capability, the deniability goes out the window. Also, re-entry vehicles get very hot and are visible, and their trajectories could get plotted, thus providing evidence of whodunit. Plus the x-37b can't possibly carry very many warheads and re-entry vehicles.

On the whole I think it's very unlikely that the x-37b is placing nukes in orbit.

t1234s• 2 years ago

How is Boeing successful with this project and not with Starliner?

quotemstr2• 2 years ago

I imagine skunkworks is an entirely separate part of the company.

vineyardlabs2• 2 years ago

You mean PhantomWorks. Skunk Works is Lockheed Martin's advanced R&D arm.

HideousKojima• 2 years ago

Not needing to be human-rated helps quite a bit (and increases the level of acceptable risk).

vineyardlabs2• 2 years ago

Note that the X37B has been flying since 2011 and is part of a larger program that has been ongoing at Boeing since the late 90s. It's likely that a lot of the hard work was accomplished before the MBAs at Boeing ruined the company to the extent that they have today.

bell-cot2• 2 years ago

The Starliner program is a painfully unprofitable fixed-price contract with NASA. Which is a relatively minor Boeing customer.

Vs. the X-37B program is likely to be a highly profitable cost-plus contract with the Pentagon. Which is a far bigger Boeing customer.

I'd figure that Boeing has kept its eyes on the bottom lines when assigning people and resources to the two programs.

philipwhiuk• 2 years ago

Boeing hasn't really had to do much on the X-37B for ages and I suspect the company is quite silo'd (for good and bad reasons).

quotemstr2• 2 years ago

At the end of the mission, the X-37B jettisons the disposable service module before reentry. The Space Force doesn't want this section of the spacecraft to remain in its current high-altitude orbit and become a piece of space junk.

I imagine they also don't want our peer adversaries picking up our space trash and reverse engineering what we're doing.

alexpotato2• 2 years ago

The article discusses how to move to different orbits while using less fuel and it reminds me of the line from Ender's Game [0]:

"Fighting in a gravity well. That means it's cheaper to go down than up."

0 - If you've never read it, I have a short review of Ender's game here: https://alexpotato.com/books/?l=hn#EndersGame

dvh• 2 years ago

I highly recommend the second book of the saga.

alexpotato2• 2 years ago

Same!

And I reviewed that one too: https://alexpotato.com/books/?l=hn#EndersShadow

darknavi• 2 years ago

Speaker for the Dead is good, but the series starts to get a bit... weird. Fairly religious, although still in a space-y way. Maybe that was just my middle school take and I should re-read it.

Ender's Shadow (Ender's Game from Bean's perspective) is also excellent.

cameron_b• 2 years ago

The Pentagon likely wanted to get ahead of any space observers noticing the heat from aerobraking and disposal of the service module. That might look like a hull loss, and they wouldn't want anyone to report a mission failure.

Out_of_Characte• 2 years ago

This actually sounds plausible. I'm not sure how well the service module survives the reentry (hopefully not at all) But I bet alot of nations will start asking questions if they dont provide disclosure beforehand.

le-mark• 2 years ago

The challenge of the X-37b is imagination. My pet theories involve interdicting opposing countries spy/communications satellites with stealth drone satellites carried and retrieved by x-37. If we could get physical acces to satellites on orbit, we could own enemy communications. More so attaching mines to enemy satellites to disable on command would also be a valuable capability. Etc… lots of possibilities.

lumost• 2 years ago

Plausibly, there is no real monitoring of co-orbiting bodies in space. If there aren't cameras pointed at every location of the sattelite (why would their be?) you could place a small kill device nearby to avoid the need to shoot down the satellite in the future.

Satellites are flimsy things, all one would need to do is break the mirror/telecom array to stop satellite guided weapons.

m2fkxy• 2 years ago

Plausibly, there is no real monitoring of co-orbiting bodies in space

[capable] nations operating sensitive satellites and other space assets absolutely are monitoring foreign objects maneuvering in their orbital vicinity.

jjk166• 2 years ago

I imagine it wouldn't take a very sensitive inertial measurement unit to pick up a craft physically interacting with it. Most satellites would need more precise instruments for their own maneuvering control. It might not be enough to determine what tampering took place, but it should be clear that tampering did take place.

onlyrealcuzzo• 2 years ago

Rather than blowing up satellites and causing debris, wouldn't you rather attach a thruster to move it out of orbit?

kjkjadksj3• 2 years ago

If your opposition has an advantage in space over you, turning low earth orbit into a useless debris field for several years is overwhelmingly in your advantage.

In a rare disclosure, The Pentagon provides an update on the X-37B spaceplane

Related Stories