A plane has been in space for 500 days

http://www.techly.com.au/2014/04/30/plane-space-500-days-one-knows/

by nreece • 12 years ago

81 88 12 years ago

techly.com.au

lugg2• 12 years ago

My guess is spy. Lesser possibility nukes.

Reasoning I say spy even though one commenter pointed out that there are spy satellites in orbit is that with the reusability of the craft the cost of getting newer and better spy tech into space faster is helpful on a few levels.

arethuza6• 12 years ago

The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 explicitly forbids the placing of nukes (or any other WMDs) in orbit around the Earth:

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

Also, I'm not sure that having a weapon in orbit would actually be any better than existing ICBMs.

serf3• 12 years ago

Yeah, it does forbid nukes.

Good thing it doesn't forbid Kinetic Kill Weapons. The kind of thing you need to keep in-orbit for long periods of time.

No/little launch signature, dynamic positions, and a quicker response than any ICBM.

(personally, I think it's a spy rig)

iwwr2• 12 years ago

I'm not sure that having a weapon in orbit would actually be any better than existing ICBMs

That's kind of the point too. Suborbital ballistic missiles can reach any point on Earth. Putting them in orbit wastes energy and requires significantly larger rockets for the same payloads. Not to mention stuff in orbit is impossible to hide.

dalke3• 12 years ago

I think it would be worse than an ICMB. Not only is it easier to maintain systems on the ground - though that could be what's being tested - but it takes a lot of energy to change an orbital plane and it takes time to make an orbit.

Considering just the last, an orbit in LEO takes about 90 minutes. Even if the target is close to the plane's orbital trajectory, that's an average of about 45 minutes to target. An ICBM takes about 30 minutes. So I can't think of any real advantage for an orbital nuclear weapon over even a small ICBM fleet.

thret• 12 years ago

I'm sure the USA will respect this treaty right up until they decide not to.

lugg2• 12 years ago

Governments doing something forbidden. Never. /s

I find these kinds of treaties idiotic. Can't do that or. Or what? Who exactly is going to do something when the world police breaks the law? The people? Yeah right.

samworm• 12 years ago

"NO ONE KNOWS" - Really? No One? In a world of terrible link-bait headlines this one manages to impress with its idiocy.

jacquesm8• 12 years ago

I think this may be because 'no one knows' is the media equivalent to 'nobody that will talk to us knows'. Effectively that in turn translates into 'nobody in the general public knows' and what with headline space being expensive (if you use shorter headlines you can use larger letters) that got shortened to 'no one knows'.

vidarh• 12 years ago

what with headline space being expensive (if you use shorter headlines you can use larger letters)

At least one of the national newspapers in Norway found a way around the "need" for larger letters: "War type". Can't get larger letters in? Use a suitably aggressive looking font, and you'll make foreigners think you're writing about war when you're writing about a tax increase or the latest minor political scandal.

frobozz• 12 years ago

It could have been shortened even further to just "". Then there would be nothing misleading in the headline at all.

As it is, the headline suggests that some plane accidentally crossed the Kármán Line, has been floating out there for nearly 2 years, and not even the pilot or ATC could work out how it happened.

twic• 12 years ago

This craft was bought by a government bureaucracy, right? So it's just about possible that nobody knows.

"Absolutely, we in the 67th Orbital Wing operate the X-37B, but it's there to fly missions for the National Space Operations Office"

"The National Space Operations Office's mission is to develop operational capabilities in support of our country's strategic priorities, as implemented by the Near Space Command."

"NSPACECOM is proud to be providing this unique Earth-to-Orbit capability in support of front-line forces. The X-37B is currently deployed with the 67th Orbital Wing. You'd have to ask them for details of the current mission."

lifeisstillgood7• 12 years ago

That has some intriguing possibilities - all I need to do is find five or more government departments and persuade each of them they are working for the other - and the project is the effect on UK citizens of being given a billion dollars (I of course am the first test subject, direct deposit on my please)

jacquesm8• 12 years ago

From the article:

"Plenty of conspiracy theorist have posed the question of X-37B carrying a nuclear payload, to guarantee a ‘first strike’ opportunity (or to have a counter-option in place).

If you have any hope for humanity, that can’t be right. The US is a signatory to The Space Treaty, which is no joke. Space-based weapons of mass destruction are banned."

That notion of being signatory to treaties still having some weight is so quaint. NPT, CTBT, Kyoto...

ghshephard• 12 years ago

Different countries treat their responsibilities to these treaties differently. History has shown that the united states, in particular, takes its responsibility to treaties very seriously, and would do it's utmost never to be in breach.

If they were considering placing nuclear missiles in orbit, they would almost certainly withdraw from the Outer Space Treaty first.

I'm wondering if there is any economic rationale for doing so - I would think that sub based missiles would be cheaper than placing them in orbit.

netcan• 12 years ago

They could be exercising something similar to the "threshold capacity" of the NPT.

Under the NPT signatories are allowed to enrich and stockpile nuclear fuel for civilian purposes. Under this restriction, states can go almost nuclear.

The tech and materials for civilian and military nuclear use is similar enough that a country that can do power independently would be able to produce bombs within 2-5 years. Some countries have a "threshold strategy" where they stay within the bounds of the treaty but maintain an ability to withdraw and make up ground as quickly as possible. Japan & Australia, for example.

devnonymous• 12 years ago

...in particular, takes its responsibility to treaties very seriously, and would do it's utmost never to get caught being in breach.

There fixed that for you. (ref: http://www.laetusinpraesens.org/docs10s/unespion.php )

simonh• 12 years ago

Russia's treaty obligation to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine, etc... Indeed.

The problem with that theory is that being in a particular orbit locks you into a very limited choice of targets. The X-37B is unlikely to have much in the way of cross range capability, so any potential target would have to be within a narrow band of it's orbital track. Also suppose you want to hit a target and you just flew over it, you'll have to wait a full orbit before you can strike, which is likely to take a lot longer than launching an ICBM. It's even worse than that though because if your orbit is inclined to the equator (required if your target is not on the equator), the earth rotates under you so any target you fly over on this orbit will have moved and won't be under your orbital track on your next orbit. You might have to wait dozens of orbits before you fly over it again.

Unless you have hundreds of warheads in orbit, or are prepared to wait days between attacks, the orbital weapons platform concept is a non-starter.

jacquesm8• 12 years ago

How much delta-v would a package the size of this plane still pack after getting into orbit? In other words, could a plane this size still appreciably change it's orbit post-launch?

mhandley• 12 years ago

What's the point of a secret nuclear deterent? Surely it can only deter if everyone knows you've got it.

jacquesm8• 12 years ago

I've seen that movie.

icebraining2• 12 years ago

You don't need everyone to know, just the people you want to deter.

blueskin_2• 12 years ago

Kyoto

Last time I checked, it was Russia, India and China that ignore that. The US definitely never ignored the NPT either.

icebraining2• 12 years ago

The US may have signed Kyoto, but they never ratified it, so I don't think they have ever broken any obligations in that regard. Same from the CBTB, as far as I understand from the Wikipedia page.

jacquesm8• 12 years ago

The fact that US uses its internal politics to be a signatory to treaties and then fails to ratify them is as far as a good portion of the rest of the world is concerned a case of 'breach of contract'. Imagine you going to your bank and taking out a loan, then later defaulting on that loan stating that your spouse did not agree with your action and therefore your signature is null and void.

The fact that the US can do this because they are beyond being disciplined does not make it right. If a country enters into an international treaty after prolonged negotiations and influencing the terms of the treaty the that country ought to be bound by signing the treaty.

If that's not acceptable then you should either not exert influence over the process or you should internally negotiate the mandate with which the representatives of the country are being sent to the treaty negotiations with ratification being a formality after the negotiations end and the treaty is signed.

The current situation is one in which internal politics are used for international advantage, a questionable practice at best.

jokoon• 12 years ago

is this some sort of costly competition to space x in a way ?

narag• 12 years ago

Or cooperation? This is a vehicle. Most news involving Space X are about launchers. Also:

It’s versatile, and has worked well enough that Boeing is contracted to create the next model, the X-37C. It will be at least 65% larger and have the ability to carry up to six astronauts, while operating unmanned.

Space X reusable rockets and this reusable vehicle seems a good fit.

bane• 12 years ago

My understanding is that the Air Force's Space budget is bigger than NASA's. Making news like this [1] make a lot more sense.

1 - http://www.stripes.com/news/air-force/air-force-spending-60-...

spiritplumber• 12 years ago

It's Jebediah Kerman.

sergiosgc• 12 years ago

No, Jebediah is stuck on Duna with half a fuel tank. Had he practiced landing in the simulator, I wouldn't have to mount a rescue operation now. I think I'll leave him there for a couple of years for good measure.

misnome• 12 years ago

I could have sworn he was stuck on Minmus, trapped in an upside-down pod with the solar panels on the top (so no way of righting it). Oh, Jebediah.

jcr• 12 years ago

If I had to guess, and of course, I do have to guess, my bet is the X-37 has something to do with the DARPA Phoenix program.

http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2014/04/02a.aspx

HackinOut2• 12 years ago

I have no idea how this thing could go into orbit. Anybody there who can enlighten me?

HackinOut2• 12 years ago

Apparently, the encapsulation cell seen in the article is of the Atlas V rocket which puts it into orbit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V

rplnt• 12 years ago

So now we know why it won't land. There is no way to get it back up. I'm assuming this is the only rocket capable of doing so and the ban by Russia to use the engine for military missions is enforceable.

lifeisstillgood7• 12 years ago

There is a simpler explanation - Not getting over-shadowed by Elon Musk.

The success of SpaceX and all the private / not-in-military-industrial-complex companies is a direct threat to the budgets and livelihoods of those in the military-industrial complex.

This is a demonstration of "whatever they can do, we can do better"

MPSimmons3• 12 years ago

I don't see how this has anything at all to do with the mission profile for any current or projected SpaceX endeavors.

SpaceX is building launch and deployment vehicles. While I have no doubt that this plane could deploy satellites, it doesn't take 500 days to do that. There are clearly other goals.

lifeisstillgood7• 12 years ago

I am sure there are many direct project goals - but one overriding meta-goal is to not stand there looking dumb whilst Elon eats your lunch in the minds of the politicians at least.

adventured• 12 years ago

This is a platform test to see if they can run small vehicles in space for extended periods of time, operate them safely, and bring them back. Next up will be real space operations once the capability to safely operate at a basic level is proven. This is more likely about putting robotics platforms into space that can stay there and go to work when needed (persistent presence).

It is not a first strike system. That's silly. Any use of such a strike system that has anything to do with nukes will result in massive retaliation from any enemy worth using it on (Russia, China specifically). The US doesn't need small scale first strike options. If you're going to hit China or Russia with nukes, you better destroy everything in the first wave, and that means hundreds of nukes; and it wouldn't just be China or Russia, you have to destroy both, for the same reason that Britain would likely nuke Russia, if Russia preemptively nuked the US.

unsigner• 12 years ago

I find the "no one knows" angle slightly amusing. It's the famed "military-industrial complex". Do you really expect to know EVERYTHING these guys do? To have a Snowden behind every filing cabinet and in every router?

icantthinkofone• 12 years ago

Exactly. It's like people are surprised that countries have spies and their missions and it should be detailed in the daily paper.

jsmcgd• 12 years ago

Does anyone else think that they've lost control of this vehicle and that's why, despite it having re-entry capability, it isn't doing a lot of re-entering?

tgb• 12 years ago

The article claimed that it's sibling stayed in space for over 400 days before reentry, so no I don't think that's particularly likely.

madaxe_again• 12 years ago

No, it has repositioned and changed orbit repeatedly - while it may all be classified, much like other classified satellites, there's a horde of amateurs watching and tracking.

LukeB_UK• 12 years ago

"A plane has been in space for 500 days, and no one knows why" (except the people who sent it there...)

michaelfeathers• 12 years ago

Maybe it contains a vial of microbes that can be used to re-seed the planet in the case of an extinction event.

josefresco4• 12 years ago

You mean like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard_Global_Seed_Vault but in space?

chiph• 12 years ago

Or it's collecting microbes.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066769/?ref_=nv_sr_2

coldcode• 12 years ago

I still think it makes no sense in a supposed democracy we spend billions on building stuff no one will say what it's good for. Especially stuff the manufacturer admits to building.

josefresco4• 12 years ago

Democracy or not, national security depends on keeping certain things a secret to adversaries. Democracy != transparency.

ericcumbee• 12 years ago

I'm going with something completely unsexy, this being what only the second flight? My money is on it was a long duration test, to see how well it held up.

A plane has been in space for 500 days

Related Stories