kerbiloid

Probably. All of them are more or less the same. https://ru-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Золотая_звезда_(лекарство)?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=ru&_x_tr_pto=wapp

Banned on the High C++.

Mr. Cruise visited us this week. Probably, it's a piece of liner from his coat. Waiter! Can I order a can more?

Granted. Whatever was going on, it has went away. I wish the famous Vietnamese "Golden Star" balsam was an ultimate medicine against every disease.

Floor 3254: Still thinking what is the 0x21th (33th) letter in the modern English Unicode alphabet.

I'm absolutely calm, that's some others are taking this too personally. And I'm obviously not an intelligence analyst, otherwise I wouldn't be writing this on a game forum instead of reports. That's exactly what I'm trying to demonstrate and explain. Why not? There's two X-37B's. If there was enough justifiable demand for the program to need another or even two more, Because so much expensive hardware should work or be stored in a sare place. You don't leave your Lamborghini on the street for years, you either ride it, or hide in garage. (A "ride it or hide it!" strategy, I would say.) The space conditions are definitely not the best place to store spaceplanes when they are not needed. Its payload is just 227 kg. No need to keep it in LEO just to ensure that a photocamera with 20 cm telescope can make some shots. Serious spysats are 15 t heavy. Exactly. And what cargo is worth a whole spaceplane system which has performed 7 flights to deliver 1.5 t of such crago to LEO. Any Cygnus could take the whole 1.5 t in one flight an deliver to ISS. Any Dragon could return it back to Earth. Any Falcon could deliver this as an expendable sat. It was derived from the Shuttle aerodynamics, NASA was just a contractor. Say, Dreamchaser is an absolutely another project. Exactly. An none of them require a personal spaceplane which weights several times more than the cargo which is anyway expendable. Exactly. That's why it would be very strange to develop a 227-kg-capable spaceplane for a regular cargo which they deliver in hundreds of tonnes amounts.

Again, what stuff? A specplane with its wings, fins, etc., is not a stuff to stay in space for years. It's a stuff to deliver and return. It doesn't make sense to jhang it there for years. Before they began having it, they were designing it. Why need a 227 kg capable spaceplane? This puny payload makes no sense for anything but something tiny what you can't let be detected. They could. And they didn't. For some mysttrious reasons they preferred to develop a spaceplane able to carry almost nothing. Dragon was an obvious choice. Any reasonable payload by billions of money cheaper to send as a Cygnus regular cargo or a purposed satellute, without fins and wings.

Here you go. It's exactly the case when the answers can be quite simple, and the rocket science is not required, lol. It's exactly what I did in the posts above.

Floor 3252: Remus building his own Rome, with ludus latrunculorum (no blackjack in those days) and qvirites.

Do they compare same people living now and then? *** How can it happen that people in poor countries eat more chemicals and reproduce at highest rate, while the people in rich countries eat cleaned, ecological, GMO-free food, and same chemicals affect them? Maybe not the chemicals are the problem? Maybe fifteens are more romantic than fifties? A typical train of an ecologically clean country.

No, it's because nobody can give answers to very simple three questions. For example:

So do I.

The horoscopes which ignore the lunar craters and seas aren't better.

No, it's your soup is glowing itself. Waiter! Is the "rare steak" really impossible to find?

Floor 3250: The circus clownazgul wearing the ring.

Here you go. With these songs you can take a shovel and quickly run a canyon into another place. I wish it was Wednesday instead of Harry Potter decades ago.

Banned for hisesy.

Of course. But I don't ask about the exact precise purposes. What are at least possible ones? Physics is physics. I didn't say opposite. I speak about exactly X-37(B,C). It's > 2 human communities doing this. Cats don't build spaceplanes, they collect chunks of food, their ideas are rather simple. Idk about the Chinese plans, and I'm letting this alone. I just notice that the whole X-37 programs is looking like a development of a space-based covert strike weapon, and as well the SLS+Orion are barely lunar, but perfectly HEO. And all of them are ancested from Space Shuttle, maintained by military-oriented companies, Every mentioned thing planned readiness date is mid-2030s, so the whole infrastructure completion looks planned on 2040. A global distributed communication network (Starlink) is currently being tested in real conditions. Btw, W93 is for UK fleet also. So, kinda Space AUKUS. It looks very close to an attempt to establish a space monopoly and cut others from space, and then slowly walk to the Moon. Just a shower thought conspiracy theory, of course. All mentioned actors are known for their pacifism.

They fooled you. There is no Dres. It's just an inflatable mockup,

It will be heavier than a single one, have more possible nodes of failure, irradiate and heat each other from side, and still cause same problem with cooling.

And it's immediately under attack. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/03/pentagon-congress-budget-deal-weapons-00072068

So, why need a whole spaceplane system to deliver almost nothing, when any regular cargo craft would even not see a difference? Why leave the expensive spaceplane (with almost no room for payload) in space for years, instead of reusing it as often as possible or just keeping it in a safe storehouse? Why need a maneuvering spaceplane for anything but combat purpose? (Its payload is ridiculous even for a spyscope).

Of course. If it's really a nuke, unlikely it has anything but a bare physical package with a mockup of ignition system. Actually, a shaped set of materials. It's more challenging to accurately reproduce all physical conditions of the space orbit on ground for years. Multiple factors (radiation environment, zero-g, temperature varying from +100 to -100 every half-hour, vacuum). Also the radiation factor (the most important one) is highly volatile, depends on longitude, latitude, altitude, solar weather, and random bursts of galactic rays. Some parts of the device is additionally shading another, some part emits more than expected, the decay products start expanding and deforming the thing in unusual places, and all of that can depend on an unpredictable factor like changing solar angle. So, before spending billions and realizing that the lab conditions had differed too much from the actual ones, it's easier just to put it in orbit and wait. Especially since it's not an immediate need, but a perspective R&D. On the other hand, it's no need in long-term space testing of a warhead for ICBM/SLBM, as they spend in space less than an hour. So, if its actually a prototype of warhead, it's a unified one, to use it both in perspective SLBM and orbital platform. As we can read, the W93 is going together wth a new re-entry shell, Mark 7. We don't know exactly, what's that, but the previous NASA studies were concentrated on hafnium and tantalum carbide as more heatproof materials for the reentry vehicle tips and pins (nosecone, altimeter antenna shrouds). It was found that these materials can decrease the nosecone tip curvature radius from centimeters to millimeters, making it more speedy. The obvious common need for the SLBM and space reentry bodies is the ability to withstands either aerobraking or lowered altitude SLBM trajectory. So, a shared SLBM/space warhead is just natural. The ICBM don't put such requirement, and will probably adopt the unified warhead in their time. *** About the X-37 itself. Its aerodynamics is ancested from the Space Shuttle, it's a miniaturized version of it. So, unlikely some test vehicle was required just to design a spaceplane itself. It was required to design a small uncrewed spaceplane. The payload of X-37 is rather puny, up to 227 kg. Actually, it's a payload of a good film capsule. For example, the Almaz film capsule was 360 kg heavy and carried ~150 kg of payload. US was using similar capsules since early 1960s. If it's just about exposing materials, there was no need in a spaceplane, they could just send this 227 kg in a regular Cygnus flight, or launch a score of such capsules by Falcon or Atlas and return them. Actually, making for that purpose a whole winged spacecraft was the weirdest possible solution. And building two of them looks even weirder. The X-37 typical orbit is nothing special, 200..700 km high, so the conditions don't differ from a KH-11 spysat typical orbit, and the latter ones are happily spending there 15 years. So, unlikely it can be a scientific equipment, one Falcon could put several of them in same orbit, and they would require no return. So, why put an expensive spaceplane in orbit for years instead of reusing it as often as possible? There is no need in storing wings and fins in orbit. Their only need is aerobraking and landing, and that's exactly what they don't do while flying in space. There is absolutely no logical reason to park a spaceplane in orbit for more than a couple of weeks (like shuttle), unless it's being designed exactly for spending years in space. And there is no other need for a spaceplane to stay in space, than being a returnable platform for either strike or intercept weapon. In both of these cases the orbital trailer park is an absolute need. And that's exactly what the X-37 flights look demonstrating. *** X-37 has demonstrated its maneuvering capability. It doesn't make sense for a space laboratory at all. It just has nothing to do with that. On the other hand, it's absolutely nice for an orbital interceptor (to chase the target) or a bomber (to turn the orbit plane, deorbit, perform a crosswind maneuver by wings, pitch up, return into thin air, open the bay doors, and release its payload). *** The further development phase of the X-37 project is X-37C. 1.65..1.8 times of size = 4.5..6 times of mass and thus payload. I.e. its payload will be 227 * (4.5 .. 6) = 1 000 .. 1 400 kg. The passage about "six astronauts" sounds not just stupid, but rather idiotic, because such astronauts should be of Kerbal size and mass, and need no air or seat. But instead it sounds very actual if it's purpose is to carry 4..6 things currently tested on the X-37B. It's a typical mass of a normal reentry vehicle with warhead. A (rotary) launcher with 4..6 of them matches the capacity very nicely. And yet no space at all to explain why need a whole winged spacecraft to deliver 1.5 t per decade in 7 flights.

During the Korean War (1950-53) from 16 (US info) to 69 (SU info) B-29 were destroyed by then-modern MiG-15. So, it makes to doubt even that a lot of atomic bombs could be delivered. But even if so, the Urals are 3 000 + km away from the British airbases, so this would mean that several cities in the European part of the USSR would be destroyed, and several bombers could perform suicidal attacks some farther. As most part of the industry since the WWII was located beyond Urals, it would unlikely destroy the industrial capabilities. On the other hand, the war would expand and run on the territory of Western Europe, where since 1948 the US business was running the Marshall Plan (basically, reset of the European economics and industry, restoration of residential and financial capability, with US as main goods provider and bank creditor). So, while US territory maybe would not be affected directly, a crash of this profitable plan would mean nothing good for American economy.

Everyone can use AK. Not everyone can make fire out of sticks. "Theory without practice is dead. Practice without theory is blind." (c) A. V. Suvorov. "Theory without practice is empty; Practice without theory is blind." (c) Harold Anthony Lloyd. Look, all wise people agree.