X-37B

[kerbiloid]

16 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

This is more or less the same logic used by the Soviets when they deduced that the Space Shuttle was a nuclear strike platform

Space Shuttle had never spent more than two weeks in space, it was crewed, and its maneuvering capability in orbit was highly limited.

So, while it technically could perform a dive-and-pitch-up maneuver and drop a hydronuke (it was computed by Keldysh group), it could be only a last chance measure against a single target.

X-37B/C is something absolutely opposite to Space Shuttle.

16 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

To put into perspective why we are so opposed to your theory, it is as though we said there are no reasons why Oryol and ROSS have been pushed so far into the future, and therefore Russia must have no intention to actually build Oryol and ROSS and therefore all plans and announcements related to it are lies.

ROSS and Oryol aren't something similar to X-37B, and to the date they are farther from completion than the unpurposed (?) CST-100 and Orion.

So, it's just not a thing to have a discussion about.

Maybe they will be ready by 2030s, maybe not, it just doesn't matter here.

While Spiral (pure military), LKS, and Buran (between other purposes) were orbital weapon platforms, they again were never intending to spend more than from several hours (Spiral) to one month (Buran) in orbit.
LKS was mentioned in literature as a base platform for space forces, but launched on demand, not for several years.

So, the only purpose of a several-years-in-space spaceplane is to be a space weapon platform, from time to time returning to the base, while its siblings are staying in orbit, i.e. to be a part of an orbital combat infrastructure.

Edited December 11, 2022 by kerbiloid

[SunlitZelkova]

2 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

So, while it technically could perform a dive-and-pitch-up maneuver and drop a hydronuke (it was computed by Keldysh group), it could be only a last chance measure against a single target.

X-37B/C is something absolutely opposite to Space Shuttle.

There are only two pads at Vandenberg.

Two X-37Cs are not going to be an effective strike force compared to SLBMs or stealth bombers (if the goal is first strike). Grouped X-37Cs (launches successively, more than two on orbit), would also be useless, as they will be detected by radar just the same as an SLBM launched from short range, and can be tracked while in orbit. It is also incredibly public, and no one likes to make it known exactly what portions of their nuclear force are on alert and which are not.

They are completely garbage as a second strike/retaliatory force. It’s hidden subs and hardened ICBMs vs. dinky electronic finned thingies that can be knocked out by high altitude nuclear detonations.

4 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

So, the only purpose of a several-years-in-space spaceplane is to be a space weapon platform, from time to time returning to the base, while its siblings are staying in orbit, i.e. to be a part of an orbital combat infrastructure.

Just because something happened or did not happen in the past does not mean it is happening now.

[kerbiloid]

19 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Two X-37Cs are not going to be an effective strike force compared to SLBMs or stealth bombers (if the goal is first strike). 

As I said above, not instead of, but in addition to.

Say, to blind the early warning system for several minutes before th counterforce SLBM strike, to let the SLBM pass,
A low-altitude SLBM flight takes 10+/- minutes at ~100 km altitude instead of 1000. With a stronger reentry vehicle it can probably take just 5..10 min at nearly plane altitude.
So, you don't need a hundred of orvital platforms, you need just to blind the radars for several minutes, and a pack small LEO spaceplanes looks being perfect for that. Of course, they should survive in space for several years.

26 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Just because something happened or did not happen in the past does not mean it is happening now.

Physics is physics, Economy is economy. No reason to attach wings and floaters to a car, no need to attach a spaceplane to a satellite, unless you need exactly that.

Edited December 11, 2022 by kerbiloid

[SunlitZelkova]

8 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Say, to blind the early warning system for several minutes before th counterforce SLBM strike, to let the SLBM pass,
A low-altitude SLBM flight takes 10+/- minutes at ~100 km altitude instead of 1000. With a stronger reentry vehicle it can probably take just 5..10 min at nearly plane altitude.
So, you don't need a hundred of orvital platforms, you need just to blind the radars for several minutes, and a pack small LEO spaceplanes looks being perfect for that. Of course, they should survive in space for several years.

There are ground systems designed to detect nuclear explosions based on seismic data, radiation sensing, and also the very obvious loss of communication with the radar sites would alert them too.

It would not be feasible and the radars themselves might detect the X-37s and manage to report them prior to destruction.

8 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Physics is physics, Economy is economy. No reason to attach wings and floaters to a car, no need to attach a spaceplane to a satellite, unless you need exactly that.

Bureaucracies and government agencies don’t operate based on logic.

The exact same logic was applied to the Shuttle- “there is no reason to use the Shuttle over expendable rockets, it must be a secret weapons system!”- yet contrived reasons for the use of the Shuttle existed within the US government.

[Codraroll]

13 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

I have repeatedly miss this "there is"? What exactly purpose except listed by me?

It's a platform that can expose its payload to space, sit in orbit for a while, close up the payload bay, then return to Earth. The wings and such allows perfect steering to land softly on the closely guarded runways at specific military bases, instead of splashdowns somewhere in a vast expanse of the ocean/desert.

All the other alternatives you list either lack return capability (like ordinary satellites), or cannot return any cargo outside the pressurized compartment (Dragon, Starliner). They can get payload to space all right, but not expose it to space conditions and take it back afterwards. Their design is centered on preserving their cargo inside the capsule (which has an environment distinctly different from that on the outside), and ditching the non-pressurized parts before reentry.

This latter limitation also allows sample tests that cannot easily be conducted on the ISS. Samples for space exposure could be delivered to the station in an unpressurized compartment and mounted on the outside, sure, but returning them to Earth would be trickier. They would have to be stowed inside the Dragon/Starliner capsule to survive reentry. That would necessarily involve maneuvering them through various airlocks, then clamping them down inside the capsule somehow, and that's a hassle and a half for large samples.

Launching the same payload on a satellite might be cheaper and easier on the surface of it, but then they would have to develop a whole new reentry system for the payload, capable of soft precision landings. Why bother with that, when the X-37 is readily available? It may have been built initially as a technology demonstrator of aerodynamic orbital maneuvering, but turned out to have the exact right capabilities for orbital sample returns and so was adopted for the purpose.

9 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Say, to blind the early warning system for several minutes before th counterforce SLBM strike, to let the SLBM pass,

A re-entering spaceplane is not any less visible than an SLBM launch. The relevant agencies of the adversary would probably notice and react if one of the more mysterious American space objects (one they'd be certain to keep a close eye on at all times) suddenly initiated re-entry on a course towards their early-warning radars. What with the blazing fireworks display of re-entry and all, it wouldn't be very hard to spot. Unlike the stealth bombers specifically built for the purpose of sneaking in and dropping their payload before the enemy even notices their presence. It's easier to go under the radar than rushing at it from above. Just ask Mathias Rust.

[Jacke]

13 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

As I said, our government is not that smart. They don’t play 4D chess moves on their adversaries....

An important clarification.  Trying to play "4D chess" is a good way to get tied in knots and fail in diplomacy and warfare.  Simple plans are often the best.  A simpler plan that achieves the goals is usually better than a complex one.  Know that much will be seen by potential opponents, but also key items can be hidden well.  And the parts of governments are usually not stupid but smart enough.  They will make mistakes from time to time, but they usually learn from them.

The biggest exceptions to this are caused by corruption and kleptocracy.  When the raison d'être is fixed on getting as much dosh as possible, no matter what, important institutions can rot out and become mere shadows of what they should be.

@kerbiloid, you are still committing the common mistake of fixing on an hypothesis and interpreting everything to support that hypothesis and ignoring or denigrating everything that contradicts it.  I don't know what we can say to spread a little enlightenment to you.  Note that the rest of us don't all agree on everything, but we do agree on a lot.

Edited December 11, 2022 by Jacke

[kerbiloid]

8 hours ago, Codraroll said:

It's a platform that can expose its payload to space, sit in orbit for a while, close up the payload bay, then return to Earth. The wings and such allows perfect steering to land softly on the closely guarded runways at specific military bases, instead of splashdowns somewhere in a vast expanse of the ocean/desert.

Indeed. You've just taken these words from my mouth, that's exactly what I'm saying.
Like "this is a car, it needs wheels to run", pointing at a mobile rocket launcher. Technically, it's a truth.

9 hours ago, Codraroll said:

All the other alternatives you list either lack return capability (like ordinary satellites), or cannot return any cargo outside the pressurized compartment (Dragon, Starliner). They can get payload to space all right, but not expose it to space conditions and take it back afterwards.

ISS can do this with any cargo ship in much greater amounts.

9 hours ago, Codraroll said:

This latter limitation also allows sample tests that cannot easily be conducted on the ISS.

For example? What composite sandwich is so specific that can't be exposed on the ISS and needs a whole spaceplane system?

9 hours ago, Codraroll said:

but returning them to Earth would be trickier

Cargo Dragon returns more than a tonne of them per flight. Like all X-37B flights together.

9 hours ago, Codraroll said:

They would have to be stowed inside the Dragon/Starliner capsule to survive reentry. That would necessarily involve maneuvering them through various airlocks

The airlocks are from 80 to 120 cm wide. The boxes are handheld. Next suggestion?

9 hours ago, Codraroll said:

then clamping them down inside the capsule somehow

Rubber bands and nets are invented long ago and are used since the first spaceflight exactly for that.

9 hours ago, Codraroll said:

Launching the same payload on a satellite might be cheaper and easier on the surface of it, but then they would have to develop a whole new reentry system for the payload, capable of soft precision landings.

https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/corona-film-return-capsule/nasm_A19950118000

Welcome the Corona Film Return Capsule, 1972, the last of them.

Spoiler

They have been used hundreds of times since late 1950s.

Also, what to return from the satellites at all? There is ISS for material exposing, and the satelites can last for a decade in orbit, so that their return makes no sense at all.

9 hours ago, Codraroll said:

A re-entering spaceplane is not any less visible than an SLBM launch.

1. In the ideal world, yes, but in real world can depend on trajectory and other factors.

2. An enforced SLBM RV is appropriate for a HEO station, and still must be tested. X-37B is a perfect test platform for both such warhead and an a LEO assault drone.

6 hours ago, Jacke said:

you are still committing the common mistake of fixing on an hypothesis and interpreting everything to support that hypothesis and ignoring or denigrating everything that contradicts it. 

I just haven't heard any substantive counter-arguments on my hypothesis, and at the same time see very weak explanation of very poor designs funded for decades.

[SunlitZelkova]

4 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

ISS can do this with any cargo ship in much greater amounts.

It is classified research. It doesn’t even matter if it is likely that other nations already have it, it is classified and can’t be revealed no matter what.

4 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/corona-film-return-capsule/nasm_A19950118000

Welcome the Corona Film Return Capsule, 1972, the last of them.

  Reveal hidden contents

They have been used hundreds of times since late 1950s.

Also, what to return from the satellites at all? There is ISS for material exposing, and the satelites can last for a decade in orbit, so that their return makes no sense at all.

Corona can not/could not expose materials to space.

The materials are being brought back to see what happened to them. It’s a testing program, and has nothing to do with building “reusable satellites”.

4 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

I just haven't heard any substantive counter-arguments on my hypothesis, and at the same time see very weak explanation of very poor designs funded for decades.

Why do you find our explanations weak?

Ours are actually supported by evidence. In contrast, yours are pure speculation.

I am not trying to be hostile in saying that. But your argument appears as though it is “this can’t be this and thus must be this” and no more. It is not convincing.

Edited December 12, 2022 by SunlitZelkova

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

<deleted >

Thinking that the US has the foresight to anticipate RU attacking Ukraine and consequently having a first strike package ready and waiting really gives us waay too much credit. 

 

Edited December 12, 2022 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[magnemoe]

12 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Indeed. You've just taken these words from my mouth, that's exactly what I'm saying.
Like "this is a car, it needs wheels to run", pointing at a mobile rocket launcher. Technically, it's a truth.

ISS can do this with any cargo ship in much greater amounts.

For example? What composite sandwich is so specific that can't be exposed on the ISS and needs a whole spaceplane system?

Cargo Dragon returns more than a tonne of them per flight. Like all X-37B flights together.

The airlocks are from 80 to 120 cm wide. The boxes are handheld. Next suggestion?

Rubber bands and nets are invented long ago and are used since the first spaceflight exactly for that.

https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/corona-film-return-capsule/nasm_A19950118000

Welcome the Corona Film Return Capsule, 1972, the last of them.

  Reveal hidden contents

They have been used hundreds of times since late 1950s.

Also, what to return from the satellites at all? There is ISS for material exposing, and the satelites can last for a decade in orbit, so that their return makes no sense at all.

1. In the ideal world, yes, but in real world can depend on trajectory and other factors.

2. An enforced SLBM RV is appropriate for a HEO station, and still must be tested. X-37B is a perfect test platform for both such warhead and an a LEO assault drone.

I just haven't heard any substantive counter-arguments on my hypothesis, and at the same time see very weak explanation of very poor designs funded for decades.

For the IIS, well the Russians and others are there. 
Well an combination of something like an combination of Vantablack with radar absorption material would be useful but also pretty obvious its also something you direct expose to sunlight. 
Other stuff might be stuff like lasers, sensors, antennas who are stealthy this is stuff you want to actually use  

Cargo dragon don't return exposed parts. Now you might replace the docking port not with an cupola but with something like an large trashcan who is the vacuum chamber but you might need to extend the samples out to expose. 
This probably has higher capacity but higher g forces during reentry and splashdown. Its also involves SpaceX and the have the X-37 so little need to develop this system, more secure to keep it in house. 

Return capsules are even smaller than the X-37 and has higher g load, its also something who has to be developed.  
In short they use the x-37 because they have it and it does the job, would they build it today, very unlikely, but the US air force also fly B-52 who are older than their crews parents as they have it and it works well enough and replacing it would not be cost expensive. 

 

[kerbiloid]

18 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Corona can not/could not expose materials to space.

ISS still can. It is doing this for many tonnes of materials.
The film capsules are still appropriate to expose something to radiation.

18 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

It is classified research. It doesn’t even matter if it is likely that other nations already have it, it is classified and can’t be revealed no matter what.

All secret researches other that this one tonne, didn't need their personal spaceplane system, and were happily run.

18 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Why do you find our explanations weak?

Ours are actually supported by evidence

Because these explanations are based on emotions, never-ever, and general words like "it just needs" and "it's secret".
(Come on, aren't you going to impress a Soviet/Russian with the word "secret", lol.)
Neither doubtful fact was alternatively explained, so it has just ensured me that the hypothesis is right.

Other secret materials arre happily living on the ISS trusses and nobody knows what's that and cares about it.
Unless a material is inevitably emitting something detectable from outside, making pretty clear for others, what's that.

15 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Thinking that the US has the foresight to anticipate RU attacking Ukraine

I understand that <the mentioned territory> is what the whole American life is devoted to and running around for last four hundred years, and only the opinion of several famously pacifistic countries is sacredly right, but this still doesn't explain any of X-37B properties.

9 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Well an combination of something like an combination of Vantablack with radar absorption material would be useful but also pretty obvious its also something you direct expose to sunlight. 

Can't see a radar there. Maybe only on a Russian inspector satellite passing by, lol.

9 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Other stuff might be stuff like lasers, sensors, antennas who are stealthy this is stuff you want to actually use  

227 kg in total? Even smallest useful combat lasers need a truck or a tank chassis.
While the weak aiming lasers are happily used for decades. The American docking system is based on lasers. The modern Russian one as well. Even Salyut-7 was captured using a standard handheld field laser sight.

The problem is exactly that 227 can't be enough much for something so useful that it is worth a whole separate spaceplane system. Not an instance of existing spaceplane system, but a system not used for anything else for more than decade.

9 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Return capsules are even smaller than the X-37

X-37 payload: 227 kg
Almaz and Raduga film capsules (close to Corona ones): 120+ kg.

Almost same .

[razark]

Seriously, aside from "with a big enough hammer, I can fit this peg into whatever hole I find", do you have any real evidence that makes your hypothesis any better than the many proposed alternatives that have been posted?

[kerbiloid]

28 minutes ago, razark said:

Seriously, aside from "with a big enough hammer, I can fit this peg into whatever hole I find", do you have any real evidence that makes your hypothesis any better than the many proposed alternatives that have been posted?

Evidence?
It's just a hypothesis, which from my pov perfectly explains all observable strangenesses , and I brought it to check if there is an alternative explanation based on things which I miss, because of Occam priinciple.
Haven't succeeded with that.
So, until an evidence appears, for me it's not the best, but just the only version due to absence of others.

[razark]

10 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Evidence?

Yes.  Do you actually have any?

 

10 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

It's just a hypothesis...

Exactly, yet you keep pounding it as though it's the only possible explanation, discarding any other possible explanations.

 

10 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

I brought it to check if there is an alternative explanation

Many, but you keep throwing them out, because they don't fit your preconceptions.

 

10 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

So, until an evidence appears, for me it's not the best, but just the only version due to absence of others.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", or something.  Burden of proof is yours.

Further, plenty of valid ideas have been presented, but again, you keep throwing them out, because they don't fit your preconceptions.

 

10 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Haven't succeeded with that.

Seems to be the running theme of your posts here.

 

Frankly, if you don't understand why or how the X-37B could be used for anything other than your pet theory, it simply points to a lack of imagination of your part.

Edited December 13, 2022 by razark

[kerbiloid]

28 minutes ago, razark said:

Yes.  Do you actually have any?

An X-37B on backyard? Does anybody?

28 minutes ago, razark said:

Exactly, yet you keep pounding it as though it's the only possible explanation, discarding any other possible explanations.

I don't pound. I tested, I checked, I put it on a shelf. I don't care of convincing somebody.

30 minutes ago, razark said:

Many, but you keep throwing them out, because they don't fit your preconceptions.
<...>
Further, plenty of valid ideas have been presented, but again, you keep throwing them out, because they don't fit your preconceptions.

If you look the thread history, the last two pages I just response on others' calls.

33 minutes ago, razark said:

Seems to be the running theme of your posts here.

Exactly. I would prefer to avoid recruiting excessive entities like warheads, but...

34 minutes ago, razark said:

Frankly, if you don't understand why or how the X-37B could be used for anything other than your pet theory, it simply points to a lack of imagination of your part.

It's the least my imagination can. I just had to restrict it witrh this thread subject.

[TheFlyingKerman]

On 12/11/2022 at 5:58 PM, kerbiloid said:

As I said above, not instead of, but in addition to.

Say, to blind the early warning system for several minutes before th counterforce SLBM strike, to let the SLBM pass,

Based on what do think a couple of nuclear blasts is sufficient to disable a whole early warning system, which consists of many satellites and radars? And early warning system or not the adversary is definitely going the fire his ICBM for retaliation.

Also for a nuclear strike the space plane body is a liability. The warhead would need an independent RV. But then the system would not fit the X-37B.

[Codraroll]

40 minutes ago, TheFlyingKerman said:

Also for a nuclear strike the space plane body is a liability. The warhead would need an independent RV. But then the system would not fit the X-37B.

Or for that matter need it. If the warhead can re-enter independently, one might as well make it capable of performing the plane changes to maneuver on its own, instead of relying on a spaceplane to do it before the warhead is let loose.

Come to think of it, a missile on an orbital spaceplane would be a very counter-intuitive thing for those who don't know orbital mechanics. Imagine the Hollywood movie: A space-shuttle-like craft in orbit, approaching its target. Some maps and words on a computer screen in the control room shows the target on the ground up ahead. The order is given to fire the missile. The craft's bomb bay doors open, clamps around the missile disengage, and a little piston pushes it soundlessly out into space as it engine spins up. So far, all the standard fare.

But then the engine engages, and the missile fires backwards relative to the spaceplane. The engine burns for a few seconds before fizzling out. The first stage is then decoupled, dropping away to reveal ... not a second-stage engine, but the warhead nose cone. And then little streamers of air begin to appear around the warhead, in the opposite direction of the exhaust of the engine that was just discarded. The spaceplane, at this point, is flying sedately over its target or even way beyond, looking backwards at the missile as it plunges through the atmosphere.

I think the movie would need a three-minute scene of the nerd character explaining the orbital mechanics, with diagrams, before the director would allow the missile strike to be shown that way.

[SunlitZelkova]

12 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

All secret researches other that this one tonne, didn't need their personal spaceplane system, and were happily run.

Because if research doesn’t need a spaceplane, it doesn’t need a spaceplane, and if it does need a spaceplane, it needs a spaceplane.

Do you expect every single experiment to be Earth bound no matter what? That the creation of new experiments requiring on-orbit exposure is impossible?

12 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Because these explanations are based on emotions, never-ever, and general words like "it just needs" and "it's secret".
(Come on, aren't you going to impress a Soviet/Russian with the word "secret", lol.)
Neither doubtful fact was alternatively explained, so it has just ensured me that the hypothesis is right.

Other secret materials arre happily living on the ISS trusses and nobody knows what's that and cares about it.
Unless a material is inevitably emitting something detectable from outside, making pretty clear for others, what's that.

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104539/x-37b-orbital-test-vehicle/
 

“The primary objectives of the X-37B are twofold; reusable spacecraft technologies for America’s future in space and operating experiments which can be returned to, and examined, on Earth.“

This is not emotions, and while saying “classified stuff” can be considered hand wavy, it is backed up by evidence like this quote above. We are only saying “never ever” because there is so much overwhelming evidence against the more extreme argument.

I myself (and probably others) don’t really mind a 21st century equivalent of the Space Shuttle bomber theory. We don’t expect you to drop your theory, it is just that you are disregarding ours as being plausible (saying that the only possibility is that the X-37B is testing a space based nuclear weapon) that is causing the discussion to continue.

I’m unaware of classified experiments already having been conducted on the ISS. Could you share some more info, with a source?

[tater]

Thought X-37 fans would like this:

 

[Kerballlistic07]

Does anyone have any speculation as to when the next flight of X-37b will be? Also does anyone know what launch vehicle it will fly on now that Atlas is being retired? I'm assuming Vulcan but Falcon 9 is a competitor too.

[Beccab]

30 minutes ago, Kerballlistic07 said:

Does anyone have any speculation as to when the next flight of X-37b will be? Also does anyone know what launch vehicle it will fly on now that Atlas is being retired? I'm assuming Vulcan but Falcon 9 is a competitor too.

It already flew on F9, so the next flight will be on that likely. I imagine they'll alternate F9 and booster-less Vulcan when the latter comes online

[Kerballlistic07]

3 minutes ago, Beccab said:

It already flew on F9, so the next flight will be on that likely. I imagine they'll alternate F9 and booster-less Vulcan when the latter comes online

Kinda what I was thinking. Since X-37b is a Boeing project, they ideally want to fly it on a ULA rocket since ULA is essentially a Boeing company. (50% Boeing, 50% Lockheed) But flying on Falcon 9 makes sense until they can get Vulcan produced faster. (And Jeff gives them more engines! ) I just didn't know if we had any indication of the next date it will fly. Looking ahead at the next few USSF launches there is one on a unconfirmed variant of the Atlas V.  Following that, there is a bunch of Vulcans, two Falcon 9's, and 1 Falcon Heavy. But, knowing the secrecy regarding the Space Force, it is possible that they will announce the launch shortly before it actually happens.

[mikegarrison]

10 hours ago, Kerballlistic07 said:

Kinda what I was thinking. Since X-37b is a Boeing project, they ideally want to fly it on a ULA rocket since ULA is essentially a Boeing company. (50% Boeing, 50% Lockheed)

Boeing does not own the X-37B and (AFAIK) has zero say on what launch vehicles the USSF chooses to launch it on.

[Beccab]

3 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

Boeing does not own the X-37B and (AFAIK) has zero say on what launch vehicles the USSF chooses to launch it on.

Well, they proposed a crewed variant to NASA, so they have at least the option of owning it. But yeah, they can't choose that for the USAF missions

[mikegarrison]

17 minutes ago, Beccab said:

Well, they proposed a crewed variant to NASA, so they have at least the option of owning it. But yeah, they can't choose that for the USAF missions

That would be a new one. Not one of the two USAF already owns (and USSF operates).