X-37B

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

If true, perhaps it might encourage people to be a little circumspect about what particular sabers they rattle.

The whole class of weapons are generally characterized (at least in the West) as a deterrent.  

Edited December 2, 2022 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[Nuke]

i dont think first strike capability is something that is viable to work on, at least with conventional icbms or on-orbit deployment. i think you would be better off with a low altitude stealth delivery platform, or spec-ops deployment if you really wanted a nuclear surprise attack. in a situation where you get nuked by an unknown adversary you might just end up firing at your default targets just in case. mad is live and well. 

[kerbiloid]

39 minutes ago, Nuke said:

i dont think first strike capability is something that is viable to work on, at least with conventional icbms or on-orbit deployment. i think you would be better off with a low altitude stealth delivery platform, or spec-ops deployment if you really wanted a nuclear surprise attack. in a situation where you get nuked by an unknown adversary you might just end up firing at your default targets just in case. mad is live and well. 

An orbital platform able to perform a crosswind maneuver can launch warheads from unexpected direction outside of ground radars and kill these radars for several minutes to give the SLBM time for a decreased altitude counterforce attack.

Edited December 2, 2022 by kerbiloid

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

Or... Possibly it has no weapons aboard and is just playing with mystery goo. 

Venture into this for a moment, however.  The US is the beneficiary of the current world economic and security order.  It has no external threat aside from a complete breakdown of the system and total nuclear war. So there is zero motivation to conduct a first strike, even if it has the capacity to do so. 

Meaning, paranoia about this being a weapons platform should be viewed with the same level of blase alarm as the current ICBM and bomber stockpiles engender - ie with the vague discomfort we've all had to live with since this whole kerfuffle started back in the bad old days of the Cold War. 

Frankly I would be more alarmed by the prospect that a dictator scrabbling to retain his hold on a rogue state might use such weapons out of desperation - than any prospect that the US might do something to tip over its own apple cart. 

[Nuke]

46 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

An orbital platform able to perform a crosswind maneuver can launch warheads from unexpected direction outside of ground radars and kill these radars for several minutes to give the SLBM time for a decreased altitude counterforce attack.

perhaps, really depends on russia's radar coverage. ground based stations might be out of los, but satellite based surveillance should be capable of tracking it and relaying the data. if you know of all of those, you could hit them all with asat weapons in a simultaneous strike or jam them prior to launching. but simply losing contact with those is enough to raise defcon. analysts would be over that in minutes, then when the re-entry vehicles show up on radar, the leadership would put it all together and scramble a launch order.  getting a nuke by in a surprise attack would be very difficult. many nukes would be all but impossible, and that would be required to cripple launch capability. nobody would do a first strike if they could not ensure they could suppress the counter attack by a fairly certain margin. at least get it down to where abms can handle the remainder.

18 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Or... Possibly it has no weapons aboard and is just playing with mystery goo. 

Venture into this for a moment, however.  The US is the beneficiary of the current world economic and security order.  It has no external threat aside from a complete breakdown of the system and total nuclear war. So there is zero motivation to conduct a first strike, even if it has the capacity to do so. 

Meaning, paranoia about this being a weapons platform should be viewed with the same level of blase alarm as the current ICBM and bomber stockpiles engender - ie with the vague discomfort we've all had to live with since this whole kerfuffle started back in the bad old days of the Cold War. 

Frankly I would be more alarmed by the prospect that a dictator scrabbling to retain his hold on a rogue state might use such weapons out of desperation - than any prospect that the US might do something to tip over its own apple cart. 

they could be testing weapon stability in a leo environment, but i doubt its a launch platform.  you would need multiple craft on station at any given time for that. at least equivalent to the ballistic missile submarine fleet. also why bother when subs can do the same job at less cost. 

Edited December 2, 2022 by Nuke

[sevenperforce]

1 hour ago, Nuke said:

they could be testing weapon stability in a leo environment, but i doubt its a launch platform.  you would need multiple craft on station at any given time for that. at least equivalent to the ballistic missile submarine fleet. also why bother when subs can do the same job at less cost. 

Plus, the X-37 really doesn't have the payload capability for an orbital launch platform, either. It could carry a few physics packages, sure, but not with what would be needed for independent deorbit and re-entry.

[mikegarrison]

There just is no reason or rationale to believe this is an orbital weapons platform, or even a test platform for one. Orbital weapons have never really made strategic sense anyway. Far too expensive and far too vulnerable, plus you can launch a missile at a target any time you want, but you have to wait for an orbital platform to eventually cross over the target. It's some kind of paranoid fever-dream.

[tater]

Said already, but it makes zero sense. An orbital "first strike" would require hundreds of such vehicles.

The US is not launching a first strike. The person doing so would be facing political (and possible actual) suicide. Because there would still be a response from distributed strategic assets (boomers), and it's hard to get reelected after causing many 10s of millions of deaths.

Edited December 3, 2022 by tater

[kerbiloid]

8 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

Plus, the X-37 really doesn't have the payload capability for an orbital launch platform, either. It could carry a few physics packages, sure, but not with what would be needed for independent deorbit and re-entry.

Its wiki parameters are: bay 2.1x 1.2 m, payload 227 kg.

I.e. it's precisely matching a typical reentry vehicle / warhead of ~1.8 m length, ~0.4 m diameter, ~200..250 kg mass.

About the launch platfform, as you can read in post, I said "modified X-37B or its ancestor".
Obviously the X-37B "as is" is neither capable nor designed for that. It's a test vehicle.

10 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

The US is the beneficiary of the current world economic and security order.  It has no external threat aside from a complete breakdown of the system and total nuclear war. So there is zero motivation to conduct a first strike, even if it has the capacity to do so. 

Indeed. The B-21 presentation was just a prank, and W93 is just a fake.

Starlink is also not used in military conflicts.

1 hour ago, mikegarrison said:

There just is no reason or rationale to believe this is an orbital weapons platform, or even a test platform for one.

Why do they use only one X-37B with that puny capacity and so rare?

No "material" experiment is worth it.
What other 227 kg per several years rather than a nuclear warhead can be so important to support a whole space vehicle program?

Why not just deliver that 227 kg to ISS by a next Cygnus?
The Russkies won't secretly put on their spacesuits to get out and steal it.
Also nobody on the ISS, including the Americans, could have an idea what's being exposed in the box.
The only reason is when the secret box is emitting radiations which can be detected from another module of ISS and analyzed, show the precise isotope composition of the package, and its changing with time (i.e. almost exactly what the experimenters study).

1 hour ago, mikegarrison said:

Orbital weapons have never really made strategic sense anyway. Far too expensive and far too vulnerable

If you can have several (or several tens) of them in orbit, periodically returning to ground, the opponent can't raise alarm on every deorbit.

This can be used for a sudden strike against the early-warning system to blind it for a short time, required for the SLBM counterforce strike.

The HEO platforms have two advantages:

1. The opponent needs hours to hit it with something (even the best space lasers could have < 1000 km range, so compared to thr 36 000 km high HEO they don't differ from a contact missile, and still need ~9 hours to arrive and intercept), so the platform has several hours to release its payload before being hit.
If it's crewed, the crew may even have a good sleep before starting the evacuation.

2. The early-warning doesn't look up, especially in the Sun direction. So, HEO can strike from top and this won't be seen in time.

Obviously, for both HEO and LEO they need first test the warhead in real space conditions, before putting the stuff into mass production.

51 minutes ago, tater said:

An orbital "first strike" would require hundreds of such vehicles.

Total strike would do. A limited blinding strike wouldn't. 

As well, a HEO platform can host even a hundred of half-tonne missiles, it's just 50 t.

51 minutes ago, tater said:

The US is not launching a first strike.

To the date nobody is. But the decreased-altitude SLBM launch was originally an American technology.

And as you can see, the SLS looks too weak for a full-featured Moon program.
Besides the obvious purpose of feeding the weapon makers, it probably has some practical purpose, too. Not necessary as high as the Moon.

Edited December 3, 2022 by kerbiloid

[tater]

10 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

And as you can see, the SLS looks too weak for a full-featured Moon program.
Besides the obvious purpose of feeding the weapon makers, it probably has some practical purpose, too. Not necessary as high as the Moon.

LOL. No.

The US had first strike for a long time. We never used it because we'd never use it.

[darthgently]

My first guess was the X-37B doing some kind of monitoring further and further out.  Like maybe Van Allen belt mapping or something, but the rather strict timing, that I hadn't noticed, puts an interesting wrinkle into it. 

Another reason for that kind of timing might be repeated rendezvous with a craft that is spiralling outward into higher orbits?  Fun to ponder, but who knows?

[kerbiloid]

1 minute ago, darthgently said:

My first guess was the X-37B doing some kind of monitoring further and further out. 

This requires neither returnable wings, nor reusability.

[darthgently]

1 minute ago, kerbiloid said:

This requires neither returnable wings, nor reusability.

I didn't say it was a good guess

Edited December 3, 2022 by darthgently

[Meecrob]

6 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

~snip~

"Alright everyone, our 'Make the Russkies Paranoid Device' is a total success!"

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, Meecrob said:

"Alright everyone, our 'Make the Russkies Paranoid Device' is a total success!"

7 * 227 kg = 1.5 t of total payload.

7 flights

12 years

Definitely makes sense for a reusable spaceplane system.

[SunlitZelkova]

First strike does not mean initiation of a war, it means the first use of nuclear weapons. If a conflict begins conventionally, first strike could be a viable option to silence the other side if things appear to be getting out of hand.

Networking is getting better and better. If attack subs can get into proper position to target SSBNs, ASATs are ready in the predicted orbital paths to launch at their targets, and B-2s have penetrated and are near their command targets, a successful first strike could be viable in theory.

That said, I would still be skeptical. If there really was such a program going on, it would have likely been detected by foreign intelligence agencies years ago, and the propaganda departments of those countries would be yelling about it non-stop. The fact that “X-37B is a weapons platform” remains an internet conspiracy theory makes it unlikely it is a reality.

[Meecrob]

3 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

That said, I would still be skeptical. If there really was such a program going on, it would have likely been detected by foreign intelligence agencies years ago, and the propaganda departments of those countries would be yelling about it non-stop. The fact that “X-37B is a weapons platform” remains an internet conspiracy theory makes it unlikely it is a reality.

I agree. Its not like its the early days of the Cold War with LeMay at the helm of SAC, insisting there be nuclear strike capability aloft 24/7. If I had to venture a guess, I'd say its for validating modern computer hardware performance in the radiation environment of space.

"As human society only becomes more dependent on digital technology, it's worth asking how big a risk cosmic rays pose to our way of life. Not least because, with the continuing miniaturisation of microchip technology, the charge required to corrupt data is getting smaller all the time, meaning it is actually getting easier for cosmic rays to have this effect."

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20221011-how-space-weather-causes-computer-errors

[Nuke]

13 hours ago, tater said:

LOL. No.

The US had first strike for a long time. We never used it because we'd never use it.

first strike only works if you have absolute confidence in your abm systems. thats why anti missile systems caused such a fuss, because it was thought that if a country developed perfect defense capability, they would have to attack before the other side could do the same. you still have the quite literal fallout of the whole affair to deal with, and starting a nuclear war is pretty far down on their cost benefit analysis. i figure a country could only lose a couple major cities before their economy would tank, and a "perfect defense" is not possible. you block 99 out of 100 warheads, you are still going to have problems. 

[tater]

31 minutes ago, Nuke said:

first strike only works if you have absolute confidence in your abm systems.

No.

I mean that the US had first strike well into the 1960s, since the USSR had squat for nuclear delivery capability. During the Cuban Missile crisis Khrushchev was publicly saying they were making ICBMs "like sausages,"  they in fact had 20.

A few years before that, their nuclear capability was unconcerning, not to mention the period directly after ww2 when the US was the sole power with a meaningful nuclear arsenal.

 

31 minutes ago, Nuke said:

thats why anti missile systems caused such a fuss, because it was thought that if a country developed perfect defense capability, they would have to attack before the other side could do the same. you still have the quite literal fallout of the whole affair to deal with, and starting a nuclear war is pretty far down on their cost benefit analysis. i figure a country could only lose a couple major cities before their economy would tank, and a "perfect defense" is not possible. you block 99 out of 100 warheads, you are still going to have problems. 

First strike is not predicated on taking out an enemy with no loss at home. It's predicated on taking out an enemy with "acceptable" loss at home. All of us here can agree that we personally find any loss >0 to be unacceptable, but that was not the universal reality at all during the Cold War in terms of planning. There were always proponents of scenarios where a war could be started that would result in "only" a few million dead on both sides.

Watch Dr. Strangelove—is it a comedy, a documentary, or both?

[Nuke]

one does not have a name like mine without watching dr. strangelove a million times. 

[tater]

1 hour ago, Nuke said:

one does not have a name like mine without watching dr. strangelove a million times. 

I was fairly obsessed with nuclear war as a kid—since I assumed it was a likely part of my future.

 

[Rutabaga22]

On 12/2/2022 at 11:32 AM, kerbiloid said:

Just some shower thoughts.

 

X-37B flights

Flight	Vehicle	Launch date	Landing date	Launcher	Mission[62]	Duration	Notes
OTV-1	1	22 April 2010 23:52 UTC	3 December 2010 09:16 UTC	Atlas V 501	USA-212	224 days, 9 hours, 24 minutes	First launch of Atlas V 501 configuration First American autonomous orbital runway landing First X-37B flight Landed at Vandenberg
OTV-2	2	5 March 2011 22:46 UTC	16 June 2012 12:48 UTC	Atlas V 501	USA-226	468 days, 14 hours, 2 minutes	First flight of second X-37B Landed at Vandenberg
OTV-3	1	11 December 2012 18:03 UTC	17 October 2014 16:24 UTC	Atlas V 501	USA-240	674 days, 22 hours, 21 minutes	Second flight of first X-37B Landed at Vandenberg
OTV-4	2	20 May 2015 15:05 UTC	7 May 2017 11:47 UTC	Atlas V 501	USA-261	717 days, 20 hours, 42 minutes	Second flight of second X-37B First landing on the Shuttle Landing Facility at Kennedy Space Center
OTV-5	2	7 September 2017 14:00 UTC	27 October 2019 07:51 UTC	Falcon 9 Block 4	USA-277	779 days, 17 hours, 51 minutes	First launch of an X-37B on SpaceX's Falcon 9 vehicle
OTV-6	1	17 May 2020 13:14 UTC	12 November 2022 10:22 UTC	Atlas V 501	USA-299	908 days, 21 hours, 8 minutes	Carried most experiments to date First X-37B launch by USSF Longest X-37B mission Landed at Kennedy Space Center

 

Duration sequence.

	days	months			days	months
flight	225	7.5
				rest	92	3
flight	469	15.5
				rest	178	6
flight	675	22.2
				rest	215	7
flight	718	23.6
				rest	123	4
flight	780	25.6
				rest	203	6.8 (7?)
flight	909	30.0

(It was told above about the obviously exposure tests, no need to repeat this here).

We can see a duration pattern.

Flight durations: 7.5 : 15.5 : 23.8 _{(average of 22.2, 23.6, 25.6)} : 30.0 months ~= 1:2:3:4

It looks like they started from ~7.5 month value, and then were adding 8 months on each step.

7.5 + 8 → 15.5 (~= 2 x 7.5) → 23.5 (~= 3 x 7.5) → 30.0 (exactly 4 x 7.5)

The rest time between the first two fights was exactly 3 months long, then it grew up twice, exactly 6 months long.

***

These exact values of the rest (not just the flights) may tell about a continuous series of measurements of the same sample, running not only in flight but also on ground.
Say, a residual radiation or so. 

Twice longer it was exposed in space, twice longer it was exposed and studied on ground, to return it back to orbit in exact time to keep the measurement series uniform.

It's probable also, that the first rest time was shorter just because the sample was not significantly irradiated yet, so it was a calibration experiment and proof of concept.

Though, the sample still looks being the same, and the measurement series continuing.

***

It looks like the third flight should be 23.5 months long (following the numeric sequence, and because the next flight was exactly 23.5), but by the end of the flight something went wrong, so it returned earlier than it was planned.

The rest took exactly 7 months, so the measurements were being continued, but they needed to unplannedly repeat the experiment with 23.5 months.
And they did it, even for the cost of a month-long delay (exactly 7 months of rest instead of exactly 6).

Maybe even the sample has been replaced with a new one, so it took exactly 6 months to ensure that the previous one is not appropriate for further experiments, and a month of a new sample calibration tests.
Maybe just they decided to extend the interflight pause by one month, idk.

After the 23.5 month long flight finished, the next rest was exactly 4 months long.
Probably, the 22.5 and 23.5 months flights brought enough data to avoid repeating the whole interflight measurements again, but in any case the rest time was again exactly integer number of months, 4.

It looks like the problems with the 22.5 months flight were enough significant, so they needed to repeat the 23.5 months test once again, to be sure, and with some extent.

So, the next flight was two months longer (25.6 months), and then they returned to the 7 months rest.

Probably, the problem was considered solved, and the last flight took exactly 30.0 months, so we can presume that the nearly-integer month duration accuracy is a requirement.

***

Now we can presume that the next flight should happen on 12.11.2022 + 7 months ~= in the beginning of Jun 2023, and last for 30 + 7.5 = 37.5 months, so last till late Jul 2026.

If everything goes OK with it, the next flight will happen in Feb..Mar of 2027, and last for 45 months, till 28.11.2030.

Considering the triple-flight 3x22.5 months delay unplanned, we can expect at least a 60 months (i.e. exactly 5 years) flight, and maybe but not necessary a 52.5 month long flight in between.
Though, due to the unplanned delay, the 52.5 will be probably skipped.

So, the end of the experiment can be estimated on 01.07.2031 + 60 months = 01.07.2036.

In July of 2036 the X-37B will finish exposing the thing it carries.

***

And what a strange coincidence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W93

https://armscontrolcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/W93-.pdf

***

So, we can presume that X-37B is exposing a prototype of the future unified W93 warhead, its orbital storage campaign is estimated as 5 years (twice shorter than on the planet, probably due to intensive irradiation and fast fissile degradation).

As it probably weights about 200..300 kg and doesn't have any maneuvering capability, probably a future modification of X-37B (or its ancestor) will be equipped with a sixpack rotary launcher to release the warheads after crosswind maneuver.

Every five years it will be returning to the Earth for servicing and the nuke replacement.

***

This also means that SLS should be ready for active use by 2035, when the military orbital infrastructure will start being built.

The same about Orion and CST-100 as its supply ships (CST for LEO, Orion for HEO stations).

P.S.
Sorries, forgot about the Moon.

To Moon the SLS can fly, too. If have an excessive one.

Upd.
P.P.S.
Of course, they may start using double intervals (especially after reading the KSP forum and realizing that their sneaky plan is revealed), and add 15 months every time, i.e. skip immediately to the 45, then to the 60 month flights.
This will exclude the 37.5 month flight, and finish the studies by  October, 2032.
I.e. again by the 2034 year planned for the W93.

P/P.P.S.
So, it again ensures that all those next-gen "lunar" tech will get actual after 2030, and to the date it's just drifting.
This explains the rather slow progress of lunar tech.
The same about LOP-G. No need in LOP-G-based military modules before the W93 is tested.

I will be very angry if we are carrying prototype nuclear weapons to orbit. This is unreasonable and would be a blatant violation of the outer space treaty.
 

Quote

• States shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner;

 

[Nuke]

if it is its probibly not a functional warhead, at most materials samples. but it seems like you would be able to do that testing on the ground in more controlled settings than orbit. 

its probibly just tech under consideration for use by the space force undergoing early trials. idk how far we plan on going with the space force, are they just gonna be satellite operators or are we talking orbital warships?

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

Waaaay too much thread-space is being given to an extremely unlikely bit of speculation.

[kerbiloid]

3 hours ago, Nuke said:

if it is its probibly not a functional warhead, at most materials samples.

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.

3 hours ago, Nuke said:

but it seems like you would be able to do that testing on the ground in more controlled settings than orbit. 

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.

Quote

This spacecraft was planned to be between 165% and 180% of the size of the X-37B, allowing it to transport up to six astronauts inside a pressurized compartment housed in the cargo bay.

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.

40 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Waaaay too much thread-space is being given to an extremely unlikely bit of speculation.

And yet no space at all to explain why need a whole winged spacecraft to deliver 1.5 t per decade in 7 flights.

Edited December 4, 2022 by kerbiloid