soyuz the underappreciated workhorse?

[Nibb31]

I wonder what will they use it for. Remote satellite repairs/refueling?

Getting used to usual transparency level of most american space programs, it feels strange to get so little info, but well its USAF, not NASA.

There is no obvious use for something like X-37B. If they wanted to service friendly sats or inspect enemy sats, it would be much cheaper to use a low-profile expendable vehicle and they wouldn't need to keep it in orbit for 18 months. Plus, everybody can see where it is, and enemys would know immediately that their being spied on.

It's too small to be a weapons platform, and a space bomber simply doesn't make sense.

The fact that it reenters and is reusable suggests that there is something super-valuable on board. They could be using it for microgravity experiments on some super-secret new materials or small-scale orbital manufacturing of something extremely valuable. But this doesn't explain why it does all sorts of complicated orbital manoeuvers.

It could be carrying some super-secret sensors (not for optical reconnaissance, it's way too small to carry a big telescope), that are so expensive that they can't afford to put them on an expendable satellite. But that sounds really far-fetched when the NOAA has the best observation satellites, and there are cheaper and more flexible ways of gathering data.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Nibb31

[Klingon Admiral]

The thing that bothers me most about the shuttle is that in it's 30 years of service, nobody got the idea to scrap the orbiter and put some cargo bays and engines on the fuel tank. Oh the lift capacity. And yeah, I know that this is more or less what they are doing with the SLS now.

[Ralathon]

The thing that bothers me most about the shuttle is that in it's 30 years of service, nobody got the idea to scrap the orbiter and put some cargo bays and engines on the fuel tank. Oh the lift capacity. And yeah, I know that this is more or less what they are doing with the SLS now.

The external fuel tank isn't designed for that. To get that working you would have to redesigned so much its probably cheaper to just design a rocket from scratch. In real life you can't just toss struts at the problem until it no longer buckles.

[magnemoe]

There is no evident use for something like X-37B. The only purpose I can think of is microgravity experiments on some super-secret new materials or small-scale orbital manufacturing of something equally super-secret. Nothing else makes any sense. If they wanted to service friendly sats or inspect enemy sats, it would be much cheaper to use a low-profile expendable vehicle and they wouldn't need to keep it in orbit for 18 months.

True, it would make a lot of sense to refuel the big reconnaissance satellites in low orbit. However this can probably be done with something smaller and cheaper.

Anyway refueling missions will not be long, just enough to match orbit, dock, transfer and return. Only exception is if the refuler carry enough fuel to do multiple fillings so you fly them close to each other until satellite fuel get low enough to refuel with the rest of the fuel in the tank.

Material testing in space conditions is another possible mission you would need to keep the sample in space an good time then return the sample to earth.

[thagrosh2]

That's like saying the Soyuz is flawed because it can't be launched in the middle of a hurricane.

well expedition 29 would say differently they launched in a blizzard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_TMA-22

[Seret]

It's too small to be a weapons platform, and a space bomber simply doesn't make sense.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was a technology demonstrator for a weapons platform. The USAF have expressed interest in a bomber that can strike anywhere in the world without the need for tankers before. I agree that it'd be a ferociously expensive way to put bombs on target, but it's technically feasible and they have deep pockets. It'd make the B2 look like a toy.

[kiwiak]

And dont forget for another upcoming wings in space

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

[Nibb31]

I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was a technology demonstrator for a weapons platform. The USAF have expressed interest in a bomber that can strike anywhere in the world without the need for tankers before. I agree that it'd be a ferociously expensive way to put bombs on target, but it's technically feasible and they have deep pockets. It'd make the B2 look like a toy.

A space bomber is a stupid idea, and the USAF knows it.

- Launching on a Titan V is far from "rapid response". You'd be better off with an ICBM.

- Any amateur astronomer can calculate its orbit at any given time. A satellite is not exactly stealthy.

- Selecting your target from orbit requires huge amounts of delta-v.

- A spaceplane reenters slowly, hot, and in a predictable straight line. It would be easy to shoot down.

[kiwiak]

A space bomber is a stupid idea, and the USAF knows it.

- Launching on a Titan V is far from "rapid response". You'd be better off with an ICBM.

- Any amateur astronomer can calculate its orbit at any given time. A satellite is not exactly stealthy.

- Selecting your target from orbit requires huge amounts of delta-v.

- A spaceplane reenters slowly, hot, and in a predictable straight line. It would be easy to shoot down.

About launching, this shuttle is supoosed to spend long termms on orbit, months or even years, so it woudl be just be there and wait for orders.

[crazyewok]

A space bomber is a stupid idea, and the USAF knows it.

- Launching on a Titan V is far from "rapid response". You'd be better off with an ICBM.

- Any amateur astronomer can calculate its orbit at any given time. A satellite is not exactly stealthy.

- Selecting your target from orbit requires huge amounts of delta-v.

- A spaceplane reenters slowly, hot, and in a predictable straight line. It would be easy to shoot down.

Not exactly corrcet.

You have the "rods from god" concept of fireing Tungsten projectiles from orbit onto targets below. Read up on the concept of hypervelocity rod bundles which at the very least has been considerd by the USAF.

[NASAFanboy]

Not exactly corrcet.

You have the "rods from god" concept of fireing Tungsten projectiles from orbit onto targets below. Read up on the concept of hypervelocity rod bundles which at the very least has been considerd by the USAF.

Would be cheaper to launch a bundle from an ICBM.

We will have satellites like this eventually (Around 2020-2030), but its going to be of a more deterrant and prestige symbol than actual weapon of war.

[DerekL1963]

Not exactly corrcet.

You have the "rods from god" concept of fireing Tungsten projectiles from orbit onto targets below. Read up on the concept of hypervelocity rod bundles which at the very least has been considerd by the USAF.

Yes, they were considered a decade ago... and then tossed in the circular file. No guidance system exists with sufficient precision to get one 'in the basket', and once in the basket... no sensor exists that can see through the re-entry plasma in order to hit the small targets that they have the capability of taking out.

[crazyewok]

Would be cheaper to launch a bundle from an ICBM.

We will have satellites like this eventually (Around 2020-2030), but its going to be of a more deterrant and prestige symbol than actual weapon of war.

Most likley but just giving a example of a orbit to earth weapon that can be usefull. Theres not much you can do to protect yourself from a 9 ton lump of tungten hurtling down at you at 11,000 m/s.

[crazyewok]

and then tossed in the circular file.

When? Last i checked it was still under research.

Plus the ones I read wernt for taking out small targets either. The largers ones dont need pin point accuracy as they can deliver a 0.12 KT worth of damage.

[NASAFanboy]

Most likley but just giving a example of a orbit to earth weapon that can be usefull. Theres not much you can do to protect yourself from a 9 ton lump of tungten hurtling down at you at 11,000 m/s.

But there's something called orbital tracking and ASAT missiles. If you went to war, that satellite is the first thing an enemy country would target. It would be wrecked to pieces before it fires a shot.

From what I heard, the USAF is looking to launch one by 2025. Nice way to show American military dominance, though it probably won't be used much

[Nibb31]

Not exactly corrcet.

You have the "rods from god" concept of fireing Tungsten projectiles from orbit onto targets below. Read up on the concept of hypervelocity rod bundles which at the very least has been considerd by the USAF.

We were talking about the X-37B. Tungsten projectiles are cheap, you'd just put a bunch of them in orbit and leave them there. There's no point in putting them on a reusable spaceplane.

[Seret]

A space bomber is a stupid idea, and the USAF knows it.

- Launching on a Titan V is far from "rapid response". You'd be better off with an ICBM.

Indeed. However, the X-37B missions are fairly long. So loiter time on station is potentially pretty good once you're up there.

- Any amateur astronomer can calculate its orbit at any given time. A satellite is not exactly stealthy.

The longer it's been on station, the more uncertainty about it's location. Besides, if there's no counter to the weapon then stealth is less important anyway.

- Selecting your target from orbit requires huge amounts of delta-v.

The alternative system is a B-2 and enough tankers to get half way around the world. So we're not afraid of burning a fair bit of fuel to get bombs on bad guys.

- A spaceplane reenters slowly, hot, and in a predictable straight line. It would be easy to shoot down.

The capability they're looking for is to be able to strike anywhere in the globe from a base in the continental US, akin to what the B-2s currently do. A B-2 is very vulnerable when it's landing too.

[Seret]

Most likley but just giving a example of a orbit to earth weapon that can be usefull. Theres not much you can do to protect yourself from a 9 ton lump of tungten hurtling down at you at 11,000 m/s.

IMO they'd probably just use something derived from standard Mk80 series bombs, since various precision guidance kits for them are available. There are thermally protected variants, I wouldn't think adapting them for orbital use would be an insurmountable challenge.

[crazyewok]

We were talking about the X-37B. Tungsten projectiles are cheap, you'd just put a bunch of them in orbit and leave them there. There's no point in putting them on a reusable spaceplane.

Yeah I agree the X-37B is unlikley to hold any weaponry. I was just useing the exmaple of the kentic projectiles are a example that space based weapons are nor entirely useless.

Though you know what US black projects are like they could have anything on the X-37B, when you goot a $800 billion + militray budget and a "official" black budget of $60 billion odd they could be up to anything really, we likley wont find out for a few decades or until the next big war.

[Nibb31]

Yeah I agree the X-37B is unlikley to hold any weaponry. I was just useing the exmaple of the kentic projectiles are a example that space based weapons are nor entirely useless.

But we were talking about the X-37B, not random space-based weapons.

Putting weapons in space is illegal by the way.

[crazyewok]

Putting weapons in space is illegal by the way.

And? lol

When has that stoped countrys from doing things?

If treaty could be trusted and always worked we would have no wars. Fact is history shows that treatys and agreements between countrys only work while they are convenient .

Plus if the USA ever does something like it proposed with the SDI what going to happen? Worst a angry letter from the UN because with that power all out war would be suicide.

Not saying I agree with that position, infact I think its a dreadfull thing but like you are a pessimist and a negative nancy when it come to space exploration Im a pessimist and a negative nancy when it comes to humans and there politics.

[Nibb31]

When has that stoped countrys from doing things?

If treaty could be trusted and always worked we would have no wars. Fact is history shows that treatys and agreements between countrys only work while they are convenient .

The whole point of war treatys is to not do to others what you don't want them to do to you. The principle is the same as for the Geneva convention. You treat enemy POWs decently because you expect your enemy to treat your own POWs decently.

If the US puts up space-based weapons, then nothing stops Russia or China from doing the same. I don't think the Pentagon is quite fond of the idea of allowing those countries to have the capability of an unstoppable first strike on US soil. The fact that the non-militarization of space treaty has been respected for so long proves the point.

[Klingon Admiral]

In my oppinion, the Outer Space Treaty is one of the very few treaties which would lead to the rest of the world going Defcon 1 if one country would break it.

[crazyewok]

The whole point of war treatys is to not do to others what you don't want them to do to you. The principle is the same as for the Geneva convention. You treat enemy POWs decently because you expect your enemy to treat your own POWs decently.

Yet abuses still happen as soon as the treaty become burdensom. Look at the USA, they have bent the Geneva convention when its comes to treatment of POW so far if not have broken it.

If the US puts up space-based weapons, then nothing stops Russia or China from doing the same. I don't think the Pentagon is quite fond of the idea of allowing those countries to have the capability of an unstoppable first strike on US soil. The fact that the non-militarization of space treaty has been respected for so long proves the point.

Yeah as I said they are honouring as its convenient and in there best intrests. If USA, Russia or China come up with some game changer in tec that will allow them to put in orbital weapon system first and dominate then Im sure they will do it, as the first one up there can stops the others. Even now I have doubts if the USA did do that Russia or china have the resoures to match. Hell thats one of the reason the USSR fell as the cost of keeping up with US plans like the SDI bankrupted them.

[Brotoro]

Putting weapons in space is illegal by the way.

No it isn't. The Outer Space Treaty only bans nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction (a term which it does not define) from being stationed in space.