The X37 is coming home!

[KerikBalm]

If it has any sort of power output, it can't be stealthy, due to blackbody radiation-> it would show up on IR. Any propulsive burn to change orbit will give away the new orbit.

The X-37 is not what would be interesting, its payload would be.

The X-37 would only be used if they want to recover the payload.

That its not up there on the ISS means we don't want (at a minimum) the Ruskies looking at it.

This implies something like:

* a payload you wish to expose to microgravity for long periods of time (some sort of nano-material manufacturing/growing crystals?)

* a component you wish to test under operational conditions until failure, and then recover to analyze its failure mode, so that you can design a better one.

[jfull]

I do wonder if might be intended to capture and recover foreign satellites.

I don't see any other reason for a recoverable mini-spaceplane with a payload bay.

[Kryten]

I do wonder if might be intended to capture and recover foreign satellites.

I don't see any other reason for a recoverable mini-spaceplane with a payload bay.

It'd have to be a very small satellite with a precisely known weight distribution, and the act would definitely be illegal. Not terribly likely.

[Tommygun]

I would imagine trying to grapple and place an unwilling satellite into the shuttle's cargo bay while the satellite is firing its rcs thrusters and gyros could get ugly very quickly.

[ScriptKitt3h]

Perhaps the USAF is testing the X-37B as a precursor to a (slightly) larger, manned version?

After all, dropping troops down to a runway nearly anywhere in the world is the ultimate "first strike capability".

After all, since there was a rumored manned X-38 prototype when it was under NASA, it's not too far-fetched.

Another possibility is that they're testing new classified spy-sat tech that they haven't cleared for use in standalone sats yet. The advantage of doing this is in the fact that if something goes wrong with "classified prototype space-spycam X", you could then have it brought back to analyze if need be, instead of wasting the expensive hardware by letting it drift into a disposal orbit or get burnt up in the atmosphere.

[Nibb31]

Perhaps the USAF is testing the X-37B as a precursor to a (slightly) larger, manned version?

After all, dropping troops down to a runway nearly anywhere in the world is the ultimate "first strike capability".

After all, since there was a rumored manned X-38 prototype when it was under NASA, it's not too far-fetched.

Only if:

- The target runway is long enough for the X-37 to land on.

- The runway is already under your control so that you can retrieve your billion dollar spaceplane without exposing it to the enemy.

- You don't care that everybody can detect the straight-line hypersonic reentry trajectory and shoot it down with a 1960-era heat-seeking SAM.

- The mission is worth paying $250 million for an Atlas V launch that is prepared months in advance.

- You only need to drop 3 or 4 troops.

Besides, there is no need to go all the way to orbit and loiter there for a 500 days in this scenario. Seriously, a C-130 will be quicker to deploy, cheaper, safer, and carries way more payload.

Another possibility is that they're testing new classified spy-sat tech that they haven't cleared for use in standalone sats yet. The advantage of doing this is in the fact that if something goes wrong with "classified prototype space-spycam X", you could then have it brought back to analyze if need be, instead of wasting the expensive hardware by letting it drift into a disposal orbit or get burnt up in the atmosphere.

Could be, but it would still be cheaper to launch it on an expendable rocket, and the payload really isn't very big for HD optics. I put this into the category of "testing long-duration exposure of new top secret materials".

Edited October 16, 2014 by Nibb31

[Sky_walker]

Perhaps the USAF is testing the X-37B as a precursor to a (slightly) larger, manned version?

What for? They already had one and it was a failure. There's absolutely no reason to repeat the same mistake twice.

After all, dropping troops down to a runway nearly anywhere in the world is the ultimate "first strike capability".

What? WHAT?

Another possibility is that they're testing new classified spy-sat tech that they haven't cleared for use in standalone sats yet.

Could be.

[andrew123]

What for? They already had one and it was a failure. There's absolutely no reason to repeat the same mistake twice.

What? WHAT?

Could be.

I suspect that the X-37B's being used as a testbed for space based laser type weapons, aka SDI (Reaganism, FTW).

[KerikBalm]

everybody can detect the straight-line hypersonic reentry trajectory and shoot it down with a 1960-era heat-seeking SAM.

I don't think its that easy to take out hypersonic targets.

The SR-71 was detected, but at the altitudes and speeds that it flew at, the reaction time was simply too slow.

A missile will have a given range, it will take a certain amount of time to reach that range... a target coming in at a hypersonic velocity is going to be through that range very fast.

Furthermore, I'm not aware of any long range heat seaking designs. It seems only short range missiles are heat seeking, and long range missiles are radar guided.

A country like china or russia might detect it in one area, and forward the tracking information to SAM sites along its path so that they may launch missiles before the plane has even been detected by the guidance radar (or terminal IR seeker), but for a smaller country, as in the middle east, it wouldn't be seen coming.

Of course, then again, at the end of its flight, as it comes in over the target area, its only going to be supersonic....

As to landing, like the X-38, you could rig it to land via parachute.

But why drop down from orbit if you have a base nearby? a supersonic conventional plane that is much closer would give you a better reaction time... and we have such bases in the middle east.

Maybe for hostage rescue? 1 team, can deploy anywhere, rather than keeping teams all over the world with slower aircraft... *starts thinking like X-com and its skyranger*

But then again... you can just go ballistic for that.. not orbital... this sort of scenario was used for possible scramjet applications.

Something like the SR-72:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_SR-72

This is likely just component testing, and they want to recover the thing after the test.

I can't really see any other use

[andrew123]

I don't think its that easy to take out hypersonic targets.

The SR-71 was detected, but at the altitudes and speeds that it flew at, the reaction time was simply too slow.

A missile will have a given range, it will take a certain amount of time to reach that range... a target coming in at a hypersonic velocity is going to be through that range very fast.

Furthermore, I'm not aware of any long range heat seaking designs. It seems only short range missiles are heat seeking, and long range missiles are radar guided.

A country like china or russia might detect it in one area, and forward the tracking information to SAM sites along its path so that they may launch missiles before the plane has even been detected by the guidance radar (or terminal IR seeker), but for a smaller country, as in the middle east, it wouldn't be seen coming.

Of course, then again, at the end of its flight, as it comes in over the target area, its only going to be supersonic....

As to landing, like the X-38, you could rig it to land via parachute.

But why drop down from orbit if you have a base nearby? a supersonic conventional plane that is much closer would give you a better reaction time... and we have such bases in the middle east.

Maybe for hostage rescue? 1 team, can deploy anywhere, rather than keeping teams all over the world with slower aircraft... *starts thinking like X-com and its skyranger*

But then again... you can just go ballistic for that.. not orbital... this sort of scenario was used for possible scramjet applications.

Something like the SR-72:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_SR-72

This is likely just component testing, and they want to recover the thing after the test.

I can't really see any other use

There are missiles with dual-mode mmw radars and ir seekers, like the Brimstone and new Sidewinders.

Of course, BMD research is getting quite advanced, but without an automated detection and engagement system, the window of engagement is simply too short.

PS: With the modern Link-16 Data Link, the IR or even Radar data could be fed to the missile by a stationary/mobile unit such as a Boeing AWACS.

Edited October 16, 2014 by andrew123

[Kryten]

I don't think its that easy to take out hypersonic targets.

The SR-71 was detected, but at the altitudes and speeds that it flew at, the reaction time was simply too slow.

Mostly because SR-71 never directly overflew the USSR or PRC, and thus never faced relatively modern missiles. That was the whole point of the D-21/M-21 program, allowing direct overflight without risking them.

[andrew123]

Mostly because SR-71 never directly overflew the USSR or PRC, and thus never faced relatively modern missiles. That was the whole point of the D-21/M-21 program, allowing direct overflight without risking them.

True. I'm not sure how well the SR-71 would fare against an upgraded S-300/400, or even most modern medium range air to air guided missiles.

[KerikBalm]

but the claim was not a modern missile... but 1960's tech.

China, Russia (and if not friendly, Europe) would be no fly zones for such a craft....

But Iraq? Syria? Afghanistan? most African countries... I doubt they have very competent ADSs

[Kryten]

In that case you could just use a normal plane. It's a solution looking for a problem.

[Nibb31]

but the claim was not a modern missile... but 1960's tech.

An X-37 would be an easy target. It's only hypersonic for a short period, but that would be outside of the theater of operations anyway. After reentry, it goes subsonic, it glides down on a very predictable trajectory at a medium altitude, and is still glowing hot with no evasion capability. I see no reason why it couldn't be easily detected and shot down a few kilometers from its landing zone.

But Iraq? Syria? Afghanistan? most African countries... I doubt they have very competent ADSs

But why would you need to launch 5 guys into orbit on an Atlas V from Vandenberg AFB to make them land at a friendly base in one of those countries? The region is surrounded by thousands of troops in US and NATO bases, US Navy supercarriers, and mid-air refueling is a thing. It would make a nice movie, but in real-life you could buy them a plane ticket and get there faster. There is no location in the world where you couldn't get a carrier group or stage substantial ground troops in less time than it takes to prepare an Atlas V launch.

Edited October 16, 2014 by Nibb31

[Tommygun]

I think about the time VentureStar was being developed, there where several paper proposals about the possibility of a military SSTO space plane or simpler capsule like drop pod to deliver commandos to remote areas around the world.

At the time (about 10 to 15 years ago) I saw a retired US Army general with special forces experience interviewed about what he thought about these ideas.

I'm paraphrasing because I can't remember the exact quote after all this time, but he said these vehicles have the real potential to send a group of highly trained professionals anywhere on the planet in 45 minutes and strand them without any hope of extraction, fire support or resupply.

[KerikBalm]

But why would you need to launch 5 guys into orbit on an Atlas V from Vandenberg AFB to make them land at a friendly base in one of those countries? The region is surrounded by thousands of troops in US and NATO bases, US Navy supercarriers, and mid-air refueling is a thing. It would make a nice movie, but in real-life you could buy them a plane ticket and get there faster. There is no location in the world where you couldn't get a carrier group or stage substantial ground troops in less time than it takes to prepare an Atlas V launch.

I'm not claiming it would be practical as a troop delivery vehicle - as I said... I don't know why you'd need to do hypersonic delivery, when you could do local supersonic delivery (and extraction).

But... the concept doesn't need the vehicle to land at a friendly airbase

I'm just saying, it could be used to get troops to conflict zones where the local ADS is poor.

I was also mentioning that they seemed to favor scramjets for such a concept which don't require going to orbit, and wouldn't require an atlas V... you could have a scramjet siting atop an SRB ready to go at a moments notice - although the military seems to like this idea for a simple missile, not a 1 way ticket for troops into a combat zone

[Nibb31]

I'm not claiming it would be practical as a troop delivery vehicle - as I said... I don't know why you'd need to do hypersonic delivery, when you could do local supersonic delivery (and extraction).

But... the concept doesn't need the vehicle to land at a friendly airbase

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_X-38#mediaviewer/File:X-38_Ship_-2_Landing_on_Lakebed_EC99-45080-101-EDIT1.jpg

You don't land a billion dollar spacecraft containing new top-secret technology and military-grade materials in enemy territory to abandon it there. You want to be sure you'll get it back.

I'm just saying, it could be used to get troops to conflict zones where the local ADS is poor.

And the advantage, compared to sending in a Chinook or an Osprey is... ?

I was also mentioning that they seemed to favor scramjets for such a concept which don't require going to orbit, and wouldn't require an atlas V... you could have a scramjet siting atop an SRB ready to go at a moments notice - although the military seems to like this idea for a simple missile, not a 1 way ticket for troops into a combat zone

Just stick a capsule on an ICBM. No need for an orbital spaceplane.

[Sky_walker]

Just stick a capsule on an ICBM. No need for an orbital spaceplane.

Let's cut to the chase:

This whole discussion about sending special forces on a rockets as a rapid attack/response force anywhere in the world is just plain stupid. Solutions for that already exist. Cheaper, quicker (yes: QUICKER) and more reliable.

As Nibb31 already pointed out - there are helicopters, planes, stuff in-between, used when appropriate they can deliver troops where and when needed. Rockets in the most optimistic scenario take days to prepare (and usually you want to be notified good year ahead of a possible launch), not to mention added time, effort, and expense of planning and executing the whole operation (eg. to make it anywhere near feasibility you'd need to always have a rocket, launch pad and a highly qualified personnel running and ready for immediate assembly and launch). And rushing stuff with manned spaceflight is something you really, really don't want to do.

Single C17 can deliver US special forces to any point on a surface of earth long before rocket would be even ready for launch (might require air refuelling when appropriate).

Edited October 16, 2014 by Sky_walker

[KerikBalm]

"You don't land a billion dollar spacecraft containing new top-secret technology and military-grade materials in enemy territory to abandon it there. You want to be sure you'll get it back."

Well, I don't see why it should be that expensive... its just a glorified glider wrapped in thermal protection...

Also, as I was saying, I don't see why you'd need to go to space -> scramjets and high atmosphere flight should do the trick

If it were fitted with such a scramjet... I guess you'd want to make sure the scramjet is destroyed beyond recognition, as it would be in a scramjet missile.

And I already acknowledged, this whole scheme is pretty damn impractical, which is why I doubt the X-37 has anything to do with it.

"And the advantage, compared to sending in a Chinook or an Osprey is... ?"

Speed... assuming you had such a vehicle on standby, and no nearby bases (like... I don't know... some group of idiots like boko haram - no ADS, but operating in an area that there is no military base nearby).

But I completely can't see a reason to go all the way to orbit. When I'd heard this troop deployment idea before, it was basically a SRB+Scramjet concept (with accompanying scramjet missiles, which make more sense)

Also... while the Osprey is a lot faster and longer ranged than the chinook... its worth noting that we have no supersonic troop transport... if the military were interested in faster deployment, you'd think there'd be proposals for something like a giant troop carrying F-35.

"Single C17 can deliver US special forces to any point on a surface of earth long before rocket would be even ready for launch"

Deliver via parachute, but not recover....

For that, well, more systems have been developed for the C-130,

either the skyhook:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulton_surface-to-air_recovery_system

or one rigged for rocket assist:

Although... the hypersonic and orbital drop concept doesn't get you an extraction capability either.

[J.Random]

I wonder if you can fry satellite's electronics with some sort of microwave emitter.

[cantab]

In that case you could just use a normal plane. It's a solution looking for a problem.

Which to be honest is the kind of thing I can see the US military investing in. Never mind what it's good for.

[Mitchz95]

So ... October 14 has come and gone. Has there been an update on the expected date for landing?

[Kryten]

So ... October 14 has come and gone. Has there been an update on the expected date for landing?

As soon as possible, pretty much. They've ruled out an attempt today.

[montyben101]

How come? Was it too windy?