X-37B | Hacker News Reader

X-37B

spaceflightnow.com

48 pointsJ3L24049 comments

Many think that the Space Shuttle's dangerous reentry profile was brought about because the US military wanted a vehicle with considerable cross-range flexibility. The thought is that a vehicle without this burden could be designed with a flight profile that exposes it to much less heating in a hypersonic airstream, resulting in a lighter and safer vehicle.

This X37 seems to be an embodiment of those capabilities.

As far as I know this isn't just speculation, it's fact.

The US DoD required a 1500-mile crossrange capability on the Shuttle because they wanted to launch from Vandenberg into a polar orbit, immediately drop a satellite into orbit over the north pole, then land back at Vandenberg at the end of the same orbit, before the Soviets could track the shuttle's orbit by radar. (The earth would have turned ~1500 miles under the orbiter by that point, so it would have to be aerodynamic enough to fly those 1500 miles as a plane.)

This crossrange requirement was what required the Shuttle to use the unusual delta-wing configuration. The Vandenberg-polar-orbit flight profile has never been attempted.

What are the military benefits of bring something back from orbit? I can't think of any.

Not leaving sensitive equipment around for others to steal. Not cluttering up Near Earth Orbit with junk. Not sending back results over interceptable radio-waves (encryption can be broken, given enough time - if you broadcast it, you can pretty much assume that the bad guys will be able to read it in 10 years time) And then, I wouldn't be surprised if the military see this as a way to get a surreptitious military manned space program up and running - it's just not that much more work, once you have a lander available.

That's just a few ideas that pop up at first glance - there are no doubt others...

Depends on who originally built it and who brings it back. I'm sure some countries wouldn't mind getting their hands on US satellite technology (and vice versa)

This could perhaps provide a second wind to space development.

The Air Force has the kind of funding NASA can only dream of anymore, and as another bright side it seems to me the US armed forces are typically excessively rigorous, which might help prevent the flaws that have been giving space flight such a bad rep.

One thing definitely puts a different spin on it though- NASA was a research organization, developing tech and shooting for the moon as an ends in and of itself, while the Air Force is armed forces...

NASA was definitely rigorous, maybe even overly so, and that is why they became such a money pit.

On the other hand NASA does so many damn things around the world that space flight can hardly be called it's specialty.

You are right. A lot of people forget about the Aeronautics part of National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

>>The Air Force has the kind of funding NASA can only dream of anymore

Considering all the money wasted for decades: Do anyone really believe we would get any good results from more money into launch systems controlled by NASA? :-(

(OK, people in those white collar job programs probably claim they do.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com