Comment by kbenson | Hacker News Reader

Comment by kbenson | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

It may be that those deployments were replacing existing satellites. I'm sure other nations know when the vast majority of satellites were originally deployed, which gives them a rough estimate of what technology they might have. Being able to subvert this assumed knowledge by changing what the satellite is is quite possible more useful than launching a new one and having them both up. Even if what the space plane did was tracked so there's not likely to be any surprises, in-place upgrades might have their own uses.

If that's the case, and it's just replacing existing satellites, they're still tracked accurately under that convention. Not that the USAF would say either way unless pressed by national powers, as the ambiguity helps their mission. It also helps internet blow-hards that like to take relatively small amounts of information and construct narratives they can lambast. It's entirely possible the USAF deployed new satellites, or replaced some satellites, or did nothing like that and the messaging is posturing or disinformation.

If it was doing stuff with satellites, I'm actually more interested in how it got inventory to do so over a two year time span. Did it drop to lower altitudes to refuel and get more satellites to deploy/replace/upgrade?

> If it was doing stuff with satellites, I'm actually more interested in how it got inventory to do so over a two year time span. Did it drop to lower altitudes to refuel and get more satellites to deploy/replace/upgrade?

1) CubeSats can be very tiny, and perhaps it was only releasing babysats for part of the mission, or at long intervals

2) surely we'd have noticed if there was a space fuel depot,

2b) if there was, why would it need to find it at a lower altitude?

> 2) surely we'd have noticed if there was a space fuel depot

> 2b) if there was, why would it need to find it at a lower altitude?

Well, it's a space plane, so I was thinking of a more exotic variation of conventional air refueling, but upon further thought that seems very unlikely as if it was that easy to get from land to the refueling point and from the refueling point to space, we'd see that as the usual way to get to orbit instead of rockets (or rocket attached ships). I don't spend a lot of time thinking about rocketry and orbit unless in a discussion about it, so this wasn't immediately obvious to me initially.

That said, it's possible that some satellites actually contained extra fuel for future use when deployed, either in them or as a separate attached payload. In that case, there wouldn't be one large space fuel depot, but possibly many small ones.

I know that amateur astronomers have tracked the position and trajectory of X-37B so surely countries with advanced space programs (Russia, China) would be able to do this with ease? I think a rendezvous with a known satellite would be detectable.

Probably. At the same time, two years is a lot of time, and maybe enough to spend some time around many satellites such that it's hard to tell what's upgraded and what isn't. For hedging opponent behavior, it may be more beneficial to have 100 satellites with a 10% chance of being upgraded than 10 satellites with a 100% chance. And that's assuming that's even what it did, there's a lot of possibilities. When it comes to surveillance capabilities and maintenance/upgrades of that system, I would consider anything from an official source as an "unreliable narrator."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com