SpaceX will launch the X-37B on a Falcon Heavy rocket Dec. 7
space.com
space.com
I really doubt they have put humans inside of it, given that they have kept it up there for year-long plus periods over its lifetime.
It's likely that 'we might need to bring them back...' was justification for USAF remaining as a voice in the shuttle program after KH-11 rendered the satellite fleet reusable, though.
Ignore the dates, they have time travel, too.
https://spacenews.com/x-37b-spaceplane-to-carry-dod-and-nasa...
EDIT: I'd still watch the movie though.
Pretty close. Got the MST3000 treatment too, but honestly I kind of liked it. Campy but eerie. Could be remade really well.
Missions objectives will include satellite inspection, signal interception, and (unacknowledged) tampering / destruction.
Payloads will be geared for medium-range surveillance (small telescope for optical/thermal imaging at a couple hundred km), ELINT (radios and antennas for snooping / hacking), and probably a manipulator arm or two to "reach out and touch someone."
They probably have some sort of kinetic and/or electronic pulse weapons, but of course it would be highly classified and deniable.
Missions are 100% unmanned. I'd argue that's the whole point of the X-37B program: to develop technology to perform ~all the classified mission capabilities we could do with Shuttle, except unmanned.
So far it hasn't. Out of the six missions so far [1], the highest one only reached altitude 404 km [2]:
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37#Operational_histor...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA-299
Edit: or maybe 444 km [3]:
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA-212#Altitude_and_ground_tr...
Mission and payload is still basically the same, but targeting LEO spy satellites. Russia has similar aspirations (and probably capabilities).[1,2]
[0] https://breakingdefense.com/2022/01/space-force-plans-multip...
[1] https://time.com/5779315/russian-spacecraft-spy-satellite-sp...
[2] https://npolicy.org/securing-our-military-satellites-against...
I don't think it'll have the same capabilities or even the same goals as the shuttle.
Its a small space plane used for materials and operations testing..
> Also wonder what are the odds that space force has put people into space and brought them back at this point,
Literally zero.
> and what is the timeframe they envision for doing such things if not.
Not sure why Space Force would be interested in that. Not anytime soon.
It looks like a space shuttle but it's tiny compared to it :)
I don't know if the plan is to keep things that way or not. So far there has only been one round of astronaut selection since the founding of the Space Force. But the older services still have all the aviators, flight engineers / officers, and flight surgeons who have traditionally been competitive for selection.
Source: Multiple friends who work in Space Force.
Edit: I found one. (https://www.nasa.gov/people/nick-hague/) "In 2021, Hague voluntarily transferred from the United States Air Force to the United States Space Force."
Previous launches of the X-37B have been on a Falcon 9 with an RTLS landing, and now this one is using one of the largest launchers there is.
What is it doing with all that delta-v!?
It seems the only logical answer... unless for some reason it's really heavy this time.
I guess it's possible, but (imo) it doesn't really make much sense.
The US stopped talking about missile defense because it’s destabilizing but they for sure did not stop working on it.
With the MIRV warheads the only realistic intercept opportunity is in space.
If there was a space based defense system, where would these items orbit? If it's a kinetic weapon, can something launched from geosync reach the target to cover the distance in time? Since most of the ICBMs would be coming over the pole, where else could you park your satellites that would be in position to defend against incoming missiles? Polar orbits are not stationary, so would you need a constant fleet of them over head like a Starlink constellation? Lost of questions that I've just never really slowed down to think about the logistics instead of just the old school "lasers are cool! pew pew pew!" that I thought about as kid when Ronnie Raygun was in office.
So interception in space but where, as you say.
The only real 'near peer' nuclear threats are Russia and China so other than their 'boomers' (does China have that?) we should know which way they'll be coming from and their ballistic arc roughly.
So we don't need global coverage 'just' GEO coverage of the parts we have intelligence on with pew pew laser line of sight which is of course lightspeed travel time and should be rapid aiming if there's enough of 'em.
These might even be one shot weapons themselves perhaps even fission devices for the laser to have enough energy instantly available.
And you're really only saving half of the time from an earth launch.
Edit: also, how is it half the time? I would assume that the majority of the time is getting to altitude during launch. Once they are on return trajectories, they're moving mighty quick. Descent should be much less of the time involved, right?
I'm not sure why x37b would be the ship for it, other than that it's proven technology with good manuverability. Feels like most any old satellite full of rocks could do though.
Ran into this next bug future article talking about what a ridiculous death-weapon Starship could be. https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2023/11/future-us-hypersonic-b...
The fun answer would be that it's going way further than ever before. A Falcon Heavy can take 25 metric tons to GEO, and the X-37B is roughly 1/5 of that, so think a lot higher. What is there of interest to the US Space Force beyond GEO? Well...
https://spaceforcejournal.org/3859-2/
https://spacenews.com/space-force-studying-requirements-for-...
https://breakingdefense.com/2022/11/critically-important-new...
Edit: Falcon Heavy, not 9. Thanks, asadotzler.
So far, Space Force has only stated that the mission will "expand the United States Space Force's knowledge of the space environment by experimenting with future space domain awareness technologies," according to the statement.
F9 does just under 23 t to LEO.
To GEO it's about 8 t expended or 5 and a half tonnes with a droneship recovery.
Falcon Heavy has the second highest lift capability of any operational rocket, with a payload of 63,800 kg (140,700 lb) to low Earth orbit, 26,700 kg (58,900 lb) to Geostationary Transfer Orbit, and 16,800 kg (37,000 lb) to trans-Mars injection.
In an elliptical orbit, you can cross the Van Hallen belt and magnetic fields over and over again. Then after a couple years return those samples to earth for study. This gives you valuable data to build better satellites in the future.
For examples, the gyros flywheel on the Hubble and it's sibling spy telescope failed over and over until they realized the radiations caused some arcing in the bearings which degraded them much faster than predicted. When you spend billions on individual satellites, this isn't the kind of thing you want to discover in orbit.
Having the x37 try out new materials and parts etc is a great capability that is obviously needed if the US is to maintain its technical superiority.
SAR x-ray (what)
Or in orbit x ray of other satellites (emitter and receiver on other side).
I just think any kind of legit scanning has to be against the object being scanned. Muon tomography too
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/spacex-m...
> The 2022 injury rate at the company’s manufacturing-and-launch facility near Brownsville, Texas, was 4.8 injuries or illnesses per 100 workers – six times higher than the space-industry average of 0.8.
So it doesn’t seem good…
Most of those companies make tiny sats, or things like small thrusters. Or even small sub-components. And even those that build larger things, build them at far smaller rates.
SpaceX in Brownsville should be compared to things like manufacturing oil platforms or maybe wind power plants.
Seems like others do as well.
"industry average" is meaningless. The aerospace industry consists of 90%+ office workers, very unlike SpaceX.
McGregor is the most active rocket engine test facility in the world.
How are their insure rates compared 'per rocket engine test' with other places that test large rocket engines. But again, most of those are tiny rocket engines being test, so how about we look at insure per unit of thrust tested.
> The company’s facility in Redmond, Washington, had a rate of 0.8, the same as the industry average.
And what is the rate per sat produced compared to others?
That feels a bit um... unethical to suggest as a good measure? :(
Along the lines of "we produce more stuff, so cutting corners on worker safety is ok".
But that's not really got anything to do with injury rates yeah?
So if a company only does 5 engine test and 1 launch a year and has 10 injuries, then that is inherently worse then a company that does 1000 engine tests and 100 launches but has 20 injuries.
Or do you disagree?
However, we both know reality tends to be more complex than that.
For example, a company with vastly more experience doing engine tests (etc) should also have vastly more experience designing safe testing processes and procedures. To the point where they may eliminate injuries completely. ;)
So saying worker injuries are acceptable due to the output quantity of stuff still seems like an excuse for poor workplace practises.
If they double their output of stuff, are you ok with them increasing the number of worker injuries rather than figuring out how to reduce or eliminate the injuries?
If SpaceX does 100x as many rocket engine test but has only a 2x worse insure rates then what you suggest:
> should also have vastly more experience designing safe testing processes and procedures
Is already true.
So articles that just say 'SpaceX bad because more insury then avg' just don't actually provide any information.
> To the point where they may eliminate injuries completely. ;)
> So saying worker injuries are acceptable due to the output quantity of stuff still seems like an excuse for poor workplace practises.
Sure if we lived in a perfect world that would be nice. But no other type of building anything has perfect safety.
And the way you are phrasing your statement still just assumes SpaceX has 'poor workplace practices'. But we in my opinion have not actually been presented sufficient evidence that this is actually true.
So yes its no excuse for 'poor practices' but I have yet to be convinced that their practices actually poor. There is a difference between saying their practice isn't perfect and its actually poor.
It seems to me these articles just want to say something bad about SpaceX because they know this will create clicks rather then do the actual real work of analyzing safety in rocket testing and manufacturing.
> If they double their output of stuff, are you ok with them increasing the number of worker injuries rather than figuring out how to reduce or eliminate the injuries?
You are simply framing the question in a way where there can never be right answer. Of course continuously improving safety is important. At the same time evaluating safety by comparing companies that do 100x more of something and then screaming 'see they are unsafe, is clearly not fair either'.
If they double their output and injury rates go up by 1.1x times, then that is pretty successful.
So before being negative, please actually show me real actual data in how much their output went up compare do their injury rate. Then maybe we can figure out something relevant about their safety practices. Until then this is just headlines.
And lets compare with relevant industries. How does their rocket engine test facility compare with other rocket engine test facilities. The South Texas manufacturing sight should be compared with a shipyard or building an oil platforms, and not with companies building small rocket.
Again, I don't buy that increasing output by default means increasing injury rates at all is acceptable. :(
There's just not enough info in these theoretical examples, and neither of us are experts in the domain.
For example, are they doubling the output with the same # of staff (eg increased automation path), or by ~doubling the number of workers?
If it's by doubling the number of workers, then you might be right. But if they're using increased automation without increasing worker count, then an increased # of injuries would by pretty shitty.
Well but that really isn't it.
Its more like doing X has some inherent danger and if you do more of X then its likely more people are gone be insured. So comparing to some 'industry avg' in an industry that also includes people building cube-sats compared to the most powerful rocket engine isn't really fair.
And I wasn't suggesting this to say what SpaceX is doing is inherently ok (I don't know enough) but to establish better comparative baselines.
Then we can actually figure out if SpaceX is more unsafe or simply does more dangerous activity.
Now, I am told DoD is in charge of where Starlink is geofenced (and the Ukrainians in the military are happy, which suggests he was overruled), and SpaceX is launching a full/heavy X37B in the middle of a proxy war with Russia (who has recently tested antisatellite weapons).
I worry this will subject future SpaceX/Starlink hardware to retaliation should certain geopolitical conflicts escalate.
I also wonder what the odds of FAA approval of Starship tests being gated on SpaceX doing whatever the military wants are. It’s not like the Americans with a monopoly on orbital weapons are gonna let someone just walk up and usurp them because they built the hardware.
Unfortunately stories like this won’t ever get told in my lifetime, if ever.
Haven't heard anything about the DoD overruling the controls on Starlink in Ukraine.
Also, there are QZSS, Beidou, Galileo, and GLONASS now too. You'd have to take out multiple systems (or convince their operators to geofence) to actually deny all useful location signals to an area. This is rapidly becoming a project that is beyond the capabilities of most single countries, given the number of different systems, number of different satellites, number of different frequencies, and number of different orbits.
I think there is a lot more on the bargaining table between SpaceX and the US military than dollars, given the geopolitical implications of the level of easy access to orbit that SpaceX currently exclusively possesses. No other organization on Earth could cost effectively build something like Starlink today, due to F9 reusability.
Euphemising the X37B as a "national security asset" doesn't change the fact that SpaceX has historically only launched reconnaissance for the US military and not weapons (and that Musk had explicitly avoided getting involved in supporting weaponry, at least until it seems he no longer could).
This being a change to the status quo, of course, presumes that the need for FH indicates an X37B payload that is heavy (or an orbital insertion that requires more energy). Both of these suggest (but do not guarantee) weapons systems, either from payload weight requirement or orbital insertion requirement (or both).
This is, of course, an assumption, and it's possible that SpaceX still hasn't committed to launch any weapons, and that the X37B is just heavier because of its research payload(s) (or it's also reconnaissance and they just want to put it in a specific big-delta-v-requiring-orbit for better surveillance).
It's also possible it's chock full of munitions and SpaceX doesn't get to keep trying to research how to get to Mars if they don't help the US military continue to do what they do on Earth.
Advocating for your own country to be handicapped while china/russia and others does the same thing is stupid.
Thankfully my freedom doesn't depend on people like you.
It is absolutely abhorrent to see that the nation-states of planet Sol III are resuming the misguided attempts to take their petty intra-planetary conflicts into space. I feel like in one of those Star Trek episodes where one alien group is trying to get a leg up on the other by petitioning the Federation ship in orbit to help them against their quite-similar enemies.