http://news.yahoo.com/secretive-x-37b-military-space-plane-could-land-132030466.html
Why are the ground crew wearing protective gear if it just solar power? Seems like a radioactive power source with that type of protection.
Thoughts?
It is likely the same rocket fuel (maybe the same rockets) as used by the space shuttle (OMS).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Orbital_Maneuveri...
See also:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Discovery#Decommi...
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergolic_propellant#Disadvant...
They were first developed in the 1960s for the Titan missiles, which use the chemically nasty (but room temperature) nitrogen tetroxide and Aerozine 50. See http://books.google.com/books?id=MdTZFu1fZ4AC&pg=PA186&lpg=P... for some of the history.
Here you can see the suits in use at the end of the Space Shuttle STS-1 mission: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=gYc... along with explanation by both the news and NASA commentators.
http://www.xcor.com/blog/category/thrusters/ and http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Engineering/Clean_Sp... are pictures of people in similar suits, in order to fuel spacecraft. I picked those to give commentary about how hazardous hydrazine is, and that there's a push to use alternative fuels.
Some data on satellite lifetimes:
* http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Operations/GOES/status.html
* http://noaasis.noaa.gov/NOAASIS/ml/life_expectancy.html
* http://noaasis.noaa.gov/NOAASIS/pubs/life%20expectancy.pdf (2009)
As for the protective equipment being used in that Yahoo photo, that's probably due to the use of hypergolic fuel:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergolic_propellant
Notice nearly-identical protective equipment being used in the Wikipedia entry.
As for protective equipment for radioisotope thermoelectric generators, here's an example from Cassini:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_gen...
This being the Internet, there's far more information on related topics available:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corona_(satellite)
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._RecSat_Big_Picture.jp...
Hmmm. Wonder what other and far more familiar satellite that KH-11 Kennan looks like.
This page: http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/boeing-x37/
says that the vehicle uses either hydrazine or nitrogen tetroxide.
Aside from the main engine, reaction thrusters could foul the surrounding fuselage with nasty chemicals.
But earlier states: "Fuelled with military fuel JP-8 and hydrogen peroxide, the Rocketdyne engine of the X-37 is designed to run for nine months. The engine installed in the aircraft currently uses hypergolic nitrogen tetroxide or hydrazine."
Odd, no?
You appear to want something secretive to be uncovered here, but I'm afraid that the use of this protective gear is not the smoking gun you think it is.
Also, it wouldn't be all that strange for there to be a nuclear device on board. Nuclear power is regularly used in satellites. The reactors are not the same as the ones used in terrestrial nuclear power plants though. A satellite typically uses a radioisotope thermoelectric generator.
Not exactly, just wanted to know more. I know satellites and spacecraft in the past have used nuclear/radioactive energy:
For example, consider the two statements "Seems like a radioactive power source with that type of protection." and "Odd, no?" They imply that you know enough to make a reasonably confident statement about 1) the different types of clothing used for different hazmat situations and what's appropriate for space operations, and 2) that you understand enough about space power systems to judge what's odd.
You received many responses pointing out that these are standard chemical hazmat suits for this sort of task, with decades of examples and pointers to multiple space agencies, and not similar to what's used for space-based radionuclear power sources.
That should have been a pointer that you don't have enough knowledge to be able to say if something is "odd", as regards spacecraft. Your default assumption should be that nothing is odd, and that it's your lack of understanding which is the source of confusion. Resolve that first before looking outside for the point of confusion. Eg, "Thanks for the comments. I don't know much about spacecraft. Could you also help me understand why ... ?"
You could even have done so in your original question. There was no need to add "Seems like a radioactive power source with that type of protection."
While on the other hand, those who believe (perhaps correctly, perhaps falsely) that they've uncovered something secret will use that sort of phrasing to imply that something is secret, even though they don't have the ability to outright say that something is secretive without taking the large chance that doing so will reveal their lack of actual knowledge on the topic.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_g...
I'll reiterate that hazmat suits are essential when working around rocket propellant, because the oxidizers involved will cause any organic material to ignite on contact. Literally, a pair of cotton gloves would turn in to a ball of flames on contact. That is all that is needed to explain their presence.
The government would have no reason to hide the presence of a nuclear power device, so the power systems described as powered by solar cells + LiIon batteries is entirely plausible. Preferred, in fact, because you needn't address the concerns of radioactive material in a tightly confined space. Arguably, it makes the engineering easier (marginally).
http://media.ccc.de/browse/congress/2013/30C3_-_5604_-_en_-_...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrazine#mediaviewer/File:Hype...