USAF Spaceplane Launches Next Month.

[MKSheppard]

Secret Military Space Plane Primed For Test Launch
By Stephen Clark

A secretive military spacecraft resembling a small space shuttle orbiter is undergoing final processing in Florida for launch on April 19.
The Air Force confirmed the critical preflight milestone in a response to written questions on Thursday.

The 29-foot-long, 15-foot-wide Orbital Test Vehicle arrived in Cape Canaveral, Fla., last month according to the Air Force. The OTV spaceplane was built at a Boeing Phantom Works facility in Southern California.

Managed by the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office, the OTV program is shrouded in secrecy, but military officials occasionally release information on the the spaceplane's progress.

"It is now undergoing spacecraft processing including checkout, fueling, and encapsulating in the 5-meter fairing of the Atlas 5 [rocket]," an Air Force spokesperson said.

The 11,000-pound vehicle will launch inside the nose cone of the Atlas 5 rocket. Liftoff is currently set for 10 p.m. EDT on April 19.

The reusable spacecraft is more famously known as the X-37B. The design is based on the orbital and re-entry demonstrator initially developed by NASA, then handed over to the Pentagon.

The NASA version of the X-37 featured an equipment bay 7 feet long and 4 feet in diameter for experiments and deployable payloads.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency completed a series of approach and landing tests in 2007 using the White Knight airplane from Scaled Composites as a mothership.

It is easy to track the X-37's tumultuous history. NASA awarded the first X-37 contract to Boeing in July 1999, and the agency flew a series of visible atmopsheric tests on a scale model of the spaceplane in 2001. The X-37 began its transformation from a human spaceflight testbed to a military-run project when NASA shifted responsibility to DARPA in September 2004, a consequence of the space agency's new focus on lunar exploration.

But specific payloads for the Air Force's OTV program aren't so clear. Officials have denied interview requests on the project, and the military only releases information through written responses.
The X-37B's mission is to "demonstrate a reliable, reusable, unmanned space test platform for the United States Air Force," the military fact sheet says. "Objectives of the OTV program include space experimentation, risk reduction and concept of operations development for reusable space vehicle technologies."

At the end of its mission, the X-37B will fire its engine and drop from orbit, autonomously navigating through a fiery re-entry on the way to its 15,000-foot-long primary runway at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. Edwards Air Force Base is the backup landing site.

The duration of the spaceplane's first mission isn't being announced.

"The X-37B has the requirement to be on-orbit up to 270 days," the Air Force spokesperson said. "Actual length for the first mission will depend on the meeting the mission objectives, which consists of checkout and performance characteristics of the spacecraft systems."

[MKSheppard]

Bet you the USAF eventually lists a requirement for at least one X-37 descendant to be in orbit at all times. So that if war breaks out, we can just manouver our unmanned spaceplane and launch SIM-9 Spacewinders to kill enemy satellites, without alerting our enemies with the huge noise of a launch from Vandenberg or KSC -- and of course, no 'LAUNCH PLUME DETECTED IN US' that would freak the Chinese or Russians out.

[Mr. Coffee]

So basically the Air Force is tired of NASA dragging their feet and wants to go orbital right the fuck now? Never saw that coming...

[General Brock]

I'll bet NASA is put to pasture in the next decade, or at least further reduced in scope of missions. The U.S. Space Command and basically the military will be the future of manned space flight. Even America can't fund redundant and competing space programs. If this plane works, they might be able to replace the shuttle for things like ferrying Space Station crews.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I'll bet NASA is put to pasture in the next decade, or at least further reduced in scope of missions. The U.S. Space Command and basically the military will be the future of manned space flight. Even America can't fund redundant and competing space programs. If this plane works, they might be able to replace the shuttle for things like ferrying Space Station crews.

It's unmanned. The military is not really interested in manned space flight and space exploration as such rather than a cheap way to launch spy satellites, anti-satellite weapons and possibly orbital weapons. With modern computer tech you don't really need manned missions for any of them. They are probably hoping that the X-37 might turn out to be that cheap way and perhaps even function as an UCSV (Unmanned Combat Space Vehicle) just like Shep envisioned...

[Gil Hamilton]

Bet you the USAF eventually lists a requirement for at least one X-37 descendant to be in orbit at all times. So that if war breaks out, we can just manouver our unmanned spaceplane and launch SIM-9 Spacewinders to kill enemy satellites, without alerting our enemies with the huge noise of a launch from Vandenberg or KSC -- and of course, no 'LAUNCH PLUME DETECTED IN US' that would freak the Chinese or Russians out.

Wouldn't the satellites going dead alert them just as much? One of those kinds of satellites losing contact is damn weird, two one after the other would certainly be considered "Attack Underway".

[The Romulan Republic]

I'll bet NASA is put to pasture in the next decade, or at least further reduced in scope of missions. The U.S. Space Command and basically the military will be the future of manned space flight. Even America can't fund redundant and competing space programs. If this plane works, they might be able to replace the shuttle for things like ferrying Space Station crews.

It would be a great tragedy if the pursuit of space exploration for civilian purposes was entirely replaced by the use of space for military purposes. The current state of the American civilian space program is utterly inexcusable. Unfortunately, its chronic neglect is something that transcends any one Party or Administration.

[open_sketchbook]

Why would that be so tragic? There is little civilian incentive for space travel. There isn't a whole lot to do up there at the moment from anything but a military perspective, beyond communications and limited scientific experiments. I'd much rather that money was put towards dropping tungstan telephone poles onto dictators.

[The Romulan Republic]

Why would that be so tragic? There is little civilian incentive for space travel. There isn't a whole lot to do up there at the moment from anything but a military perspective, beyond communications and limited scientific experiments. I'd much rather that money was put towards space-based systems we could use to drop tungstan telephone poles onto dictators.

If you think there are few or no significant non-military applications of space, you are simply exhibiting your own ignorance of the subject. One could write an entire book on the uses of space (and some people have), but in brief:

1. Scientific research about the Universe. More important than you seem to realize. Think of the monumental importance socially and scientifically of discovering alien life, for example.

2. Resource extraction.

3. Communications, as you noticed.

4. Various other commercial enterprises (but that's more the area of private enterprise than a civilian government program).

5. Scientific study of Earth (study of climate/geography/environment/weather/etc with satelites).

6. Colonization. The long-term goal of establishing human civilization beyond Earth and ensuring the long-term survival of our species and all life on Earth.

Edit: Anyway, going back to the main topic of the thread, is there any more information on the capabilities of this thing besides what's included in the OP? Would it be armed, for example, and if so, with what?

[adam_grif]

Bet you the USAF eventually lists a requirement for at least one X-37 descendant to be in orbit at all times. So that if war breaks out, we can just manouver our unmanned spaceplane and launch SIM-9 Spacewinders to kill enemy satellites, without alerting our enemies with the huge noise of a launch from Vandenberg or KSC -- and of course, no 'LAUNCH PLUME DETECTED IN US' that would freak the Chinese or Russians out.

Wouldn't the satellites going dead alert them just as much? One of those kinds of satellites losing contact is damn weird, two one after the other would certainly be considered "Attack Underway".

Knocking out all early launch detections for your enemy is unwise because as soon as it all goes dead, the obvious thing for them to assume is that you're about to launch a preemptive strike of some kind. Wiping out satellites willy nilly is playing with fire if they belong to a nuclear power.

[K. A. Pital]

It looks like it has the size of a BOR test orbiter. That thing is very small. What kind of space-to-space missiles could it even mount?

[Sea Skimmer]

Conventional style air to air missiles aren’t really necessary once the launch platform is already space, unless the enemy has an actual space fighter himself. Even then fighter to fighter interceptions are unlikely just because of the shear cost and distances involved. It would make more sense to shoot down a Chinese space fighter with an SM-3 or a ground fired laser then with a US fighter. The US, USSR and China all demonstrated a laser ASAT capability decades ago.

Something like the small satellites described below are a more likely kind of ASAT payload for X-37B (if it has an ASAT mission at all). All you need is a camera and thrusters to collide with the target and kill it, after you inspect it for any juicy close up technical details. This way the US could launch and prepostion many kill sats near enemy targets before a war even began. Then kill them all in one go.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/xss.htm

If someone really wanted an space to space missile, you could use a short fat rocket motor instead of a long slender one to fit into the small payload bay. I'd imagine this was the Soviet concept. After all you don’t have to worry about drag in space. So it’d be straightforward to pack an AMRAAM scale of missile with thrust vector control into a mere 7ft long payload bay.

Its also within reason that the payload bay could hold a small laser system. Such a laser could destroy a satellites by damaging its antennas and solar panels, it doesn’t need to have enough firepower to actually start blowing holes in the target. Spacecraft are fragile, unlike aircraft which can be tough as nails, so inflicting lethal damage isn’t a big problem.

On a further side note, I think this program directly explains why Space Radar was canceled. In the face of a space arms race those large satellites could not possibly survive. The money likely went into this program, and UAVs.

[K. A. Pital]

If someone really wanted an space to space missile, you could use a short fat rocket motor instead of a long slender one to fit into the small payload bay. I'd imagine this was the Soviet concept. After all you don’t have to worry about drag in space.

Quite sure it was - here's an image of a Soviet SSM from the Spiral program:

Its also within reason that the payload bay could hold a small laser system.

Hmm... Why did the USSR plan build an enormous 85-ton ASAT laser (Polus), with a whole orbiter ship being used for refuelling? Because it envisioned space combat against hardened targets, extreme long-range laser shooting (which I presume would be hard with a small laser due to the precision required) or?

[open_sketchbook]

Why would that be so tragic? There is little civilian incentive for space travel. There isn't a whole lot to do up there at the moment from anything but a military perspective, beyond communications and limited scientific experiments. I'd much rather that money was put towards space-based systems we could use to drop tungstan telephone poles onto dictators.

If you think there are few or no significant non-military applications of space, you are simply exhibiting your own ignorance of the subject. One could write an entire book on the uses of space (and some people have), but in brief:

1. Scientific research about the Universe. More important than you seem to realize. Think of the monumental importance socially and scientifically of discovering alien life, for example.

2. Resource extraction.

3. Communications, as you noticed.

4. Various other commercial enterprises (but that's more the area of private enterprise than a civilian government program).

5. Scientific study of Earth (study of climate/geography/environment/weather/etc with satelites).

6. Colonization. The long-term goal of establishing human civilization beyond Earth and ensuring the long-term survival of our species and all life on Earth.

Edit: Anyway, going back to the main topic of the thread, is there any more information on the capabilities of this thing besides what's included in the OP? Would it be armed, for example, and if so, with what?

To 1, there is little we can do there we can't do here, short of space telescopes. And honestly, it matters very little; we'll just be looking at far away places we'll never get to.

2 is centuries away at least. We'll wipe ourselves out with ecological meltdown or war before we are ever capable of making drives economical enough to go collecting asteroids.

3 cann be piggybacked onto military programs. By providing communications satellites with a monopoly on launch capability the military can create a source of income.

4 is, well, do we need more people with more money than sense shooting themselves into space?

5 will still get done as the military has a vested interest in watching weather patterns (for their aircraft) and doing satellite imaging (to spy on people)

As for number 6, we are never, ever going to colonize another planet. We will never have the technology or the ability to make it happen. It is simply too difficult to leave orbit and nobody will ever want to spend months on a spacecraft so they can die in a metal tube buried under Martian soil in the first generation of a ten thousand year process to make the planet habitable.

Space is obsolete, a pipe dream from a stupider time. This is it, baby, this is all we got, and we best make due before the planet falls apart around us.

[Ford Prefect]

Why would that be so tragic?

I'd much rather that money was put towards dropping tungstan telephone poles onto dictators.

You just answered your own question. It's idealistic, but it would just be really nice if we could keep militarisation of space to a minimum. NASA's mission statement was a feel good message of peace, which is pretty much superior to notions of orbital laser fortresses or anti-satillite space fighters. The idea that the future of space exploration belongs to a whole bunch of loud men in khaki uniforms is just plain depressing. There's no denying that military research contributed to space exploration in the past (see the Soviets), but the idea that there is nothing in space for civillians just seems silly. Your entire opinion on scientific research of spacei s just warped - oh, it's just looking at things we'll never get to! Gee, good work on totally deriding astrophysics, champ.

PS. space colonisation can be done in orbit, and the idea that we must live on planets is just daft.

[Sea Skimmer]

Hmm... Why did the USSR plan build an enormous 85-ton ASAT laser (Polus), with a whole orbiter ship being used for refuelling? Because it envisioned space combat against hardened targets, extreme long-range laser shooting (which I presume would be hard with a small laser due to the precision required) or?

Times change, so does technology. That concept is 25 years old and obsolete at this point. No one has any major reason to put a chemical laser in space now that solid state lasers can be ganged together to produce a high power beam with infinite refire from solar or nuclear power. Back in the 1980s, a huge chemical laser was simply the only option for a laser weapon in space and the USSR had to worry about the relatively large and tough US space shuttle being used as strategic weapon system.

Meanwhile hardened satellites are unlikely appear because of the extremely high launch costs of such heavy objects. its throwing money down the drain (when was the last time you saw someone demanding extensive armor plate on an A-50 or an E-3?). In 1980s electronics were very expensive, so it was logical to assume an enemy might invest in passive armor and other protective measures for his very expensive systems. Electronics have now miniaturized and reduced in cost to a point that it makes more sense to obtain survivability by launching many small satellites instead of a few big ones. We are both using computers to post online right now which are easily more powerful then the top supercomputers of 1985.

A small laser will certainly be less effective at very long range, limiting its ability to completely destroy targets in high orbits or geosynchronous orbits, but antennas and solar panels are impossible to protect and offer relatively large targets (compared to say a ballistic missile reentry vehicle). Plus you can have more small lasers then big ones. So you can either gang up on one large target attacking from multiple directions at once, or you can attack more small targets at the same time.

At this point the question really isn’t how ASAT works, but if satellites can survive a modern generation of space weapons at all. Really this seems to have been true even back in the 1980s, which is why the USSR and US were both reluctant to be drawn into a full scale space arms race. We both had too much to gain from using space against each other and against third parties to want to loose it all to a barrage of lasers and kill-sats. But now its not just the USSR and US that have a major space program, and avoiding space weapons development is much harder. Probably impossible now that China has made its ambitions clear and even people like Iran and North Korea are close to orbiting payloads.

[Simon_Jester]

True. But I agree that it's not a good thing if space becomes an overwhelmingly military affair.

When the military gets control over a technology, it tends to try and keep very close proprietary control over it, because it's concerned with the risk that someone else will duplicate it and shoot it at them. When we're talking about something like stealth fighters, that's all right, because nobody really has a reason to want radar-invisible aircraft except shooting at people.

But when it's something like space launch capability and space exploration... there are things people would very much like to do some day in space that have nothing to do with warfare. Letting the military dominate matters up there is going to get in the way of that, because the military will be less inclined to share its launch capability with private organizations, and less interested in international cooperation. And less likely to fund things that do not have direct applications to the field of killing things faster, harder, or sneakier.

And you can shrug that off: "Eh, well we don't really need to do all that stuff in space..." And that's true, strictly speaking, or at least close enough to true that I can't disprove it easily. But we live in a civilization that has a lot more capability to do things than it needs to meet basic survival goals. We didn't need to build the Internet either, but we did. Would we have done it if computer network technology had been a military monopoly?*

*And yes, I know, ARPA/DARPA had a lot to do with the foundation of the Internet. But it was the private sector and academia that really set it flying.

[eion]

As for number 6, we are never, ever going to colonize another planet. We will never have the technology or the ability to make it happen...

eion raises his hand to be amongst the first to spend 6 months in a small metal tube, to spend the remainder of his life in a larger metal tube on Mars to begin the 200 year process to turn our red brother into a terraformed and independent paradise.

He also points to Chris Columbus, Leif Erikson, John Smith, the Pilgrims, Zheng He, and many others who all look pretty pissed that open_sketchbook dismissed their exploration and colonization of another far off land so out of hand

Go fuck yourself, Luddite.

Back to the OP: very cool looking orbiter, it'd be nice if there was some scale in the picture though. Nose-cone of an Atlas isn't all that big, but I guess if you're not carrying up meat-bags and all their sundries you can make it pretty small.

[Shroom Man 777]

If people keep on bitching about "oh we'll never have the technology to make it happen now" regarding space colonization and think it's a good reason to cut back space technology R&D (except for R&D dedicated to their stupid orbital bombardment nike-heracushroom systems), then WHEN will we EVER get the technology to colonize space technology in the future if we don't start today? And how would we have ever gotten the technology we have today if we weren't doing it yesterday / in the past?

If blubbering vaginas went like that during the 50s and the 60s, and so NASA never put a man into orbit or on the moon because it was "useless" or some shit, then today we would never have gotten the technological foundation for our modern space technology - as modest as it is today.

Also, monopolizing space research and development to the military is fucking stupid - as competent as they are in making things that can kill people, I'd like to think that we can have more things than just a bunch of XB-70 Space Valkyries or Space McNamaras. I'd like to think that we can have nice things, like the Hubble Space Telescope or something.

On that note, I wish the USAF the best of luck in this noblest endeavor. It'd be totally awesome if this spaceplane gets turned into a nuclear weapons delivery vehicle. Like a remotely-controlled MIRV bus!

Of course, that's impossible. For now.

[Starglider]

Also, monopolizing space research and development to the military is fucking stupid - as competent as they are in making things that can kill people, I'd like to think that we can have more things than just a bunch of XB-70 Space Valkyries or Space McNamaras.

Most space launchers up until Ariane were directly based on ICBMs, and the exceptions (Saturn) still used a lot of technology developed for ICBMs. Military technology can often be repurposed for civilian use.

Project Orion was one of the most ambitious -- and radical -- spacecraft concepts ever developed. Central to the concept was substituting conventional chemical rockets with a string of low-yield nuclear bombs "spit" out the rear to create a series of powerful blast waves that would accelerate the spacecraft to high velocities.

The "piece de resistance" of the Orion development project was the Orion Battleship, a 10-story-tall spaceborne "doomsday" weapon that would carry more nuclear firepower than a nuclear submarine. Its proposed armaments included 500 20-megaton thermonuclear missiles, 3 naval Mk 5-inch gun turrets, at least six Casaba Howitzer nuclear directed-energy weapons systems and numerous 20-mm close-in weapons. Propulsion would consist of several thousand 5-kiloton nuclear pulse weapons (that would also serve as powerful EMP weapons if detonated in the upper atmosphere). Six "landing boats" were on board for use in crew transfer, resupply, emergency escape, etc.

When the Battleship concept (including a scale model) was shown to President Kennedy in 1963, JFK was reportedly so freaked out that he immediately cancelled the project altogether.

Imagine what awesome stuff we'd have in orbit now if Kennedy had said 'fuck yes, we have got to get some of those' instead of being a pussy. I mean, would the risk of nuclear war really have been any higher than it already was?

That said, in the TBO universe SAC controls all the super space Valkyries and orbital nuclear weapons stations, and NASA is completely shut down for incompetence in 1985. It looks like reality is converging on that prediction, I just hope it doesn't converge on any of the other aspects of RepublicanWetDreamBiowarHellVerse.

[adam_grif]

When the Battleship concept (including a scale model) was shown to President Kennedy in 1963, JFK was reportedly so freaked out that he immediately cancelled the project altogether.

Oh good, now I have a specific person to direct all my hatred over the cancellation of Orion at.

[Ma Deuce]

When the Battleship concept (including a scale model) was shown to President Kennedy in 1963, JFK was reportedly so freaked out that he immediately cancelled the project altogether.

Oh good, now I have a specific person to direct all my hatred over the cancellation of Orion at.

I thought that story about Kennedy canceling Orion over the "Space Battleship" design was apocrypha?

[Starglider]

I thought that story about Kennedy canceling Orion over the "Space Battleship" design was apocrypha?

Probably. That wasn't a very reliable source. Also everyone here should know by now that all bad things in US defense policy from 1961 onwards are the result of MCNAMARA.

[The Romulan Republic]

To 1, there is little we can do there we can't do here, short of space telescopes. And honestly, it matters very little; we'll just be looking at far away places we'll never get to.

Understanding the nature of our Universe doesn't matter?

2 is centuries away at least. We'll wipe ourselves out with ecological meltdown or war before we are ever capable of making drives economical enough to go collecting asteroids.

Ah, I see. You believe space exploration is irrelevant because you assume the human race is doomed to self-extinction. Yes, I can see how in that context long-term investment in space might seem foolish.

What I don't get is why you then support the increased militarization of space. Did you at some point decide "fuck it, we're all going to die so we might as well go all out with the WMDs in space"?

3 cann be piggybacked onto military programs. By providing communications satellites with a monopoly on launch capability the military can create a source of income.

I can't say I'm particularly happy about the thought of the military gaining a monopoly on global communications. Is it too cynical to expect that the result would be the subordination of civilian communications to military priorities?

4 is, well, do we need more people with more money than sense shooting themselves into space?

If it leads to the development of more infrastructure in space (while hopefully making a nice profit as well), then yes we do.

5 will still get done as the military has a vested interest in watching weather patterns (for their aircraft) and doing satellite imaging (to spy on people)

Yes, but there's a lot of research that gets done that the military probably wouldn't have an interest it, as well. But Simon_Jester already made this point.

As for number 6, we are never, ever going to colonize another planet. We will never have the technology or the ability to make it happen.

If we fail, it will be due not to any technological inability, but due to entirely to the ignorance of individuals such as yourself.

It is simply too difficult to leave orbit and nobody will ever want to spend months on a spacecraft so they can die in a metal tube buried under Martian soil in the first generation of a ten thousand year process to make the planet habitable.

You'd be surprised how many people would.

Space is obsolete, a pipe dream from a stupider time. This is it, baby, this is all we got, and we best make due before the planet falls apart around us.

The day we decide this is all we've got, then we'll be right.

[Simon_Jester]

I thought that story about Kennedy canceling Orion over the "Space Battleship" design was apocrypha?

Probably. That wasn't a very reliable source. Also everyone here should know by now that all bad things in US defense policy from 1961 onwards are the result of MCNAMARA.

But JFK appointed McNamara in the first place... surely he can get a little of the blame, right?

When the Battleship concept (including a scale model) was shown to President Kennedy in 1963, JFK was reportedly so freaked out that he immediately cancelled the project altogether.

Oh good, now I have a specific person to direct all my hatred over the cancellation of Orion at.

The problem is that if we'd done this in the '60s or '70s, it would have been hellishly problematic. People were a lot less sensitive to the fallout problem back then, and we would have launched nuclear space battleships... which would lead to a militarization of space. On both sides.

I'm really not sure that would be a good thing, on balance, though I have to admit that just having Orion launch capability would do wonders for our general space program.

...You know what would be hilarious to watch from a safe distance? An Orion ship trying to land.