
A plane has been in space for 500 days - nreece
http://www.techly.com.au/2014/04/30/plane-space-500-days-one-knows/
======
unsigner
I find the "no one knows" angle slightly amusing. It's the famed "military-
industrial complex". Do you really expect to know EVERYTHING these guys do? To
have a Snowden behind every filing cabinet and in every router?

~~~
icantthinkofone
Exactly. It's like people are surprised that countries have spies and their
missions and it should be detailed in the daily paper.

------
jacquesm
From the article:

"Plenty of conspiracy theorist have posed the question of X-37B carrying a
nuclear payload, to guarantee a ‘first strike’ opportunity (or to have a
counter-option in place).

If you have any hope for humanity, that can’t be right. The US is a signatory
to The Space Treaty, which is no joke. Space-based weapons of mass destruction
are banned."

That notion of being signatory to treaties still having some weight is so
quaint. NPT, CTBT, Kyoto...

~~~
mhandley
What's the point of a secret nuclear _deterent_? Surely it can only deter if
everyone knows you've got it.

~~~
jacquesm
I've seen that movie.

~~~
arethuza
Arthur C. Clarke's has a rather splended wee short story called "The Last
Command" that deals with space based deterrence.

NB I wouldn't recommend looking this up on Google as nearly every description
gives away in the twist in the ending.

------
jcr
If I had to guess, and of course, I do have to guess, my bet is the X-37 has
something to do with the DARPA Phoenix program.

[http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2014/04/02a.aspx](http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2014/04/02a.aspx)

------
adventured
This is a platform test to see if they can run small vehicles in space for
extended periods of time, operate them safely, and bring them back. Next up
will be real space operations once the capability to safely operate at a basic
level is proven. This is more likely about putting robotics platforms into
space that can stay there and go to work when needed (persistent presence).

It is not a first strike system. That's silly. Any use of such a strike system
that has anything to do with nukes will result in massive retaliation from any
enemy worth using it on (Russia, China specifically). The US doesn't need
small scale first strike options. If you're going to hit China or Russia with
nukes, you better destroy everything in the first wave, and that means
hundreds of nukes; and it wouldn't just be China or Russia, you have to
destroy both, for the same reason that Britain would likely nuke Russia, if
Russia preemptively nuked the US.

------
lugg
My guess is spy. Lesser possibility nukes.

Reasoning I say spy even though one commenter pointed out that there are spy
satellites in orbit is that with the reusability of the craft the cost of
getting newer and better spy tech into space faster is helpful on a few
levels.

~~~
arethuza
The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 explicitly forbids the placing of nukes (or any
other WMDs) in orbit around the Earth:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty)

Also, I'm not sure that having a weapon in orbit would actually be any better
than existing ICBMs.

~~~
serf
Yeah, it does forbid nukes.

Good thing it doesn't forbid Kinetic Kill Weapons. The kind of thing you need
to keep in-orbit for long periods of time.

No/little launch signature, dynamic positions, and a quicker response than any
ICBM.

(personally, I think it's a spy rig)

~~~
arethuza
"quicker response than any ICBM"

From what I can see it would be a lot _slower_ than most ICBMs as you have to
wait until it's orbit passes over or is close to the thing you want to hit.

This article seems to have details of its orbit:

[http://forden.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/2742/x37b-orbit-
fo...](http://forden.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/2742/x37b-orbit-found-
mystery-remains)

~~~
serf
Although wikipedia isn't tremendously reliable :

"In the case of the system mentioned in the 2003 USAF report above, a 6.1 m ×
0.3 m tungsten cylinder impacting at Mach 10 has a kinetic energy equivalent
to approximately 11.5 tons of TNT (or 7.2 tons of dynamite). The mass of such
a cylinder is itself greater than 9 tons, so it is clear that the practical
applications of such a system are limited to those situations where its other
characteristics provide a decisive advantage - a conventional bomb/warhead of
similar weight to the tungsten rod, delivered by conventional means, provides
similar destructive capability and is a far more practical method. Some other
sources suggest a speed of 36,000 ft/s (11,000 m/s),[8] which for the
aforementioned rod would amount to a kinetic energy equivalent to 120 tons of
TNT or 0.12 kt. With 6-8 satellites on a given orbit, a target could be hit
within 12–15 minutes from any given time, less than half the time taken by an
ICBM and without the warning. Such a system could also be equipped with
sensors to detect incoming anti-ballistic missile-type threats and relatively
light protective measures to use against them (e.g. Hit-To-Kill Missiles or
megawatt-class chemical laser)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment)

It's not the idea to have one single bombardment weapon, but many in an orbit.
That's what makes it a quick reaction. A single unit could likely be a testing
platform for such a system.

------
samworm
"NO ONE KNOWS" \- Really? No One? In a world of terrible link-bait headlines
this one manages to impress with its idiocy.

~~~
jacquesm
I think this may be because 'no one knows' is the media equivalent to 'nobody
that will talk to us knows'. Effectively that in turn translates into 'nobody
in the general public knows' and what with headline space being expensive (if
you use shorter headlines you can use larger letters) that got shortened to
'no one knows'.

~~~
frobozz
It could have been shortened even further to just "". Then there would be
nothing misleading in the headline at all.

As it is, the headline suggests that some plane accidentally crossed the
Kármán Line, has been floating out there for nearly 2 years, and not even the
pilot or ATC could work out how it happened.

------
michaelfeathers
Maybe it contains a vial of microbes that can be used to re-seed the planet in
the case of an extinction event.

~~~
chiph
Or it's _collecting_ microbes.

[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066769/?ref_=nv_sr_2](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066769/?ref_=nv_sr_2)

------
HackinOut
I have no idea how this thing could go into orbit. Anybody there who can
enlighten me?

~~~
HackinOut
Apparently, the encapsulation cell seen in the article is of the Atlas V
rocket which puts it into orbit
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V)

~~~
rplnt
So now we know why it won't land. There is no way to get it back up. I'm
assuming this is the only rocket capable of doing so and the ban by Russia to
use the engine for military missions is enforceable.

~~~
jacquesm
You make an interesting point but there is a 2 year supply of engines already
shipped so the ban will not have much immediate effect, and they are planning
a transition to US only produced engines.

------
spiritplumber
It's Jebediah Kerman.

~~~
sergiosgc
No, Jebediah is stuck on Duna with half a fuel tank. Had he practiced landing
in the simulator, I wouldn't have to mount a rescue operation now. I think
I'll leave him there for a couple of years for good measure.

~~~
misnome
I could have sworn he was stuck on Minmus, trapped in an upside-down pod with
the solar panels on the top (so no way of righting it). Oh, Jebediah.

~~~
freehunter
I'm still at the point of having just enough fuel to reach a circular orbit
but not enough to de-orbit. Dozens of men floating around the planet, helpless
and hopeless.

------
jsmcgd
Does anyone else think that they've lost control of this vehicle and that's
why, despite it having re-entry capability, it isn't doing a lot of re-
entering?

~~~
tgb
The article claimed that it's sibling stayed in space for over 400 days before
reentry, so no I don't think that's particularly likely.

------
ericcumbee
I'm going with something completely unsexy, this being what only the second
flight? My money is on it was a long duration test, to see how well it held
up.

------
LukeB_UK
"A plane has been in space for 500 days, and no one knows why" (except the
people who sent it there...)

------
jokoon
is this some sort of costly competition to space x in a way ?

~~~
narag
Or cooperation? This is a vehicle. Most news involving Space X are about
launchers. Also:

 _It’s versatile, and has worked well enough that Boeing is contracted to
create the next model, the X-37C. It will be at least 65% larger and have the
ability to carry up to six astronauts, while operating unmanned._

Space X reusable rockets and this reusable vehicle seems a good fit.

~~~
bane
My understanding is that the Air Force's Space budget is bigger than NASA's.
Making news like this [1] make a lot more sense.

1 - [http://www.stripes.com/news/air-force/air-force-
spending-60-...](http://www.stripes.com/news/air-force/air-force-
spending-60-million-to-certify-musk-s-spacex-1.283645)

------
coldcode
I still think it makes no sense in a supposed democracy we spend billions on
building stuff no one will say what it's good for. Especially stuff the
manufacturer admits to building.

~~~
josefresco
Democracy or not, national security depends on keeping certain things a secret
to adversaries. Democracy != transparency.

------
lifeisstillgood
There is a simpler explanation - Not getting over-shadowed by Elon Musk.

The success of SpaceX and all the private / not-in-military-industrial-complex
companies is a direct threat to the budgets and livelihoods of those in the
military-industrial complex.

This is a demonstration of "whatever they can do, we can do better"

~~~
MPSimmons
I don't see how this has anything at all to do with the mission profile for
any current or projected SpaceX endeavors.

SpaceX is building launch and deployment vehicles. While I have no doubt that
this plane could deploy satellites, it doesn't take 500 days to do that. There
are clearly other goals.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
I am sure there are many direct project goals - but one overriding meta-goal
is to not stand there looking dumb whilst Elon eats your lunch in the minds of
the politicians at least.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
I am really not understanding the downvotes. Elon and SpaceX represent (though
are not the whole extent of) a direct threat to the funding of and reputation
of a whole slew of US government / closely-tied to US govt companies.

If Elon can demonstrate relaunch capabilities for a fraction of the normal
cost, then the big question from Congress will be "So why are we paying you
guys so much".

This is irrespective of whether its reusable space launches, or smaller
"mission focused" space vehicles.

Any project that is capable of providing an answer to that question is worth
tens of billions in continued funding - so the X-37B could be empty and it
would still be a worthwhile investment (it isn't empty, of course, but it's
value is budgetary defence, not national defence).

All of which to my cyncial mind is far more realistic than a secret project to
put nukes in orbit.

~~~
ubernostrum
You're being downvoted because you're bringing irrelevant fanboyism into the
thread.

If you think a project aimed at (in relation to the current space industries)
mass-produced cost-effective commercial launch vehicles is a threat to small-
production-run projects aimed at defense missions, I think you have some
horizon-broadening to do.

SpaceX is, for the most part, just taking well-trod ground and trying to make
it more efficient. Classified defense stuff, on the other hand, tends to break
a lot of new ground and do exotic things the civilian market hasn't even
considered enough to debate whether they're possible.

It'd be kind of like someone working on a cheaper, more efficient jet
airliner, and you coming in and saying "see, this is a threat to stuff like
the SR-71 because it's so much cheaper than all the bloated contractors!"

~~~
josefresco
While I agree on some level (there's probably another level of secret launches
we don't hear about), Space X is going after those military contracts too, and
even with additional security measures still projects significant cost
savings. Also military launches are quite regular and not all are unique
"small-production-run" top secret jobs that require custom vehicles/equipment.

~~~
ubernostrum
Not all of them are, sure. But year+ long reusable spaceplane flights are not
exactly run-of-the-mill flights, which strongly suggests that these aren't the
sort of thing a more mass-market-oriented vehicle would even be competing for.

~~~
josefresco
Agreed, my point was that there are also run-of-the-mill military
flights/launches which SpaceX is also interested.

