
X-37B - J3L2404
http://spaceflightnow.com/atlas/av012/100402x37update/
======
stcredzero
Many think that the Space Shuttle's dangerous reentry profile was brought
about because the US military wanted a vehicle with considerable cross-range
flexibility. The thought is that a vehicle without this burden could be
designed with a flight profile that exposes it to much less heating in a
hypersonic airstream, resulting in a lighter and safer vehicle.

This X37 seems to be an embodiment of those capabilities.

~~~
russss
As far as I know this isn't just speculation, it's fact.

The US DoD required a 1500-mile crossrange capability on the Shuttle because
they wanted to launch from Vandenberg into a polar orbit, immediately drop a
satellite into orbit over the north pole, then land back at Vandenberg at the
end of the same orbit, before the Soviets could track the shuttle's orbit by
radar. (The earth would have turned ~1500 miles under the orbiter by that
point, so it would have to be aerodynamic enough to fly those 1500 miles as a
plane.)

This crossrange requirement was what required the Shuttle to use the unusual
delta-wing configuration. The Vandenberg-polar-orbit flight profile has never
been attempted.

------
tocomment
What are the military benefits of bring something back from orbit? I can't
think of any.

~~~
demallien
Not leaving sensitive equipment around for others to steal. Not cluttering up
Near Earth Orbit with junk. Not sending back results over interceptable radio-
waves (encryption can be broken, given enough time - if you broadcast it, you
can pretty much assume that the bad guys will be able to read it in 10 years
time) And then, I wouldn't be surprised if the military see this as a way to
get a surreptitious military manned space program up and running - it's just
not that much more work, once you have a lander available.

That's just a few ideas that pop up at first glance - there are no doubt
others...

------
sliverstorm
This could perhaps provide a second wind to space development.

The Air Force has the kind of funding NASA can only dream of anymore, and as
another bright side it seems to me the US armed forces are typically
excessively rigorous, which might help prevent the flaws that have been giving
space flight such a bad rep.

One thing definitely puts a different spin on it though- NASA was a research
organization, developing tech and shooting for the moon as an ends in and of
itself, while the Air Force is armed forces...

~~~
whatwhatwhat
NASA was definitely rigorous, maybe even overly so, and that is why they
became such a money pit.

On the other hand NASA does so many damn things around the world that space
flight can hardly be called it's specialty.

~~~
trafficlight
You are right. A lot of people forget about the Aeronautics part of National
Aeronautics and Space Administration.

