Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Experimental USAF space plane breaks record for orbital spaceflight

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 114 posts

Re: Experimental USAF space plane breaks record for orbital spaceflight

#101

Post by SEJeff »

Tuxer wrote: post #19
colechristensen wrote: post #16

Obvious missions for a long-mission mobile shuttle like this include * intercepting and deorbiting space junk * fixing friendly or sabotaging unfriendly operational satellites * future weapons platform for offense or defense (say intercepting ground-launched sat-killing missiles) * on-demand surveillance (with ordinary spy satellites you have to wait until your orbit is in the right spot, adversaries will know when y…

Space isn't like a highway where you can move from A to B at minimal expense. Switching orbits, both orbit heights but mainly orbit inclinations, comes at a very high delta-V expense and therefore propellant expense, which this craft simply doesn't have the volume to hold. This cannot shuttle between LEO stations and switch orbits to imitate multiple observation sats unless those sats and stations are very close in t…

This thing has changed orbits many many times over its several missions:

https://www.space.com/9000-secret-37b-space-plane-changed-or...

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a28496447/x-37b-di...

http://spaceflight101.com/x-37b-space-plane-maneuvers-into-l...

Re: Experimental USAF space plane breaks record for orbital spaceflight

#102

Post by skykooler »

batbomb wrote: post #77
nwallin wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two groups of people who take pictures of satellites: 1. Amateur astronomers like this guy. 2. Nation states who take clandestine photos of other nation's spy satellites. These pictures are better, but you haven't seen them. For everything else, there's some guy working in the lab who's like, "oh, you want a picture of our satellite? Of course, there's like 40 of them on our press site. Do you need more? I…

(3) Astronomers - usually not on purpose

Astronomers usually aren't tracking satellites, so if one shows up in an image it's only as a streak. You need to be moving the camera to track the object to get a reasonably clear image (or very short exposure times, which are relatively uncommon in astronomy).

Re: Experimental USAF space plane breaks record for orbital spaceflight

#103

Post by Herodotus38 »

nwallin wrote: post #70
Herodotus38 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too late to edit my comment but amateur astronomer was a poor label for the guy who took the picture. He is the best astrophotographer for satellites that I've seen. Here is his personal website where he has his collection: http://www.ralfvandebergh-astrophotography.simpsite.nl/home

There are two groups of people who take pictures of satellites: 1. Amateur astronomers like this guy. 2. Nation states who take clandestine photos of other nation's spy satellites. These pictures are better, but you haven't seen them. For everything else, there's some guy working in the lab who's like, "oh, you want a picture of our satellite? Of course, there's like 40 of them on our press site. Do you need more? I…

Agree with everything you said. I just meant he has a Wikipedia page where he's listed as an astronomer and professional photographer. I'm not sure where the line is drawn between amateur and professional in his case. I'm not sure if he works professionally as an astronomer as well, although he seems to be more of a space journalist.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralf_Vandebergh

Re: Experimental USAF space plane breaks record for orbital spaceflight

#105

Post by mabbo »

mabbo wrote: post #91
TeMPOraL wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are single-stage to orbit (SSTO) spaceplanes even possible on Earth with current chemical rockets? They're a PITA to build in Kerbal Space Program, and there the universe is 1/10 the size of the real one (albeit with the same gravitational acceleration).

They are possible , but not economically feasible. Tim Dodd has a fantastic video showing just how ineffective they are. Two (or three) stage rockets are just so much more efficient.

Went and looked it up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sfc2Jg1gkKA

Tim Dodd (The Everyday Astronaut) is just a very good speaker on all space-related topics. Him and Scott Manley (with a healthy dose of Kerbal Space Program) are incredible teachers about space.

Re: Experimental USAF space plane breaks record for orbital spaceflight

#106

Post by rtkwe »

Phlarp wrote: post #55
forgotmysn wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

to rescue what exactly?

Presumably ISS? Seems unlikely US government would expose a military asset to the Russians willingly like that. Also life support systems are heavy and that will cut into the delta-v budget of the craft.

I don't think the main mystery and classification is about the craft itself but about the cargoes and missions it takes. It probably could be outfitted to act as a rescue craft for 1-2 astronauts though in a pinch all you really need is a way to strap the astronauts in and the pack from their space suits for some short term life support (or maybe even just a CO2 scrubber pack and an oxygen bottle if the interior is already thermally managed enough for the astronaut to survive) being much smaller than the shuttle it can land at more places so they wouldn't have to be in the craft long.

Re: Experimental USAF space plane breaks record for orbital spaceflight

#107

Post by avmich »

mabbo wrote: post #33
avmich wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait for Dream Chaser, first unmanned orbital flight planned for 2020. That one looks more promising, at least it's bigger and originally planned to be used manned.

There's also SpaceX's Dragon 2 and Boeing's Starliner coming soon.

Dream Chaser is way closer to this space plane in features, I think.

Re: Experimental USAF space plane breaks record for orbital spaceflight

#108

Post by Phlarp »

nwallin wrote: post #72
Phlarp wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It uses an oblong orbit to gain a small window where the next orbit cannot be perfectly predicted by an adversary that can only watch half the sky. You can't gain delta-v by inducing additional drag on the craft.

If a spacecraft is traveling at 4,000 m/s and it plows headlong into a planet, it has gained 4,000 m/s of delta v. Delta v a measurement of a vector, not a scalar. The fact that its kinetic energy with respect to Earth is decreasing does not mean it isn't gaining delta v. In addition to the obvious (lowering your apogee) you can also use this delta v to change your inclination. It's not "free" of course- you need to…

I'm absolutely certain the air force is willing to give up some efficiency to gain some obfuscation.

Re: Experimental USAF space plane breaks record for orbital spaceflight

#109

Post by ncmncm »

Without knowing anything about the classified missions of this thing, I can, with complete confidence, say that the program is mismanaged; my guess is the problem is at the very top.

The only unique quality of this vehicle is that it can re-enter the atmosphere and then be launched again. Everything it does while in orbit, including grabbing something to bring back, could be done by something else not unique.

Yet, they have exercised its unique capability only three times, and the rest of the time kept it to activities that could be better done without it.

The alternative is that there really isn't much use for this thing, so they keep it parked in orbit between uses.

Re: Experimental USAF space plane breaks record for orbital spaceflight

#110

Post by smacktoward »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #66
sandworm101 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have been people working on spaceplanes continuously since the Nixon administration. Shuttle was a spaceplane but there were/are lots of other programs that fit that title.

Personally, I put the beginning of this program with the NASA Lifting body program[1]. The most famous one for me being the M2-F2 which was shown crashing in the opening sequence of the six million dollar man TV series. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifting_body#List_of_Armstrong...

Those who played the classic computer game Buzz Aldrin's Race into Space (which was completely open-sourced a few years ago: see https://www.raceintospace.org/) will remember that one of the key decisions in that game, which was all about building a space program that could get you to the moon, was whether to use traditional capsules (Gemini/Apollo on the US side, Voskhod/Soyuz for the USSR) in the mid-to-late game, or to go with reusable lifting body-type vehicles instead. The American player could build the "XMS-2", a fictional vehicle derived from the X-20 Dyna-Soar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-20_Dyna-Soar), and the Soviet player could build a similarly fictional vehicle based on the MiG-105 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-105).

It was a big decision gameplay-wise, as capsules were much cheaper to research and purchase, but the reusability of mini-shuttles meant you didn't have to buy a whole new crew vehicle for each shot. So if you could scrounge up the money to buy a few in the mid-game, you could free up big bucks in the late game that would otherwise have gone towards buying all those capsules.

Post reply on HN