In a rare disclosure, The Pentagon provides an update on the X-37B spaceplane(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
In a rare disclosure, The Pentagon provides an update on the X-37B spaceplane
https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/10/the-us-militarys-x-37b-spaceplane-is-preparing-for-a-novel-space-maneuver/
7 comments
The Pentagon likely wanted to get ahead of any space observers noticing the heat from aerobraking and disposal of the service module. That might look like a hull loss, and they wouldn't want anyone to report a mission failure.
This actually sounds plausible. I'm not sure how well the service module survives the reentry (hopefully not at all) But I bet alot of nations will start asking questions if they dont provide disclosure beforehand.
> At the end of the mission, the X-37B jettisons the disposable service module before reentry. The Space Force doesn't want this section of the spacecraft to remain in its current high-altitude orbit and become a piece of space junk.
I imagine they also don't want our peer adversaries picking up our space trash and reverse engineering what we're doing.
I imagine they also don't want our peer adversaries picking up our space trash and reverse engineering what we're doing.
The challenge of the X-37b is imagination. My pet theories involve interdicting opposing countries spy/communications satellites with stealth drone satellites carried and retrieved by x-37. If we could get physical acces to satellites on orbit, we could own enemy communications. More so attaching mines to enemy satellites to disable on command would also be a valuable capability. Etc… lots of possibilities.
Plausibly, there is no real monitoring of co-orbiting bodies in space. If there aren't cameras pointed at every location of the sattelite (why would their be?) you could place a small kill device nearby to avoid the need to shoot down the satellite in the future.
Satellites are flimsy things, all one would need to do is break the mirror/telecom array to stop satellite guided weapons.
Satellites are flimsy things, all one would need to do is break the mirror/telecom array to stop satellite guided weapons.
I imagine it wouldn't take a very sensitive inertial measurement unit to pick up a craft physically interacting with it. Most satellites would need more precise instruments for their own maneuvering control. It might not be enough to determine what tampering took place, but it should be clear that tampering did take place.
> Plausibly, there is no real monitoring of co-orbiting bodies in space
[capable] nations operating sensitive satellites and other space assets absolutely are monitoring foreign objects maneuvering in their orbital vicinity.
[capable] nations operating sensitive satellites and other space assets absolutely are monitoring foreign objects maneuvering in their orbital vicinity.
Yep, and you can find lots of commercial companies that are doing this
https://exoanalytic.com/space-domain-awareness/
https://exoanalytic.com/space-domain-awareness/
Rather than blowing up satellites and causing debris, wouldn't you rather attach a thruster to move it out of orbit?
If your opposition has an advantage in space over you, turning low earth orbit into a useless debris field for several years is overwhelmingly in your advantage.
The article discusses how to move to different orbits while using less fuel and it reminds me of the line from Ender's Game [0]:
"Fighting in a gravity well. That means it's cheaper to go down than up."
0 - If you've never read it, I have a short review of Ender's game here: https://alexpotato.com/books/?l=hn#EndersGame
"Fighting in a gravity well. That means it's cheaper to go down than up."
0 - If you've never read it, I have a short review of Ender's game here: https://alexpotato.com/books/?l=hn#EndersGame
I highly recommend the second book of the saga.
Speaker for the Dead is good, but the series starts to get a bit... weird. Fairly religious, although still in a space-y way. Maybe that was just my middle school take and I should re-read it.
Ender's Shadow (Ender's Game from Bean's perspective) is also excellent.
Ender's Shadow (Ender's Game from Bean's perspective) is also excellent.
Same!
And I reviewed that one too: https://alexpotato.com/books/?l=hn#EndersShadow
And I reviewed that one too: https://alexpotato.com/books/?l=hn#EndersShadow
The second Book Was Speaker for the Dead. The shadow books came out later.
Did we build this so we can nuke anybody on the planet at any time? Serious question. If not, what's it for?
If they can miniaturize the re-entry vehicles enough to make them undetectable, or if they can leave them "parked" next to larger satellites so as to hide them, then having such hidden orbiting warheads would seem to allow for plausible deniability in small nuclear bombings. But since everyone would know only we have this capability, the deniability goes out the window. Also, re-entry vehicles get very hot and are visible, and their trajectories could get plotted, thus providing evidence of whodunit. Plus the x-37b can't possibly carry very many warheads and re-entry vehicles.
On the whole I think it's very unlikely that the x-37b is placing nukes in orbit.
On the whole I think it's very unlikely that the x-37b is placing nukes in orbit.
It's for deterring other countries from deploying a thing that can nuke anybody on the planet at any time. See also: Space Shuttle.
It's testing ability to on-command manipulate orbits in space with very low fuel, which is useful for anything we throw up in space.
Officially its a platform for testing various technologies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37#Speculation_regard...
I wonder if it is used to detect nuclear bombs in orbit? That would explain the level of secrecy.
>> Did we build this so we can nuke anybody on the planet at any time?
This was actually a concern with the space shuttle! I suppose it could be a concern for any spacecraft that can carry a payload into orbit.
I’m not sure what value there’d be in dropping one or two nukes on an enemy. Any nuclear capable power would not be disabled by a few nukes going off, they’d know who dropped they nukes, and they could retaliate. If we had 10K nukes in orbit and could synchronize them to blanket a country & disable its nuclear response capability, maybe that would be worth something if the other side didn’t also fill space with nukes (which they would).
This was actually a concern with the space shuttle! I suppose it could be a concern for any spacecraft that can carry a payload into orbit.
I’m not sure what value there’d be in dropping one or two nukes on an enemy. Any nuclear capable power would not be disabled by a few nukes going off, they’d know who dropped they nukes, and they could retaliate. If we had 10K nukes in orbit and could synchronize them to blanket a country & disable its nuclear response capability, maybe that would be worth something if the other side didn’t also fill space with nukes (which they would).
> it could be a concern for any spacecraft that can carry a payload into orbit.
No, it's only a concern for spacecraft with significant cross range capability, like Shuttle and X37B.
All other spacecraft have predictable trajectories, like ICBM's.
The upcoming generation of hypersonics are worse: they are significantly harder to detect on top of speed and maneuverability.
No, it's only a concern for spacecraft with significant cross range capability, like Shuttle and X37B.
All other spacecraft have predictable trajectories, like ICBM's.
The upcoming generation of hypersonics are worse: they are significantly harder to detect on top of speed and maneuverability.
Cross-range applies within the atmosphere, not in orbit. Once in orbit, spaceplanes have no less predictable orbits than anything else with fuel and restartable motors.
For the X-37 to deliver on a surprising vector it would have to sacrifice itself by deorbiting and manoeuvring, which I suppose is feasible. But modern MaRVs also have some re-entry cross-range and HGVs considerably more.
For the X-37 to deliver on a surprising vector it would have to sacrifice itself by deorbiting and manoeuvring, which I suppose is feasible. But modern MaRVs also have some re-entry cross-range and HGVs considerably more.
If you read TFA you'll see that the x-37b does have "cross-range" capabilities in orbit. It has enough fuel for some orbit changes, as reported in previous news, and in this instance it uses aerobraking to alter its orbit significantly at the cost of very little fuel.
It would be for indefensible decapitation strikes. A world leader who would launch a surprise first strike is almost certainly narcissistic enough to be susceptible to blackmail by a threat on their own life. A world leader who is not concerned with their own life but that of their countrymen will likely not launch a surprise first strike and so MAD still works.
Is there any one or any time we can't already nuke with an ICBM? Not sure I really see what extra capability would be added by putting nukes on a space plane.
It would be another leg in the triad—presumably obsoleting strategic bombers for most potential scenarios.
All the legs have trade-offs, which is why you want more than one:
Silos are immobile.
Bombers are slow, limited-range and vulnerable.
Submarines have to hide and thus are difficult to keep in touch with reliably. They’re also damn complicated and may have systemic vulnerabilities we don’t fully understand.
A long-orbit, large-payload space plane brings some interesting new trade-offs to the strategic nuclear game, though who knows if that’s actually how it might be used.
All the legs have trade-offs, which is why you want more than one:
Silos are immobile.
Bombers are slow, limited-range and vulnerable.
Submarines have to hide and thus are difficult to keep in touch with reliably. They’re also damn complicated and may have systemic vulnerabilities we don’t fully understand.
A long-orbit, large-payload space plane brings some interesting new trade-offs to the strategic nuclear game, though who knows if that’s actually how it might be used.
> Silos are immobile.
But mobile launchers aren't. Russia and China use those, but we don't.
> presumably obsoleting strategic bombers
We'd have to have hundreds of warheads in orbit at all times to obsolete strategic bombers.
If the x-37b is to be used for carrying (or deploying) orbital nukes, then at least for now it has to be a very few nukes. Re-entry vehicles are visible because they glow white hot as they re-enter, so while surprising (because there is no boost phase to detect, and because the detectable flight time will be less than half that of an ICBM) they will not provide enough plausible deniability to be worth using at all. This is why I doubt the x-37b is being used to carry nukes.
But mobile launchers aren't. Russia and China use those, but we don't.
> presumably obsoleting strategic bombers
We'd have to have hundreds of warheads in orbit at all times to obsolete strategic bombers.
If the x-37b is to be used for carrying (or deploying) orbital nukes, then at least for now it has to be a very few nukes. Re-entry vehicles are visible because they glow white hot as they re-enter, so while surprising (because there is no boost phase to detect, and because the detectable flight time will be less than half that of an ICBM) they will not provide enough plausible deniability to be worth using at all. This is why I doubt the x-37b is being used to carry nukes.
Bombers are long obsolete. When is the last time someone used a bomber? Missiles/ rockets have already replaced their functionality
You may be right, but tell it to the Strategic Air Command:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_USAF_Bomb_Wings_and_Wi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_USAF_Bomb_Wings_and_Wi...
F-35 still carries bombs as well. And the USA recently revealed the B21 stealth bomber.
> When is the last time someone used a bomber?
The US bombed some Houthi launch sites within the last couple of months. Israel bombed Beirut this last week.
The US bombed some Houthi launch sites within the last couple of months. Israel bombed Beirut this last week.
They struck targets what makes you think they flew an F35 over them and dropped a bomb?
There is exactly one country who would have any hope of even achieving MAD in a nuclear exchange, and that number isn't going up any time soon. I don't know that I see any reason to add legs here.
Russia, China, and the U.S. all have MAD capabilities.
Without a deeper analysis, that’s an argument to scuttle our missile subs, too.
I mean, it’s an argument to be had, but the advantages of a dominant multi-modal nuclear arsenal go beyond binary assurance of mutual destruction in total war—today.
You’re the Chinese premiere in 2030 or 2040 choosing whether to try to match US strategic capability. How many chips that requires in the pot for a call makes a difference in that calculation.
I mean, it’s an argument to be had, but the advantages of a dominant multi-modal nuclear arsenal go beyond binary assurance of mutual destruction in total war—today.
You’re the Chinese premiere in 2030 or 2040 choosing whether to try to match US strategic capability. How many chips that requires in the pot for a call makes a difference in that calculation.
>strategic nuclear game
If that's its job then it is in breach of the Outer Space Treaty. No weapons of mass destruction in space.
If that's its job then it is in breach of the Outer Space Treaty. No weapons of mass destruction in space.
Having the capacity to hold & deliver live warheads doesn’t mean it’s exercising that capability today.
Anyway this is all incredibly speculative. Nobody knows the real strategic purposes of this thing.
Anyway this is all incredibly speculative. Nobody knows the real strategic purposes of this thing.
Orbital bombardment capability. Very little early warning compared to a ballistic launch.
Various treaties prohibit having weapons in orbit, but X-37B provides the capability without actively having to have such a system deployed.
Why would the US military specifically need it I'm not sure, but having the option is probably a good thing for them.
Various treaties prohibit having weapons in orbit, but X-37B provides the capability without actively having to have such a system deployed.
Why would the US military specifically need it I'm not sure, but having the option is probably a good thing for them.
>Various treaties prohibit having weapons in orbit, but X-37B provides the capability without actively having to have such a system deployed.
"States shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner;"
"States shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner;"
By launching the orbiter with a weapon, would it not be breaking said treaty?
By that time you launch an armed X-37B you are probably already in your underground nuclear bunker and do not care about treaties.
A better objection is that a single one is not going to make a difference, and having a big fleet ready to launch is going to raise eyebrows.
A better objection is that a single one is not going to make a difference, and having a big fleet ready to launch is going to raise eyebrows.
Launching an X-37B at the point of hostilities is no different than just launching ICBMs. You would need this imaginary fleet of X-37Bs already in orbit similar to having parts of the submarine fleet at sea at all times.
X-37B has been to space many times without triggering a retaliatory strike. As I mentioned, of course having a fleet would be different.
This might simply be about having the capability on stand by even if there are currently few scenarios were it would realistically be usable.
This might simply be about having the capability on stand by even if there are currently few scenarios were it would realistically be usable.
> X-37B has been to space many times without triggering a retaliatory strike.
But not "at the point of hostilities", as GP put it.
But not "at the point of hostilities", as GP put it.
Aren’t subs even faster? You could literally sacrifice the sub in a harbor and have about a half second notice.
I'm certainly not an expert on nuclear brinkmanship:). I only know that orbital nuclear bombardment capabilities is something that nuclear states desire but are MAD-destablizing enough to have been ruled out via treaties.
I assume the problem with subs is prompt communication. Also they are more of a retaliatory strike weapon thank first strike capability.
I assume the problem with subs is prompt communication. Also they are more of a retaliatory strike weapon thank first strike capability.
What would be the benefit of this over an icbm? Is it lower latency that gives the target less time to intercept?
Watching https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiangong_space_station close up.
The lack of awareness of the Tiangong stations in the west is distinctly strange.
The lack of awareness of the Tiangong stations in the west is distinctly strange.
Didn't realize they had people living on the Tiangong already, seems for quite a while now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBhrq6TuSa0
It's strange how isolated Americans are in terms of international news.
Yeah, very strange. ISS is in the news almost daily by comparison
Because its interesting. ISS has a shelf life fast approaching and the idea of it falling into the earth and not be replaced is another classic story of the american empire withering away. Akin to the last shuttle flight.
Meanwhile a chinese space station doing a dozen small physics experiments doesn’t capture the same interest.
Meanwhile a chinese space station doing a dozen small physics experiments doesn’t capture the same interest.
Nasa probably publishes press releases almost daily, not as if anything is original reporting
The US military already has the ability to nuke anybody at any time. There are a thousand other more plausible options, assuming you don’t believe the official explanation.
The other less (directly at least[0]) world ending capability it might unlock is being able to non-destructively interfere with the satellites of other nations. I think they'd prefer to avoid creating huge debris clouds if they could. The X-37B seems like it has the ability to visit and interfere with multiple satellites in a single launch. By being able to drastically change it's orbit it can alter it's orbit to intercept a target satellite and do it's work before the satellite's owner can respond to have the satellites maneuver.
[0] I say less directly because some nations like Russia have doctrine that states they may respond with nuclear weapons to conventional attacks that degrade it's ability to use their nuclear weapons or detect launches so messing with their observation satellites could snowball. According to some reporting one of the big hold ups with the US and other countries authorizing Ukraine to use provided weapons to strike inside Russia is there are dual use facilities that Ukraine would love to strike but also serve as important parts of the Russian nuclear system (early warning radars in the south that monitor airspace over Ukraine and provide launch warnings from places like Turkey/the Mediterranean).
[0] I say less directly because some nations like Russia have doctrine that states they may respond with nuclear weapons to conventional attacks that degrade it's ability to use their nuclear weapons or detect launches so messing with their observation satellites could snowball. According to some reporting one of the big hold ups with the US and other countries authorizing Ukraine to use provided weapons to strike inside Russia is there are dual use facilities that Ukraine would love to strike but also serve as important parts of the Russian nuclear system (early warning radars in the south that monitor airspace over Ukraine and provide launch warnings from places like Turkey/the Mediterranean).
[deleted]
Note that between the X-37B's small size, tiny numbers, and extremely limited ability to change its orbit, it is useless for "we can nuke anybody on the planet at any time" missions.
How is Boeing successful with this project and not with Starliner?
Note that the X37B has been flying since 2011 and is part of a larger program that has been ongoing at Boeing since the late 90s. It's likely that a lot of the hard work was accomplished before the MBAs at Boeing ruined the company to the extent that they have today.
The Starliner program is a painfully unprofitable fixed-price contract with NASA. Which is a relatively minor Boeing customer.
Vs. the X-37B program is likely to be a highly profitable cost-plus contract with the Pentagon. Which is a far bigger Boeing customer.
I'd figure that Boeing has kept its eyes on the bottom lines when assigning people and resources to the two programs.
Vs. the X-37B program is likely to be a highly profitable cost-plus contract with the Pentagon. Which is a far bigger Boeing customer.
I'd figure that Boeing has kept its eyes on the bottom lines when assigning people and resources to the two programs.
Boeing hasn't really had to do much on the X-37B for ages and I suspect the company is quite silo'd (for good and bad reasons).
I imagine skunkworks is an entirely separate part of the company.
[deleted]
You mean PhantomWorks. Skunk Works is Lockheed Martin's advanced R&D arm.
They didn't say Skunk Works, they said skunkworks. It's a pretty common phrase now used to describe the secret process of developing something inspired by the Lockheed Martin's group.
Not needing to be human-rated helps quite a bit (and increases the level of acceptable risk).
[deleted]