The New York Times article on the X-37 contains two very weak assertions.

How about this one: “The craft’s payload bay is the size of a pickup truck bed, suggesting that it can not only expose experiments to the void of outer space but also deploy and retrieve small satellites.”  (emphasis added)

I guess you could assert that the shuttle has ‘retrieved’ a satellite regarding the repair missions with the Hubble.  I also suppose you could assert the X-37 could do such a mission as a space debris mitigation effort–a demonstration possibly–but even if it had the energy to maneuver to a spacecraft to retrieve it, how would it get it in the cargo bay?  How would the payload be secured for a return trip to earth, including an airplane-like landing?

The second assertion is the space weaponization thing.  It seems kind of analogous to when people have to explain that they are actually politically correct when accused of a PC-type crime.  Accordingly, the X-37 is associated with the phrase ‘space weaponization’ several times and it is denied several times.  The Times Online article Launch of secret US space ship masks even more secret launch of new weapon is m-u-c-h more ominous.  I’m all for conspiracy theories, but come on…

Really, the idea the X-37 is a space weapon is beyond the pale. First level questions like what weapon(s) does it carry?; what would be its target(s)?; how would the weapon(s) be delivered to the target(s)?, are ignored.

Regarding an X-37 payload, in the past the concept of ‘on-orbit spares’ has come up, but the idea was never compelling.  After all, if you’re going to put something on orbit, it is probably a very capable system and you probably want to use it right away.  As such, you’d be expected to turn the satellite on as soon as you can.

A vehicle like the X-37 could preserve a capability to deploy ‘sleeping’ contingency satellite(s) for an extended period of time.  If there was war here on earth that needed the kind of space capabilities the X-37’s payload could provide, then it could deploy the satellites almost immediately.  Conversely, if they didn’t need to be deployed, the X-37 could be brought back with the payload intact for use on a subsequent mission.  Or they could be deployed just prior to the X-37’s de-orbit to add space capability.

Taking off and landing with the same payload–on a first mission–makes little sense.  The X-37 first needs to show it can deploy a payload after some period of on-orbit storage.  By the way, a payload that could fit into a pickup truck’s bed seems pretty likely to not have new sensors on it.  You would  really expect this would be about employing relatively mature technologies in new ways.

  1. […] the X-37 a weapon?  No. Will it start a space war?  Get […]

  2. Mark Gubrud says:

    The X-37B could be equipped with a robotic arm to grab a satellite. The end effector could be a gripper of some kind, or it could mate to a thruster nozzle, or it could throw a net over the catch, or any number of other possibilities. The retrieved satellite could be secured by clamping, netting, or the cargo bay could be fitted with a box which would be filled with foam after the satellite was in it.

    What kind of weapon could the X-37B carry? It could carry an AK-47. It could carry any type of weapon, ideally one more suitable than a Kalashnikov for use in space, provided the weapon was compact and light enough to be carried on the X-37B. It could certainly carry a number of KKV interceptors similar to the GMD or SM-3 BMD/ASATs.

    I’m not saying I think the X-37B is likely intended for or will be used in any of these ways. But nobody seems to know what the X-37B is intended for or how it would be used, and nobody seems to be able to suggest any way it could be used that makes any sense or is cost-effective compared with other obvious alternatives.

    So the space weapon theories are no crazier than most others, and certainly can’t be discounted as technical nonsense. My own crazy theory is that X-37B is just a kind of dumb idea that looks cool to a lot of people, some of whom have the ability to write $200M checks on the USG account.

    • Space Farmer says:

      “So the space weapon theories are no crazier than most others, and certainly can’t be discounted as technical nonsense.”

      Actually, they can and should be dismissed as both technical (payload bay size, KKV size, and employment problems–highly constrained by the X-37B’s orbit) and operational nonsense.

      Operationally, what does a space weapon do that wouldn’t make more sense to do non-kinetically?

      Now, that being said, whatever it’s doing is likely to make some space faring nations unhappy.

      And $200M? That would be a bargain.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s