Posted on 05/23/2010 4:23:19 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
A team of amateur sky watchers has pierced the veil of secrecy surrounding the debut flight of the nation’s first robotic spaceplane, finding clues that suggest the military craft is engaged in the development of spy satellites rather than space weapons, which some experts have suspected but the Pentagon strongly denies.
Last month, the unmanned successor to the space shuttle blasted off from Florida on its debut mission but attracted little public notice because no one knew where it was going or what it was doing. The spaceship, known as the X-37B, was shrouded in operational secrecy, even as civilian specialists reported that it might go on mysterious errands for as long as nine months before zooming back to earth and touching down on a California runway.
In interviews and statements, Pentagon leaders strongly denied that the winged plane had anything to do with space weapons, even while conceding that its ultimate goal was to aid terrestrial war fighters with a variety of ancillary missions.
The secretive effort seeks “no offensive capabilities,” Gary E. Payton, under secretary of the Air Force for space programs, emphasized on Friday. “The program supports technology risk reduction, experimentation and operational concept development.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Just kidding, I hope.
I don’t know why ‘spying’ from space is even considered remotely objectionable.
It’s not like it’s a big secret. So we have robot spaceplanes to service our spy satellites.
So what? Let them build their own robot space planes, and quit griping because we have better toys.
JIHADIST CLERIC AL-AWLAKI ADVOCATES KILLING AMERICAN CIVILIANS
Agree...So what? but can’t believe nobama would agree to doing anything that is positive for our country.
Spy satellites are space weapons.
The “New York Times” is really good at re-writing the faxes that they get from the Pentagon, aren’t they? In this case the so-called paper-of-record is probably wrong (mostly).
Why would it be necessary for a satellite deployment/recovery system need to be kept in space for up to 9 months? Isn’t that a little inefficient?
Well,...I like what the Air Force is doing....
If your talking "energy" efficient, it takes no more power to keep it up there for a day or a year. The fuel is all burned attaining orbit.
Personally, I think this is a natural to keep an eye on "the other guys" satellites. In that case, the only reason to bring it back down is to replenish expendables such as maneuvering fuel, film?, technical updates, or put into an entirely different orbit.
Putting enemy satellites out of comission will be a big part of any major conflict. China demonstrated that by shooting down one of their own satellites.
The Pentagon has been making noises about "Global Strike" for quite some time. Parking a hypersonic bomber in low-earth orbit during times of crisis... that sounds like Global Strike to me.
My guess is they would need a larger vehicle for that than this one was.
.
I just hope that our airmen refuse to comply when Obaam gives the order to use it on Israel.
In the story, the ChiComs are unable to prevent overflights of their country because of the incredible altitude and velocity of the aircraft.
And then the pilot called in airstrikes using the Rods From God.
It was the feel good book of the year.I still get a warm fuzzy thinking about it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.