X-37B US miltary spaceplane returns to Earth (BBC)

By Paul Rincon
Science reporter, BBC News

A prototype spaceplane built for the US military has returned to Earth after seven months in orbit.

The unpiloted X-37B touched down at Vandenberg Air Force base in California at 0116 PST (0916 GMT).

The project has been shrouded in secrecy, prompting widespread speculation about the craft's purpose.

The Air Force has not said whether it carried anything in its cargo bay, but insists the primary purpose of the mission was to test the craft itself.
***
The spacecraft returned to Earth on "auto-pilot"; the successful return marks the first autonomous re-entry and landing in the recorded history of the US space programme.



***
more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11911335

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/background/facts/x37facts2.html

PB

Sat-based nukes.

"Damn, where did THAT come from?"

Sonoman

Sounds like recon work.

You can imagine this, or ANY orbital vehicle, really, doing any number of things. But a lot of other vehicles (conventional rocket launched types, for instance) that could do those jobs cheaper. What this particular vehicle is well suited for is taking expensive payloads into orbit and bringing them back gently and unharmed. like you might treat high end optical equipment. Sounds like recon to me.

Here the US Air Force is, bragging about such a great achievement:
"The Boeing-built spacecraft returned to Earth on "auto-pilot"; the successful return marks the first autonomous re-entry and landing in the recorded history of the US space programme." --from your first link.

So the US finally achieved in 2010 what the Soviet Union did on a regular basis from 1978 to 1990. How can a terrible system like Communism have beat the USA (hooray for us!) in so many areas? Well, you've been sold a lie all you young Capitalists-in-training. The US system was inferior to the Soviet system in a great many ways.



Gosh, those unenlightened backwards Commies couldn't possibly have kicked our asses starting 32 years ago??? How is that possible?


Soviet era jet fighters had a radar system that could detect our aircraft at almost twice the distance we could detect them. Wow, the Capitalist system is sooo great. If there'd been a fighting war between us instead of a "cold war" we'd have gotten our asses kicked because they would have knocked all our planes out of the sky before we even knew they were there.

You've been sold a bill of goods folks (ahem... that means you've been lied to and cheated). The great all-powerful Capitalist system has been inferior to Communism from the start. The only thing we had going for us that allowed us to defeat the terrible Commies was the fact that they allowed us to control the value of their currency, first, and that we (the CIA) murdered anybody who wanted to vote for a Communist system in their own country (over 30 times, hey aint that an example of the superiority of Capitalism --it can only prevail through mass murder and staging coups in over 30 countries).

You do know that the Progress' method of "autonomous re-entry" was to burn up over the Pacific, right?

If you want an instance of a Soviet spaceship landing on autopilot, look up the Buran. The Space Shuttle also had the capability, but it was never used.

Cool your jets, dude. This US milestone was worth mentioning, it's not bragging.

Sorry to upset your delicate Capitalist senses, there pal. Now go tell your mommy that she was right, America is the bestest and the bestest, Capitalism is the onliest goodest and super-duperest economic system in the world. Now there! Does that make witto Charwie feew aww betteww? ;-)

Every de-orbited piece of space technology of that era either burned up on re-entry or parachuted into the Pacific. What's your point?

The Progress flew autonomously, located the Soviet space station autonomously, docked autonomously (until later when they made it controlled by the station crew --who eventually crashed it into the station, causing severe damage), then flew itself back to a correctly and perfectly executed re-entry just as planned. Each and every time.

So, again. This was 1978. What was the US doing with unmanned space vehicles at that time? Uhhhhh. Nothing. They beat us by 32 years. Yay for Capitalism!

And to top it off, Soviet astronauts returning to Earth landed ON LAND. Meanwhile, US astronauts were splashing down in the Pacific and hoping that a Navy ship could find them and pick them up. Yay for Capitalism! Crap. We didn't have the technology to successfully land a spacecraft back on dry land until the X-prize started the Capitalist wheels turning on that Soviet idea as well. What a crock.

Do you turn every encounter into a demented one-sided battle with capitalist pigdogs? 7-11 clerks must love to see you coming.

Your triumphalist explosion seems to have blown your own subject line out of your head:

Oooh, an unmanned space craft which lands "autonomously" --- Soviets had it in 1978

I was pointing out your Soviet spacecraft landed "autonomously" like a brick.

What was the US doing with unmanned space vehicles at that time? Uhhhhh. Nothing.

Naw. Vikings 1 and 2, remember?

So, we should've returned our capsules to land just to show the Soviets what's what? If NASA knew you wouldn't be impressed they would've eschewed the larger, more navigable oceans for the midwest plains. Pity. An important moment of dick waving lost forever.

The humor in what you say comes out, though you may try to hide it. Good job.

My post wasn't speaking out against autonomous landing spaceships. My criticism was on the "tone" of the article, making it sound like it's such a fantastic thing... a breakthrough that has never been done before when I knew that the Soviet space program had done far more than that 32 years ago.

So you're a devout Capitalist, fully indoctrinated. That's fine if it works for you. But don't confuse a steady stream of Progress spacecraft with a couple of one-shot, fire and forget rockets that went off to land on Mars. The Viking landers did not interact with any other spacecraft, they did not return to Earth, and we didn't do Viking 40 times (Viking 1 and Viking 2... where's Viking 40???). That's not a rebuttal to my argument that the Soviet Union bested us on a regular basis, it's a supporting argument for my position.

But, you go ahead and believe in "the Ponzi Scheme" system that we have now. You might be young enough to still be useful to the wealthy criminals that own everything you have. Just remember my words when you find out that you are no longer so useful to them, and you find yourself out on your a$$ with nothing. Good luck. You're going to need it.

You're a whirlwind of preachy righteousness, projecting your bent impulses on others, and just plain making shit up.

My post wasn't speaking out against autonomous landing spaceships.

Never said it was. You said it was done in 1978.

My criticism was on the "tone" of the article, making it sound like it's such a fantastic thing... a breakthrough that has never been done before...

Projection. Show me where they herald this never-been-done breakthrough.

So you're a devout Capitalist, fully indoctrinated.

Aaaand you're off, running with your deluded projections.

...it's a supporting argument for my position.

Your "Uhhhhh. Nothing" position? Sorry, you don't get to pretend that post just a few inches up isn't there anymore.

But, you go ahead and believe in "the Ponzi Scheme" system that we have now... blah, blah.

And the boffo finale -- telling me what I think so you can enjoy the frisson of playing the jaded, wizened elder. Dude, you are ILL.

You might be young enough to still be useful to the wealthy criminals...

Lemme know when it's your 12th birthday. I'll buy you a G.I. Joe Иосиф.

I am giddy with delight!

I applaud you on the use of the word 'frisson' but am not sure if you meant a sudden chill or the excitement of fear. I experience neither, just so you know.

To your "am I ill" comment, I am in fact disabled. Take that as you will. It does not make my posts any less true, nor does it lessen your apparent delusion.

Have a wonderful life. I hope you find at the end of yours that you were not as hoodwinked as I feel by the ponzi scheme. See? That is how a mature "wizened old man" (was it?) handles a pup like you.

Keep on keeping it real. In front of everybody. Just like you're doing.

I hope that you gain all that you believe you will from it. I am sincere in giving you that parting statement.

You do realise that charlie, not you, correctly identified the Soviet spacecraft that could land autonomously, don't you? That is, Buran, the one that is actually relevant to this thread?

I wouldn't want you to read an entire thread and miss the point so completely.

Here is what I said in post #8:
"My post wasn't speaking out against autonomous landing spaceships. My criticism was on the "tone" of the article, making it sound like it's such a fantastic thing... a breakthrough that has never been done before when I knew that the Soviet space program had done far more than that 32 years ago."

I never commented on his correction because it was not germane to the discussion and had no bearing on what I've been actually posting. I have a tendency to simply ignore Repuke-like attempts at sidetracking the issue or deflect the conversation off onto a tangent.

So, I sincerely hope that we both have learned something...

Really, reading this thread, it appears you are still under the impression that Progress craft return to Earth in one piece. They don't - they burn up.

And, you know, saying "go tell your mommy" and "Does that make witto Charwie feew aww betteww" is no way to make it look as if you're trying to inform anyone about anything. Neither is calling their post that corrected your mistakes (and was thus germane) "Repuke-like".

I showed you, with quoted text, that I was not focusing this thread on landing versus non-landing craft. Nor did I state at any time that I believed the Progress craft returned in one piece, not once did I state that, quite the opposite, I showed that all spacecraft returned to Earth during those days did so ballistically. You are confusing my statement about the Russian Cosmonauts returning to Earth and landing ON LAND. The Progress spacecraft were fully automated. That is germane to the thread and to my point, your comments just show you didn't really read the thread at all.

Although I appreciate your seemingly sincere attempt to correct what you feel is a mistake on my part, I assure you there was none.

The OP says:
"the first autonomous re-entry and landing in the recorded history of the US space programme."

Your post #4 focuses on this one phrase. Your entire point is about "autonomous re-entry and landing". Not about manoeuvring in orbit. About "re-entry and landing". You talk about the Progress spacecraft a lot, which never landed. Thus all your facts about the Progress craft are irrelevant to any point you have about re-entry and landing. And any point you have about Soviet superiority is thus lost.

In post #5, charlie tries to rescue your point, by pointing out that the Progress craft burn up, rather than landing, but the Soviet 'space shuttle', Buran, did indeed make an automated re-entry and landing.

In post #6, you insult charlie, and go off on an extended rant against your imaginary capitalist enemies. You claim each Progress craft 'flew itself back to a correctly and perfectly executed re-entry'. No, they all just came out of orbit and burned up. This is something that any spacecraft will do from a low orbit with no action at all, and, if you want it to happen earlier, can (and has) been achieved with nothing complicated at all - fire one retro-rocket once in any old fashion, and it'll happen, basically. The skill, which the USSR and USA both had long before Progress, is to get a craft not to burn up, but to re-enter at an angle such that the heatshield protects the craft.

You then introduce a red herring about where the (unautomated) landings that manned capsules of each country were. While this shows that, with the space capsules like Soyuz and Apollo, the Soviets had the capacity for the extra weight of rockets to slow the capsule landing at the last moment, it's a fairly minor point (more about the lifting capacity of rockets, or how much other weight was taken up), and you then manage to ignore the more than 100 landings the American space shuttle has made by wittering on about the X prize being the first time the Americans came back to land.

Given that you are still going on about the Progress craft, and their ability to make automated manoeuvres in space, charlie gives an example of what the American space program was doing in the 70s - the soft landing of large probes on Mars, ie Viking.

By post #8, you are attacking a strawman about the 'tone' of the article, when the one sentence you are complaining about clearly says it's a first in the US space program. Your problem seems to be your own special interpretation of that as triumphalist in some way, when, as montanto has pointed out, this is not even an American report, and there is no boasting in it at all. You appear to have an obsession with stating that the USSR was completely superior to the USA, and take it a a personal affront if everyone else doesn't mention it as often as you do. You certainly get very personal with other people, and, with no reason at all, go off into another rant about capitalism and Ponzi schemes.

When you've destroyed any hope of a productive conversation with charlie with your ranting against him as an evil capitalist (because he knew about Buran, and you didn't), I then try to point out he got the facts right, and you were inserting incorrect or irrelevant facts. You seem to think facts about automated re-entry and landing are now "not germane to the discussion and had no bearing on what I've been actually posting". You now claim "I was not focusing this thread on landing versus non-landing craft"; well, in that case, the entire sub-thread from your #4 down has been a red herring, since #4 was all about one phrase about an automated landing of a spacecraft. And that would be all your fault, because it was you who wanted to talk all about that one phrase.

:banghead:

My posts focused on two things 1. The autonomous nature of the Boeing craft, and 2. The claim that this was some fantastic new development, when you and I both know that the Soviet Union did far more autonomously 32 years before.

I guess if you can't read well enough to get that point, when I only mentioned the words re-entry or landing when responding to a false accusation or failed understanding from another poster, just as I am with you now.

James Oberg is the foremost expert on the Soviet space program and wrote extensively on the topic, appeared on television numerous times, wrote articles in magazines, etc. You could do with a dose of reality. I'm too weary of your failure to read and comprehend to try to help you out anymore. Charity has limits and you've just reached mine.

Good day.

It was in response to the original post. In it, you talk about re-entry and landing, quoting from the BBC article. Not "responding to a false accusation or failed understanding from another poster". Look at the title post #4 has: "Oooh, an unmanned space craft which lands "autonomously" --- Soviets had it in 1978". That title, incorrect as it is (because Progress did not land) is yours. You wrote post #4. That title has set the entire subject of this sub-thread.

Which, if you can count, I used twice and only once within a post and even then only to set up my premise. And I didn't say the Soviets had a craft that landed autonomously, not at any time in the entire thread did I say that. What I wrote is that the Soviet Union achieved at least as impressive a feat with autonomous spacecraft, 32 years before the US unveiled their amazing craft. At no time did I claim that the Progress spacecraft landed, let alone that they landed autonomously.

Truth to power! So, I guess that in order to continue its despicable existence, Capitalism needs not only 30 bloody coups within 80 years but also a large cadre of "Capitalist defenders" who attempt to silence those who would tell the truth about their failed system.

Capitalism will fall. Any economic system (and this describes Capitalism perfectly) that depends on regular bailouts and the delusion of its followers is doomed to fail.

You seem unable to see the truth of my point. I am sorry for you. I wish you the best and hope that some day your heart will turn from stone or ice to flesh and blood. Perhaps in your last years you will realize that you have been hoodwinked, and you are expending so much effort to defend a despicable system that needs constant bailouts from the poor and middle class, 30 coups to stop other nations from voting the government they wanted, and a continued new supply of poor, uneducated, unenlightened workers to exploit.

My attempt to both be derisive of the RAH-RAH attitude of the story and bring to light the facts about Soviet dominance in space, military, and a number of other areas which lasted for decades was too much for your intellect to absorb. I apologize for attempting to bring truth to your closed mind.

You are apparently misreading and misunderstanding my posts on purpose, this can be the only answer. I've seen your posts on other threads and you are thoughtful, fully capable of gleaning even the subtlest meaning from posts, able to formulate insightful and intelligent responses. Yet, with this topic you fail to grasp the simple concepts of a thesis statement and a transitional phrase. My post mentions autonomous landing once in a very derisive tone, then goes on to explain in great detail how the Soviet Union bested that achievement on a regular basis starting 32 years prior. How you can in good faith state that a transitional phrase is the only topic discussed is beyond me.

I'm going to continue posting anti-Capitalist truth in all threads in which they are germane or there is even the minutest tie-in. Thanks to your inanity I will step up my occasional rants to a full on assault against the Capitalist Ponzi Scheme.

I hope this was your intended outcome. I will not be silenced with anything short of a bullet.

Article from the BBC. (superior tone? about a u.s. achievement? lol)
"first in history of US space program." Not first in the world.

Did you read the article comrade?

:-D