Unmanned Air Force space plane lands in California (w/ Video)

Jun 16, 2012 by ALICIA CHANG
This undated file image provided by the U.S. Air Force shows the X-37B spacecraft. The unmanned Air Force space plane steered itself to a landing early Saturday, June 16, 2012, at a California military base, capping a 15-month clandestine mission. (AP Photo/U.S. Air Force, File)

An unmanned Air Force space plane steered itself to a landing early Saturday at a California military base, capping a 15-month clandestine mission.

The spacecraft, which was launched from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida in March 2011, conducted in-orbit experiments during the mission, officials said. It was the second such autonomous landing at the Vandenberg Air Force Base, 130 miles (209 kilometers) northwest of Los Angeles. In 2010, an identical unmanned spacecraft returned to Earth after seven months and 91 million miles (146 million kilometers) in orbit.

The latest homecoming was set in motion when the stubby-winged robotic X-37B fired its engine to slip out of orbit, then pierced through the atmosphere and glided down the runway like an airplane.

"With the retirement of the Space Shuttle fleet, the X-37B OTV program brings a singular capability to space technology development," said Lt. Col. Tom McIntyre, the X-37B's program manager. "The return capability allows the Air Force to test new technologies without the same risk commitment faced by other programs. We're proud of the entire team's successful efforts to bring this mission to an outstanding conclusion."

With the second X-37B on the ground, the Air Force planned to launch the first one again later this year. An exact date has not been set.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.

The twin X-37B vehicles are part of a military program testing robotically controlled reusable spacecraft technologies. Though the Air Force has emphasized the goal is to test the space plane itself, there's a classified payload on board — a detail that has led to much speculation about the mission's ultimate purpose.

Some amateur trackers think the craft carried an experimental spy satellite sensor judging by its low orbit and inclination, suggesting reconnaissance or intelligence gathering rather than communications.

Harvard astrophysicist Jonathan McDowell, who runs Jonathan's Space Report, which tracks the world's space launches and satellites, said it's possible it was testing some form of new imaging.

The latest X-37B was boosted into orbit atop an Atlas 5 rocket. It was designed to stay aloft for nine months, but the Air Force wanted to test its endurance. After determining the space plane was performing well, the military decided in December to extend the mission.

Little has been said publicly about the second X-37B flight and operations. At a budget hearing before the Senate Armed Services subcommittee in March, William Shelton, head of the Air Force Space Command, made a passing mention.

That the second X-37B has stayed longer in space than the first shows "the flexibility of this unique system," he told lawmakers.

Defense analysts are divided over its usefulness.

This Feb. 8, 2011 file image provided by the U.S. Air Force shows the X-37B during encapsulation within the United Launch Alliance Atlas V 5-meter fairing in Titusville, Fla. The unmanned Air Force space plane steered itself to a landing early Saturday, June 16, 2012, at a California military base, capping a 15-month clandestine mission. (AP Photo/US Air Force, File)

Joan Johnson-Freese, professor of national security affairs at the Naval War College, said such a craft could give the U.S. "eyes" over conflict regions faster than a satellite.

"Having a vehicle with a broad range of capabilities that can get into space quickly is a very good thing," she said.

Yousaf Butt, a nuclear physicist and scientific consultant for the Federation of American Scientists, thinks the capabilities of the X-37B could be done more cheaply with a disposable spacecraft.

"I believe one of the reasons that the mission is still around is institutional inertia," he said.

The arc of the X-37 program spans back to 1999 and has changed hands several times. Originally a NASA project, the space agency in 2004 transferred it to the Pentagon's research and development arm, DARPA, and then to the secretive Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been poured into development, but the current total spent remains a secret.

Built by Boeing Government Space Systems, a unit of the company's satellite manufacturing area, the 11,000-pound (4989-kilogram) space plane stands 9 1/2 feet (2.74 meters) tall and is just over 29 feet (8.8 meters) long, with a wingspan of less than 15 feet (4.57 meters). It possesses two angled tail fins rather than a single vertical stabilizer. Once in orbit, it has solar panels that unfurl to charge batteries for electrical power.

McDowell of the Jonathan's Space Report sees a downside. He noted it'll be tough for the Air Force to send up such planes on short notice if it has to rely on the Atlas V rocket, which requires lengthy preparations.

"The requirement to go on Atlas V is a problem; they may need to look at a new launch vehicle that would be ready to go more quickly," he said.

Explore further: Galileo's 'midwives' stand ready for launch

More information: X-37B fact sheet: www.af.mil/information/factshe… sheet.asp?fsID=16639
Vandenberg AFB: www.vandenberg.af.mil

4.3 /5 (11 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Air Force: winged robotic spacecraft launched

Apr 23, 2010

(AP) -- An unmanned Air Force space plane resembling a small space shuttle has been launched on its maiden voyage into orbit, carried aloft aboard an Atlas 5 rocket Thursday evening, the service announced.

Secret X-37B mini space shuttle could land today

Jun 14, 2012

After more than a year in orbit, the US Air Force’s clandestine mini-space shuttle will likely land at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California sometime this week, with some reports saying it could land ...

Recommended for you

Video: A dizzying view of the Earth from space

5 hours ago

We've got vertigo watching this video, but in a good way! This is a sped-up view of Earth from the International Space Station from the Cupola, a wraparound window that is usually used for cargo ship berthings ...

NEOWISE spots a comet that looked like an asteroid

5 hours ago

Comet C/2013 UQ4 (Catalina) has been observed by NASA's Near-Earth Object Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (NEOWISE) spacecraft just one day after passing through its closest approach to the sun. The comet ...

What the UK Space Agency can teach Australia

5 hours ago

Australia has had an active civil space program since 1947 but has much to learn if it is to capture a bigger share of growing billion dollar global space industry. ...

Discover the "X-factor" of NASA's Webb telescope

6 hours ago

NASA's James Webb Space Telescope and Chandra X-ray observatory have something in common: a huge test chamber used to simulate the hazards of space and the distant glow of starlight. Viewers can learn about ...

User comments : 63

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

baudrunner
1.8 / 5 (16) Jun 16, 2012
I am puzzled why they are not telling us about this mission. Surveillance satellites are regularly launched with enough disclosure as to the nature of the mission to prevent any afterthought. What is so different about this one? I can think only that the information gathered by it is not transmitted but stored onboard for eventual dissemination upon return, but I doubt it. What would be the value of old information? No, there's something mighty curious about this new "spy tool". I think it might have something to do with that thing in the Delporte region, southwest of Izsak crater, on the other side of the moon (Apollo image AS15-P-9625), or Toutatis, or other alien contact that they don't want us to know about.
PhotonX
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 16, 2012
"The requirement to go on Atlas V is a problem; they may need to look at a new launch vehicle that would be ready to go more quickly," he said

Well, we had this problem licked for a long time, didn't we, before the SALT and START treaties?
I think it might have something to do with that thing in the Delporte region, southwest of Izsak crater, on the other side of the moon (Apollo image AS15-P-9625), or Toutatis, or other alien contact that they don't want us to know about.

And how, pray tell, could that be? It's not in Lunar orbit, is it? No, it's in Earth orbit, so it's hard to imagine it would tell us anything about the far side of the Moon that we don't already know.
Mike_Massen
2.4 / 5 (15) Jun 16, 2012
hmmm, There's a rumour some anti-matter particles can be found in earth's orbit, not much but it wouldn't take much to test that hypothesis or even collect some with the appropriate equipment.

Along with the rapid launch and pilot-less return increases US space capabilities significantly.

It would make PussyCat_Eyes proud ;-)
Skepticus
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 17, 2012
It is landed as the Chinese launches their spacecraft as to avoid any finger pointing if anything goes wrong with their docking.
roldor
3 / 5 (2) Jun 17, 2012
But it could be a step, to capture old satellites and space-waste for return to earth. But also to prove new capabilities and to test radiation-hard circuits.

Sincerely
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (14) Jun 17, 2012
The comments in this thraed are a mind boggeling mix of conspiracy theorists, lack of basic knowledge about ICBMs lack of knowledge about the size of space, lack of knowedge of basic physics...

I don't even know where to begin...
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.4 / 5 (28) Jun 17, 2012
I am puzzled why they are not telling us about this mission. Surveillance satellites are regularly launched with enough disclosure as to the nature of the mission to prevent any afterthought.
Well since your initial premise is wrong how can you have any confidence in your speculations?

"In the United States, most information available is on programs that existed up to 1972. Some information about programs prior to that time is still classified, and a small trickle of information is available on subsequent missions."

-Stuff is launched and flown all the time that we know nothing about.
Well, we had this problem licked for a long time, didn't we, before the SALT and START treaties?
The shuttle was designed as a military system. NASA is primarily a military organization. An entire EMP-hardened shuttle launch complex was built at vandenberg but never used.

This mini-shuttle maintains the essential flexibility of the original vehicles.
pokerdice1
2 / 5 (3) Jun 17, 2012
@Mike_Massen: Could you provide links or sources to support the anti matter thing.

@Antialias_physorg: What do you expect of the comments section. I wouldn't take them to seriously. I admire you for holding out hope though.... Still something alien (not us) on the moon would be fun. I want to believe, dammit!
baudrunner
2.5 / 5 (8) Jun 17, 2012
PhotonX: you believe everything you read? Have you seen the thing in orbit? Why was it up there for so long? We don't know where that thing has been, really now, do we? They'll tell us anything they like. I take everything I am told about these things with a grain of S.A.L.T.

Another distinct possibility is that since its payload bay has ample space for multiple armed projectiles, then Reagan's Space Wars program is alive and well. The airforce is concerned that ICBM interceptor technology is within everyone's capabilities now, having overcome the learning curve in that regard, and that this is the most viable alternative. One thing is for sure, that this is not a research tool, but probably a weapons systems complement to the military arsenal, a space-based weapons system.
antialias_physorg
3.8 / 5 (10) Jun 18, 2012
What do you expect of the comments section.

For people who are interested enough to actually read reports on facts and science (which is a scarce enough preference) I expect them to have some affinity to facts and science. It just astounds me how one can like science and then be as unscientific as possible in their postings.

What do I actually expect?
1) Highschool understanding of math and physics. If you write something then at least take 5 seconds to think about whether it makes sense from what you know of that. If it doesn't: skip it.

2) Fact checking: If you write something you aren't sure about spend 5 seconds on google or wikipedia to check up on it.

3) Self checking: If you pose a 'crazy' theory at least have the decency to go and check if someone else hasn't had the same idea (chances as someone has) and whether any terminal arguments against it already exist.

A lot to ask, I know. But this isn't 4chan.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.3 / 5 (15) Jun 19, 2012
hmmm, There's a rumour some anti-matter particles can be found in earth's orbit, not much but it wouldn't take much to test that hypothesis or even collect some with the appropriate equipment.

Along with the rapid launch and pilot-less return increases US space capabilities significantly.

It would make PussyCat_Eyes proud ;-)
- Mike_Massen

Purrrrrr
Meow (smoochers)
Estevan57
1.9 / 5 (36) Jun 19, 2012
The orbit of the X-37b takes it as far as 40 degrees North latitude to 40 degrees South latitude, potentially putting its eyes on a wide range of military targets especially those in the Middle East. Or it makes chemtrails. <:O Tinfoil hat alert on the latter.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.7 / 5 (12) Jun 19, 2012
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (11) Jun 19, 2012
pokerdice1 reminded me of
@Mike_Massen: Could you provide links or sources to support the anti matter thing.
Read it in New Scientist about 2 years ago.

Seems to arise from cosmic rays striking protons or other particles as they are swept through the earth's magnetic field, the resulting anti-matter particles persist for a theorised long period (iirc they might form their own 'region' or 'belt' oscillating within regions of the magnetic field) and could be swept up and collected before they finally annihilate...

Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (11) Jun 19, 2012
antialias_physorg odd naivity is showing with
2) Fact checking: If you write something you aren't sure about spend 5 seconds on google or wikipedia to check up on it..
This is not reliable at all, especially a mere 5 seconds, but lets stretch it to 10 secs :P

Google is a search engine - it can point to any sort of rubbish !

Wikipedia is preferred but only if you correlate it with references *and* follow them through with (educated) critical faculty and analytical thinking *and* in concert with high-school or better still uni level physics which you have actually passed "rather well" (smug aint I) ;-)

Best are the peer reviewed journals or the various sites that reference them *and* provide means to discuss/review papers, An example of how one site is structured fairly well is:-

http://www.alzforum.org/
Mike_Massen
2.2 / 5 (13) Jun 19, 2012
For pokerdice1 and indirectly for antialias_physorg some links re anti-matter caught in earth's magnetic field.

http://news.natio...science/

http://news.disco...523.html

The distribution of any anti-matter at lower orbits is likely to be diminished but currently we have nothing definitive to confirm they are non-existent or at some level which could be detected and over time collected etc...
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (8) Jun 19, 2012
Wikipedia is preferred but only if you correlate it with references *and* follow them through with (educated) critical faculty and analytical thinking *and* in concert with high-school or better still uni level physics

Well - we shouldn't try for the moon right away.

Google does work fairly well, though. They have the (little known) spinoff called "google scholar".
http://scholar.google.de/
which is great for finding papers.
PussyCat_Eyes
2.3 / 5 (14) Jun 19, 2012
Wikipedia is preferred but only if you correlate it with references *and* follow them through with (educated) critical faculty and analytical thinking *and* in concert with high-school or better still uni level physics

Well - we shouldn't try for the moon right away.



Wikipedia is ambiguous a little too often. Contributions are often labeled with "Citation Needed", which renders the subject untenable, unless the reader wishes to cite possible mistakes and/or omissions anyway. Google is the most popular search engine right now, so it is the most used. With a little more effort, a search for peer reviewed journals offer much more detailed and less ambiguous information.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.9 / 5 (17) Jun 19, 2012
The comments in this thraed are a mind boggeling mix of conspiracy theorists, lack of basic knowledge about ICBMs lack of knowledge about the size of space, lack of knowedge of basic physics...

I don't even know where to begin...
- antialias_antiphysorg
"2) Fact checking: If you write something you aren't sure about spend 5 seconds on google or wikipedia to check up on it.

3) Self checking: If you pose a 'crazy' theory at least have the decency to go and check if someone else hasn't had the same idea (chances as someone has) and whether any terminal arguments against it already exist."

So why do you still linger in this website if all these people with whom you have a problem are giving their own opinions to which you object and make your own decision as to their merits? Who exactly appointed YOU the Pope of Phys.org that you feel so superior to these rabble who come in here just to annoy you and your uncomprehending friends?
Where is it written that all posts must be by PhD?
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (8) Jun 19, 2012
@PussyCat_Eyes

Oh man...ANOTHER downvoting sockpuppet by you? Don't you ever get tired of making a complete fool of yourself?

So why do you still linger in this website if all these people with whom you have a problem are giving their own opinions

You may notice that I don't object to all (or even most) opinions. Just the ones that are inane. bAnd then again: if others voice their opinion, then I, too may voice mine, no? Especially since I can substantiate my statements (which is a damn sight better than the ones I commented on).

Where is it written that all posts must be by PhD?

I don't know. If you find it written anywhere let me know. I would wish for there to be some quality to the comment section, though - but again: thai is just my opinion.
(and at some time in the past there was...before physorg staff stopped deleting off-topic or patently ridiculous stuff. Can't fault them for it, though. They'd be busy 24/7 as it stands now.)
PussyCat_Eyes
1.8 / 5 (16) Jun 19, 2012
Apparently, it is YOU who enjoys playing the fool. YOUR opinion of what's INANE may be quite different from someone else's opinion who wishes to voice a concern or some information. YOUR definition of "quality" in the OPINIONS SECTION is simply tantamount to Censorship and not an instructive critique of what amounts to YOUR mind as a waste of your time.
If you don't like a post, then skip over it and go on to the next one. If ALL of them are inane in your mind, then go to another thread. But don't be lecturing others as to what they can and cannot say. ALL opinions count, whether they're scientific or not. You and your friends are not renting these comment sections and thus have ownership to them.
And by the way, the administrators ARE keeping a close watch on the crap that goes on here. At least one of your pal Blotto's posts were expunged from one thread. There will be others.
If you can't stand the heat, then you're free to leave. Otherwise, show some tolerance and decent behavior.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (9) Jun 19, 2012
YOUR opinion of what's INANE may be quite different from someone else's opinion who wishes to voice a concern or some information.

That's the point of my first post. If they had bothered to look for the information concerned (or thought about it with a minimum of very basic physics knowledge) they would not have posted in the first place.
YOUR definition of "quality" in the OPINIONS SECTION is simply tantamount to Censorship

You may notice that I don't have the power to forbid anyone from posting.
If you don't like a post, then skip over it and go on to the next one.

...Otherwise, show some tolerance and decent behavior.

It's excrutiatingly funny how you don't heed your own advice one bit. Hypocrit much?
ALL opinions count, whether they're scientific or not.

Not in science. Science is not a democracy. Facts are not arrived at by majority vote.
At least one of your pal Blotto's posts were expunged

Since when is he my pa? That's news to me.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.8 / 5 (16) Jun 19, 2012
I'm getting sick and tired of your stupid whining about these people that you and your nutcase friends call me. I only have ONE USER NAME. Got that? I don't need, or want any other user names. I've never ever had to do such a thing the way you and your buds need different identities to make a mockery of this website. Maybe you think it's funny....well it isn't. I don't enter this website to check out your shenanigans. I can't even enjoy a discussion in 3 of the Medical Express thread without Blotto coming in and accusing me of some guy named Ritchie. I have no idea who this Ritchie or Parrot are. And I've only talked once to Russkiy the Russian guy just to ask a question. Am I forbidden to ask questions? If I agree with someone's post, does that mean I'm sucking up to him?
You people are freaking weird.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.5 / 5 (15) Jun 19, 2012
Hey, for all I know....you and Blotto are one and the same. This I can't tell one way or the other, and I don't really give a damn if you're mirror images of each other. He's been bugging the hell out of me since I posted on that BlackHole thread to Russkiy, and following me everywhere I go into threads that he doesn't even talk about the medical topic because he's way out of his league. But if he's after these people, then leave me the hell alone. I am not these people. I'm only one person. So quit bothering me and let me enjoy this site. He thinks he knows about stratigraphy...he thinks there is no stratigraphic layered formations anywhere else but under a volcano on land. Freaking idiot.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.7 / 5 (18) Jun 19, 2012
YOUR opinion of what's INANE may be quite different from someone else's opinion who wishes to voice a concern or some information.

That's the point of my first post. If they had bothered to look for the information concerned (or thought about it with a minimum of very basic physics knowledge) they would not have posted in the first place.

Did you stop to think that maybe some of them are young people who looking to learn from someone who is allegedly more knowledgeale?

YOUR definition of "quality" in the OPINIONS SECTION is simply tantamount to Censorship

You may notice that I don't have the power to forbid anyone from posting.

No, you just want to insult and intimidate.

PussyCat_Eyes
1.7 / 5 (18) Jun 19, 2012
Come to think of it.....you and Blotto even talk alike. You said "Hypocrit much?". Blotto uses that form of asking a question also...
Yup...I think you are one of Blotto's sock puppets. Prove me wrong, I dare you.
Estevan57
2 / 5 (37) Jun 19, 2012
I for one would propose that talking about each other instead of the articles, reports, and concepts of this site could be considered a low quality post. Three or four posts ranting on a person instead of an article, concept, or idea is a bit much. It lessons the quality of the comments section. Mellow out a bit people. Catnip?
antialias_physorg
3.8 / 5 (10) Jun 19, 2012
Prove me wrong, I dare you.

Easy: since we have debated (hotly), on opposite ends of the spectrum - and since he has rated me low on numerous occasions.

Also I have told him time and again that he's a conspiracy theorist and that his tribal theory is complete BS. Not something a conspiracy theorist would do against himself or his 'pet theory', now, would he?

"Hypocrit much?". Blotto uses that form of asking a question also...

He does not have the exclusive rights to the english language.

No, you just want to insult and intimidate.

I don't need to insult anyone who goes on a hissy fit and starts searching out other's posts just to downvote (without care for the content). You're insulting yourself enough as it is. I couldn't do a better job of it if I tried (and why would I? To insult I need to care. And, frankly, my dear - I don't give a damn.)
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (30) Jun 19, 2012
Wikipedia is ambiguous a little too often. Contributions are often labeled with "Citation Needed", which renders the subject untenable, unless the reader wishes to cite possible mistakes and/or omissions anyway.
No this cues you to do a little further research. Your buzzle does not do this.
Google is the most popular search engine right now, so it is the most used. With a little more effort, a search for peer reviewed journals offer much more detailed and less ambiguous information.
Are you implying that wiki is a search engine? Wiki is not a search engine. Do you realize this?
Hey, for all I know....you and Blotto are one and the same. This I can't tell one way or the other
So by your estimation there is only you and me on this site. And all your sockpuppets.
So quit bothering me and let me enjoy this site.
Quit selfishly flooding, flaming, and posting pure ignorance so others can enjoy the site.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (30) Jun 19, 2012
You said "Hypocrit much?". Blotto uses that form of asking a question also...
No I would and have never said this as I do not think it is funny. AA is not me because AA has no Sinn für Humor.

There are many people on this site who have expressed their objections to what and how you post. I only do this as otto and I will continue to do this as long as you post garbage. Versteht?
PussyCat_Eyes
1.5 / 5 (17) Jun 19, 2012
Prove me wrong, I dare you.

Easy: since we have debated (hotly), on opposite ends of the spectrum - and since he has rated me low on numerous occasions.

Also I have told him time and again that he's a conspiracy theorist and that his tribal theory is complete BS. Not something a conspiracy theorist would do against himself or his 'pet theory', now, would he?

"Hypocrit much?". Blotto uses that form of asking a question also...

He does not have the exclusive rights to the english language.

No, you just want to insult and intimidate.

I don't need to insult anyone who goes on a hissy fit and starts searching out other's posts just to downvote (without care for the content). You're insulting yourself enough as it is. I couldn't do a better job of it if I tried (and why would I? To insult I need to care. And, frankly, my dear - I don't give a damn.)


I am not concerned with how hotly you have debated with yourself, since you are one and the same.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.7 / 5 (18) Jun 19, 2012
"Hypocrite much?" is not American English....so you are possibly European.
You and your friend Blotto started on me, saying that I was Russkiy and those other names. I never even heard of them. You KNEW what Blotto was doing and you didn't try to prevent it. You're both a pair of bullies, as are all the rest of your nutty friends.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 19, 2012
It's hilarious that you're complaining of being downvoted. Have you checked MY activity page. The names Estevan57 and TheGhostofOtto1923 show up. Now which one of them are you?
PussyCat_Eyes
1.5 / 5 (17) Jun 19, 2012
ROFLOL.....once again Blotto accuses me wrongly. THIS time he's saying that I said Wikipedia is a search engine. What a freaking idiot!!! Again he doesn't bother reading what I've said.

I said, "Google is the most popular search engine right now, so it is the most used. With a little more effort, a search for peer reviewed journals offer much more detailed and less ambiguous information."

Then he says, 'Are you implying that wiki is a search engine? Wiki is not a search engine. Do you realize this?"'
TheGhostofOtto1923 aka TheSpiritualManifestationofOttoSkorzeny, the World War 2 NAZI SS officer who was promoted to secretary and head jerkoff to Adolph Schnikelgruber Hitler.
Blotto idolizes a mass murderer. No wonder he doesn't comprehend the things I've said. He's too busy thinking about the NAZI glory days of a dead man.
Sheeeesh
PussyCat_Eyes
1.5 / 5 (17) Jun 20, 2012
You said "Hypocrit much?". Blotto uses that form of asking a question also...
No I would and have never said this as I do not think it is funny. AA is not me because AA has no Sinn fr Humor.

There are many people on this site who have expressed their objections to what and how you post. I only do this as otto and I will continue to do this as long as you post garbage. Versteht?
- Blotto

Name them. Who are these many phantom accusers who are all inside your fat head, besides kaasinees and estevan57? Name them so that I can ask them about it.
Mike_Massen
2.2 / 5 (13) Jun 20, 2012
PussyCat_Eyes have you looked at how many posts you are making on vague equivocal political issues and treating this general site as glibly as relay internet chat...

Please just calm down, now is not the time to flex your combinatorial chemical/emotional muscles when challenged intellectually.

If you were my 17yr old youngest I'd accuse you of suffering from terse-tosterone. I could accuse you of something more gender equivalent but with my son its not on a regular basis ;-)

But please, you are showing yourself as someone practised at destroying thread context and inflaming instead of calming and converging where most mature technical people are habituated to an effort to maintain an on topic discussion for the common good...

Cheers
CardacianNeverid
2.8 / 5 (11) Jun 20, 2012
Name them. Who are these many phantom accusers who are all inside your fat head, besides kaasinees and estevan57? Name them -PussyTard

Darn, I'm feeling left out...

Come to think of it.....you and Blotto even talk alike. You said "Hypocrit much?". Blotto uses that form of asking a question also...
Yup...I think you are one of Blotto's sock puppets. Prove me wrong, I dare you -PussyTard

You really are an idiot wrapped inside a moron. Even someone with rudimentary grey-matter would know that these two posters are different people by observing their posting styles, forms of expression and competence in various fields.

So far you have accused me, Vendicar, Otto, AntiAlias, FrankHerbert all of being the same person, as well as others. Sounds like hard work to me.

You have an overinflated sense of ego and are a prime example of the DunningKruger effect.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (6) Jun 20, 2012
"Hypocrite much?" is not American English....so you are possibly European.

It don't exactly keep it a secret that I'm from germany.Probably the reason why Otto throws the occasional german word my way. (I don't know why, though - is that supposed to be funny? Then it must be excrutiatingly funny that I type all these english words in my posts...but as he notes: not everyone has the same sense of humor)
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (30) Jun 20, 2012
Name them. Who are these many phantom accusers who are all inside your fat head, besides kaasinees and estevan57? Name them so that I can ask them about it.
? Just go back through your downratings. Make a nice long list. Add 50 pct who are just being polite or who don't know you yet or who think you are just an adolescent kid or who crave discussion like Terriva.

Oh if you had read your wiki link on skorszeny you can see that he was declared de-nazified like von braun and went to work for the CIA training anti-communist insurgents. That lame attempt at an insult didn't work with dick wolf either.

'Hypocrite much?' is sitcom vernacular.
is that supposed to be funny?
-Why yes it is.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (30) Jun 20, 2012
Even someone with rudimentary grey-matter would know that these two posters are different people by observing their posting styles, forms of expression and competence in various fields.
-As they would know that Ritchieguy/pirouette/russkiye/pussy are the same person because their posts are similarly inane and their flame styles are all identical. Perhaps they are husband/wife/inlaws? Pirouette admitted that 2 people used the nick.

No matter. Same pox who thinks that 'petit-spot volcano' lava tubes could erupt under NYC, or that metal boomerangs could be cast in wax molds or that it is actually ok to call NASA to request that microphones be placed on landers to surveil Martians. I am sure NASA people have a Sinn für Humor.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (29) Jun 20, 2012
Name them. Who are these many phantom accusers who are all inside your fat head, besides kaasinees and estevan57? Name them so that I can ask them about it.
"Dunning has since drawn an analogy ("the anosognosia of everyday life") to a condition in which a person who suffers a physical disability because of brain injury seems unaware of or denies the existence of the disability, even for dramatic impairments such as blindness or paralysis."

-See this is the sort of thing which in the wild is corrected through natural selection.
Cheers
Smoochers.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.6 / 5 (14) Jun 20, 2012
PussyCat_Eyes have you looked at how many posts you are making on vague equivocal political issues and treating this general site as glibly as relay internet chat...

Please just calm down, now is not the time to flex your combinatorial chemical/emotional muscles when challenged intellectually.

If you were my 17yr old youngest I'd accuse you of suffering from terse-tosterone. I could accuse you of something more gender equivalent but with my son its not on a regular basis ;-)

But please, you are showing yourself as someone practised at destroying thread context and inflaming instead of calming and converging where most mature technical people are habituated to an effort to maintain an on topic discussion for the common good...

Cheers
- Mike_Massen

It's my Estrogen level, darling....no testosterone in THIS body. So, does your son have a g/f yet? I'm available, ya know. My b/f is leaving for the Middle East. I don't know when he'll be back.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.8 / 5 (15) Jun 20, 2012
(contd) To that I'd like to let you know that I don't enter a thread with the goal of ruining it. I just want to talk about the topic and add my own opinion to the mix. Then in comes Blotto or one of his sock puppets, as you can see in this thread and others. If they can't repudiate my opinions, they accuse me of being a man....which is laughable. I've had 5 pregnancies and 5 miscarriages during my marriage.
Perhaps you need to pay attention to that certain bunch who can't keep from being pests, for their own reasons.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.7 / 5 (17) Jun 21, 2012
Name them. Who are these many phantom accusers who are all inside your fat head, besides kaasinees and estevan57? Name them -PussyTard

Darn, I'm feeling left out...

Come to think of it.....you and Blotto even talk alike. You said "Hypocrit much?". Blotto uses that form of asking a question also...
Yup...I think you are one of Blotto's sock puppets. Prove me wrong, I dare you -PussyTard

You really are an idiot wrapped inside a moron. Even someone with rudimentary grey-matter would know that these two posters are different people by observing their posting styles, forms of expression and competence in various fields.

So far you have accused me, Vendicar, Otto, AntiAlias, FrankHerbert all of being the same person, as well as others. Sounds like hard work to me.

You have an overinflated sense of ego and are a prime example of the DunningKruger effect.
- cardacianneverid aka FrankHerbert aka Blotto

Nope, I never said that you are Vendicar and his Schwanzchen
PussyCat_Eyes
1.8 / 5 (15) Jun 21, 2012
I've noticed from months of reading old posts that you repeat yourself in each and every sock puppet you morph into. Same words, same attitude, same nastiness that belies a very bad upbringing. You betray yourself all the time in each of your disguises....even down to your "Dunning-Kruger effect" idiocy. It's apparent that you once cracked a book on psychology open and memorized Mr. Dunning and Mr. Kruger's names and a little of their research, so that you could seem smart and knowledgeable for such studies. But you don't fool anyone, at least not anyone who takes the time and effort to see what you really are all about. Eventually, for all those who are interested in getting rid of such as you, your whole facade will come crashing down around your ears. You have already lost all your integrity, honesty and forthrightness. Your lack of humility shows clearly through each time you make your remarks as a madman would. You don't fool anyone except for those who want to be fooled.
:P
antialias_physorg
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 21, 2012
Ritchieguy/pirouette/russkiye/pussy

You can add patnclaire. Another of his downvoting sockpupptes

How do I know this? There is no one else I have 'antagonized', and I don't even have commented on a thread that patnclaire has...yet received a spat of (useless) downvotes by him. There's only one childish poster that's so deranged as to go seeking out older posts and downvoting them.

You do the math.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.5 / 5 (15) Jun 21, 2012
Ritchieguy/pirouette/russkiye/pussy

You can add patnclaire. Another of his downvoting sockpupptes

How do I know this? There is no one else I have 'antagonized', and I don't even have commented on a thread that patnclaire has...yet received a spat of (useless) downvotes by him. There's only one childish poster that's so deranged as to go seeking out older posts and downvoting them.

You do the math.
- antialias_antipeople

So now you're adding this patnclaire to what you THINK is my stable of personas?
Ihr Verrückt im Kopf, und ein fur alle mal....I'm actually going to make up a couple of sock puppets and stop using this user name, since that is what you think I do. I won't be using this one anymore and will use the others but, more in a low-key way, so that I will never again be falsely accused by you and your many sock puppets. I do believe that you are locked up in Broadmoor or some other institution...maybe for the criminally insane, with the aid of computers.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.8 / 5 (16) Jun 21, 2012
(contd)
@antialias.....I see how you jump from one persona to another and then another, then back again to your antialias sock. You have done this in many threads. It's gotten very apparent that they're all YOU, and that each of your sock personas is contributing a certain behavior and personality that are HIDDEN in your mind. Your psychoanalyst or psychiatrist may have suggested that you act out your hidden identities in a science website like Phys.org. That way, each of your personalities can emerge one after the other, have his say, then recede back to the darkness of your mind so that the antialias personality can emerge again and chase after those who have been unwittingly condemned for something they did not do.
Your mental condition is classic DISSOCIATE IDENTITY DISORDER. What you accuse others of doing, is what you yourself are doing.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.5 / 5 (15) Jun 21, 2012
(contd)
@antialias......It was easy to connect the dots with a bit of investigation and knowledge of psychiatric cases in which YOUR condition readily follows that path of DISSOCIATE IDENTITY DISORDER . If your other personas were separate from you, and were not tied to you, they would have had misgivings about your false accusations about me and others. They would not have agreed with you lock-step and unwavering, but would have been mindful that errors can be made.
NONE of your sock puppet personas have done that. They can't, because THEY ARE ALL YOU.
All in all, I must thank you for the opportunity of finding a mental condition like yours in a science website like Phys.org. One of the clues is that you settle on one person with your accusations, and maybe a few others whom you think is the same. BUT, your falsehood was evident, because you and your sock puppets have no problem with cranks and trolls, only those who are a threat.
Grussen Sie Ihren Doctor von mir. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (30) Jun 21, 2012
I won't be using this one anymore and will use the others but, more in a low-key way, so that I will never again be falsely accused by you and your many sock puppets.
Prediction: you will inevitably post thoughtless notions like microphones on rovers for eavesdropping on martians or petit-spot lava tubes under NYC or underground TANKS for storing billions of barrels-worth of CO2 or the dangers of chinese nuclear missiles on the moon or etcetcetc. And you will continue to be outed time and again for the lazy inconsiderate flooding 4chan troll that you are.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.9 / 5 (14) Jun 21, 2012
Hey...nothing wrong with microphones or even loudspeakers if that's what you like on rovers and all the rest of that stuff, SETI has been listening in for decades. You've got a REAL problem with scientific progress, don't you? I'll bet you don't even like girls....uh, women, that is.
I'm a girl...therefore, you don't like ME.

Ah, I see that you have forgotten and repeated what you said in your antialias morph...you said
'4chan' and HE said '4chan' earlier. You've been caught again.

Now watch one of them try to squeeze out of that...LOL
PussyCat_Eyes
1.6 / 5 (13) Jun 21, 2012
I won't be using this one anymore and will use the others but, more in a low-key way, so that I will never again be falsely accused by you and your many sock puppets.
Prediction: you will inevitably post thoughtless notions like microphones on rovers for eavesdropping on martians or petit-spot lava tubes under NYC or underground TANKS for storing billions of barrels-worth of CO2 or the dangers of chinese nuclear missiles on the moon or etcetcetc. And you will continue to be outed time and again for the lazy inconsiderate flooding 4chan troll that you are.
- ThrGhostofArfArf1923

Blotto says lava tubes - I said MAGMA tunnels
Blotto says microphones on rovers - I never said such a thing
Blotto says "eavesdropping on Martians" - I say "WHAT Martians?"
Blotto says CO2 underground storage tanks - I say "check out the Physorg article on it"
Blotto says "the dangers of Chinese nuclear missiles on the moon" - I never said such a thing

It is evident that Blotto is delusional
PussyCat_Eyes
2.1 / 5 (11) Jun 21, 2012
And in answer to TheGhostofBlotto1923 and one of his delusions, here is the Phys.org article concerning storing CO2 underground.
http://phys.org/n...one.html

Now can we get back to the unmanned space plane topic? Thank you.
Estevan57
2.1 / 5 (39) Jun 21, 2012
Well, PussyCat, after 23 post about other people and 2 about the subject I thought you had forgotten about it. What's your opinion, survaillance, weapons platform, anti-matter particle gathering, chemtrails, or other?
PussyCat_Eyes
1.8 / 5 (15) Jun 22, 2012
Well, PussyCat, after 23 post about other people and 2 about the subject I thought you had forgotten about it. What's your opinion, survaillance, weapons platform, anti-matter particle gathering, chemtrails, or other?
- Estevan57

Like Mike_Massen says....it's for anti-matter particle gathering....quite obviously. The size is perfect for scooping the particles and returning them to earth. It probably could also be done with anti-matter particles from lightning...but that's a lot more dangerous, in my opinion.
If you had bothered to read, I had started out commenting on the topic, until I saw antialias attempting to shut people up because he didn't like what they were saying.
I've seen YOU saying inane things too, but somehow you're exempt from antialias' censorship.
Estevan57
1.9 / 5 (36) Jun 23, 2012
I fail to see the "obvious" part of the particle gathering hypothesis. On what evidence do you base this other than your opinion?
Mr Massen, while I respect his opinions and appreciate the links, didn't actually say the spacecraft was for this purpose.

Since the actual capturing of antiprotons (38 out of millions produced) wasn't until Sept. 2010 and the spacecraft launched in March 2011, it is unlikely the payload included a Sci-fi "scoop" to collect them.

"Some amateur trackers think the craft carried an experimental spy satellite sensor judging by its low orbit and inclination, suggesting reconnaissance or intelligence gathering rather than communications.

Harvard astrophysicist Jonathan McDowell, who runs Jonathan's Space Report, which tracks the world's space launches and satellites, said it's possible it was testing some form of new imaging."
From the article.
I agree with these, and I Do read your posts. Most make me wonder if I'm on the movie set of "Mean Girls". :)
PussyCat_Eyes
1.5 / 5 (15) Jun 23, 2012
I've tried very hard not to be a "mean girl"...but other than the first few posts I've made in a couple of threads when I first signed on, it's been nothing but non-stop lies and harassment aimed at me from a complete stranger who believes me to be someone he's been searching for, and to what end, I have no clue. It's been interesting, reading the articles and discussing the topics with like minded folks. But your friend and his sock puppets don't know when to quit and go find someone else to bother. He apparently intends to continue pestering me and trying to get people to believe his lies about me, but the ones with the most intelligence will ignore his comments about me and discuss the topic instead. So until the harassment and lies come to an end, I shall remain a "mean girl". Try and get used to it instead of being a "mean boy".
PussyCat_Eyes
1.7 / 5 (12) Jun 23, 2012
A spy satellite and sensor can be sent up by conventional means. At 19 feet in length, the plane most likely carries instrumentation to entrap the anti-matter particles and keep them separated from other particles that would self-annihilate on contact. The anti-matter particles are up there and they need to be studied. But great caution must be maintained to keep them viable for study.
Other than that....I can't tell you much more. I just consider it an exciting breakthrough and I hope to learn more about it.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.7 / 5 (12) Jun 23, 2012
ooopsy...typo error...should've typed "29 feet long"
15 months up there is about right to wait for creation of the particles
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.4 / 5 (28) Jun 23, 2012
Blotto says lava tubes - I said MAGMA tunnels
-Because there IS a difference. One can travel 100s of miles from hotshots on the midatlantic ridge and up the continental shelf to Brooklyn while the other one cannot - but which is which?
Blotto says microphones on rovers - I never said such a thing
Sockpuppets do not grant one plausible deniability.
Blotto says "eavesdropping on Martians" - I say "WHAT Martians?"
Sockpuppets do not grant one plausible deniability.
Blotto says CO2 underground storage tanks - I say "check out the Physorg article on it"
-Where you imply that underwater and underground (TANKS for 26 BILLION barrels) would be equivalent. One is far more absurd - yours. Please check my reply.
Blotto says "the dangers of Chinese nuclear missiles on the moon" - I never said such a thing
Sockpuppets do not grant one plausible deniability. Whether or not they are user by you, your bf (from Afghanistan?), your inlaws, your etcetc.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.4 / 5 (26) Jun 23, 2012
By the by
At 19 feet in length, the plane most likely carries instrumentation to entrap the anti-matter particles and keep them separated from other particles that would self-annihilate on contact.
-I can imagine you feverishly googling 'self-annihilate'. Perhaps you do not understand what it would take to isolate antimatter ions in appreciable quantities for any length of time:
http://www.ipp.mp...dex.html

-This is bigger than 19 ft in any direction. Da Vinci code was just a movie. NOT REAL.
Estevan57
2 / 5 (36) Jun 24, 2012
The space craft must contain very powerful devises to contain the antimatter to bring it back from orbit, why not just study the antimatter here on earth, where we can make it by the thousands?

www.sciencedaily....1458.htm
http://phys.org/n...ter.html
http://www.pcmag....9,00.asp

Perhaps the reknown scientists Poul Anderson and Larry Niven (r.i.p.)are collecting antimatter to use in their Bussard ramjet technology. A person never knows what a military mission is up to...
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (29) Jun 24, 2012
Some day soon we will be manufacturing, storing, transporting, and using antimatter in bulk. This will no doubt be done using toroidal magnetic bottles like the tokamak or the stellerator, which is probably the real reason we are investing so much time, money, and effort to figure out how to do this.

But the idea that the guvmint is up there harvesting antimatter in their little spaceplane, to make bombs I suppose, is typical brainless pirouette/Ritchieguy/russkiye/pussytard junk. It is hard to imagine a more brainless theory than this.