[guhidalg]

I think it’s naive to think the X-37 doesn’t have the capability to be used a weapon. A spacecraft able to stay in orbit for years with the ability to hide its payload from observers we must assume is carrying something onboard that can be considered a weapon.

[cryptonector]

It's overkill as an anti-sat sat. It'd be much cheaper to put up tons of anti-sat sats meant only for that purpose -- no need to reenter and land, no need for reusability, etc.

The X-37 is obviously a military device, since they're the ones using it, and it may well be meant for servicing U.S. military sats, spying on others' sats, jamming them perhaps, or outright stealing them, and, yes, maybe destroying them, but again: there's no point using the X-37 for anti-sat purposes as it's too expensive for that.

[stainforth]

Why do we have all of this historical evidence about military purchasing and yet continued belief that current projects are all sensibly intended and operated?

[cryptonector]

I didn't say the X-37B is used sensibly. I said it's not a practical and inexpensive anti-sat weapon. It's just not comparable.

[willcipriano]

> or outright stealing them

They took a page out of Blofeld's book.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Only_Live_Twice_(film)

[enkid]

Orbital dynamics means that literally anything in orbit could be an anti satellite weapon.

[guhidalg]

You’re technically correct, but I doubt deterrence is higher on SpaceX’s priority list than the USAF’s.

[enkid]

So now it's a weapon simply because it's owned by the Air Force? Are you saying there should be no military satellites?

[guhidalg]

Never made that argument, I also think the treaties on the non-militarization of space are wishful thinking.