wumpus Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 2 hours ago, sevenperforce said: Testbed NTR would be in violation of treaties. An orbital weapons platform would be in violation of even more treaties. The US government does not have a need for an nuclear thermal rocket which would be sufficiently significant to violate treaties in pursuit of it. What would be the issue with an NTR? It doesn't explode, it is in no way a weapon, nor could it be seen as militarization. It is just a rocket, only a potentially awesome one. I think you are assuming that since an Orion (which would violate the treaty) isn't allowed, no nukes are allowed. Wasn't there a Soviet reactor in space? I doubt they could have done that before the treaty/treaties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightfury Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 We can slowly start a ZUMA discussion thread 1 minute ago, wumpus said: no nukes are allowed i think engines and all other stuff with nuclear exhausts aren't allowed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 6 minutes ago, wumpus said: What would be the issue with an NTR? It doesn't explode, it is in no way a weapon, nor could it be seen as militarization. It is just a rocket, only a potentially awesome one. I think you are assuming that since an Orion (which would violate the treaty) isn't allowed, no nukes are allowed. Wasn't there a Soviet reactor in space? I doubt they could have done that before the treaty/treaties. NTR releases potentially radioactive exhaust. Even if it's just a few irradiated hydrogen atoms turning into tritium by neutron capture, it's still a release of radioactive material. A reactor does not release anything, and I do believe the reactor flew before the test ban treaty anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 The NTR people at Marshall are actually pretty far along. They could fly something if anyone threw some money at them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomf Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 Its clear there is only one possible explanation. The research at area 51 finally paid off and the Zuma craft left our system at FTL speeds meaning there is nothing left to track Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 (edited) We're gonna have to be content to not know, unless some sat tracker people find the thing, and suggest ideas. It might have been designed to reenter, as well. Edited January 9, 2018 by tater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSlash27 Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 tomf, Another possibility: They changed the name to "Zuma" because "crossbow" was too obvious. Expect an MIT professor to wind up with a house full of popcorn shortly. Best, -Slashy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 Spoiler Sorry. Stupid me had lost context due to the long holidays, so I thought that this was also an unexpected for me FH maiden launch, and Zuma is something 50 t big. While this was F9, and Zuma is just something of KH-10 size, or a single tungsten rod, or a single Spiral/DreamChaser drone. Sorry again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 8 hours ago, Shpaget said: So, what could be this Zuma thing? The go-to answer would be a spy sat, basically a telescope, but why such secrecy? US already opetates countless spy sats. Another one is not much of a news. If NRO (or whoever operates it) just said "Yeah, it's one of ours, and it's peeking into your bedroom." the reaction would be "Well, duh!" and it would have been the end of it. Remember the last SpaceX launch for NRO? They did it and there was next to no talk about it afterwards, but I wonder if this universal gag order isn't going to lead to another Streisand effect. Because its intent is to spy or potentially defend against someone who does not think we can spy or defend against them. It could be a continuations of Reagan's star wars program. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 27 minutes ago, tomf said: Its clear there is only one possible explanation. The research at area 51 finally paid off and the Zuma craft left our system at FTL speeds meaning there is nothing left to track UFO-derived spacecraft? Awesome! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CastleKSide Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 Anyone know the history of when a payload was last launched with this much secrecy? Might be a clue. I tend to shy away from spy sat explanations, they don't seem... special enough for this kind of treatment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 4 hours ago, KSK said: Edit: It also helps that I'm pretty sure my tax pounds didn't fund said super-sekrit payload. Sure about that? No US gov’t agency has claimed the thing, only that the gov’t arranged the launch thru subcontractor SpaceX. IIRC, the UK gave up on its own orbital launcher once upon a time cuz it was cheaper to buy launches from America, so wouldn’t be the first time the US has launched a payload for an ally... 2 hours ago, sevenperforce said: Someone is still going to find out about it at some point. I think, whatever the truth is, this whole thing comes down to two words: Plausible deniability. ...more red flags here than an old Soviet parade... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shpaget Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 3 minutes ago, PB666 said: Because its intent is to spy or potentially defend against someone who does not think we can spy or defend against them. It could be a continuations of Reagan's star wars program. Who do you think considers themselves unspiable? A single sat in polar orbit can easily look at the entire surface of the Earth and each particular spot fairly often. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 3 hours ago, GoSlash27 said: Nibb31, Yup. I'm not convinced that Zuma actually failed. #1 Somebody's willing to talk about the rumor that Zuma failed, but not about what Zuma is? Implausible. #2 Zuma is so critically important and secret, yet they designed their own adapter and then failed to make sure it was perfect? Also implausible. It's all too convenient. I think they just want everyone to *think* Zuma failed. Best, -Slashy Or to state better. What is the evidence that it has failed. Remember satellites sometimes fail to communicate on a first pass, but manage to communicated on later passes. Someone might have leaked a tenative finding, or just thrown out fluff to confound the media. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 32 minutes ago, tater said: We're gonna have to be content to not know, unless some sat tracker people find the thing, and suggest ideas. It might have been designed to reenter, as well. I read it’s not going to be trackable by amatures in the northern hemisphere for two weeks. Now if it’s a “spacecraft” capable of significantly changing its own orbit in that time... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 Just now, Shpaget said: Who do you think considers themselves unspiable? A single sat in polar orbit can easily look at the entire surface of the Earth and each particular spot fairly often. Oh, well that is a simple-minded approach, but you can also increase the wavelength and intensity of or vary the length of waves sent back and forth to the earth to look for things that cannot be seen. We don't really care about Russians missile program, because they have alot, they are a known, whose current nuclear and missile program do we really care about, and where is it likely to be. BTW just putting a highly super-secret payload into space at between 40-50 inclination that appears to have drawn out fluff from the media is enough in and of it self to get the intelligence agencies of some countries to send an advisory to their leader to move with caution. The uncertainty of what it is creates risk for a variety of governments around the world. 4 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said: I read it’s not going to be trackable by amatures in the northern hemisphere for two weeks. Now if it’s a “spacecraft” capable of significantly changing its own orbit in that time... Which means that it is trackable by the Russians, which means its not a secret as you think it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michal.don Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 On Zuma-unrelated note, Falcon Heavy static fire should happen tomorrow afternoon! Not trying to hype or anything Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 8 minutes ago, PB666 said: Which means that it is trackable by the Russians, which means its not a secret as you think it is. Is it? We've had the tech to avoid radar detection for a long time now. Only natural that sooner or later it would be applied to satellites... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said: Is it? We've had the tech to avoid radar detection for a long time now. Only natural that sooner or later it would be applied to satellites... if you coat it with vantablack, disable all communications and come up with some kind of active cooling to CMB temperature, then you can probably hide a satellite pretty well. EDIT. wiki (vantablack): Quote In 2015, production was scaled up to satisfy the needs of buyers in the aerospace and defense sectors. The first orders were delivered in July 2014.[11] Aerospace sectors, right. Edited January 9, 2018 by sh1pman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 1 minute ago, sh1pman said: if you coat it with vantablack, disable all communications and come up with some kind of active cooling to CMB temperature, then you can probably hide a satellite pretty well. And these are just the ways we know about. How about laser communication? I know that's been tested in space before, seems a pretty un-interceptable way to talk to a black bird... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 20 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said: Is it? We've had the tech to avoid radar detection for a long time now. Only natural that sooner or later it would be applied to satellites... They are tracking it in the same way we track theirs and Chinese satellites, probably lower tech, but still. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibb31 Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, CastleKSide said: Anyone know the history of when a payload was last launched with this much secrecy? Might be a clue. I tend to shy away from spy sat explanations, they don't seem... special enough for this kind of treatment. Most US military satellites don't have this much secrecy, even the big top secret SIGINT and NRO birds. USAF, Navy, NRO, and other DoD agencies usually declare their spacecraft as their own. The only other satellites surrounded with this much secrecy were PAN (which apparently stood for "Palladium At Night" whatever that means) in 2009 and CLIO in 2014. The thing in common between ZUMA (USA-280), PAN (USA-207), and CLIO (USA-257), is that they all have a code-name in capital letters, and are all US government launches from an unnamed agency. However, PAN and CLIO were both Lockheed Martin projects and are both in GEO, whereas ZUMA is Northrop Grumman and appears to have been headed to LEO, which indicates that it probably isn't related. Edited January 9, 2018 by Nibb31 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 42 minutes ago, PB666 said: They are tracking it in the same way we track theirs and Chinese satellites, probably lower tech, but still. Which, as far as I know, is chiefly through radar. We’ve known how to make things “invisible” to radar for a long time. Hiding the other potential tells of a satellite, at least long enough for it to make a significant inclination change, remains very plausible. Heck, maybe the other space-tracking nations are even in on the secret. Y’know, because reasons. @Nibb31‘s made some very good points, the sheer level of secrecy about this bird means everything’s on the table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSlash27 Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 Nibb31, Good catch. I think PAN was a SIGINT sat and CLIO looked to be the same. SIGINT would fall under NSA, so that may be what ZUMA is about also. -Slashy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 1 hour ago, CatastrophicFailure said: We've had the tech to avoid radar detection for a long time now. I'm not sure if the radar avoidance is really a part of somebody's plan, as an orbital stealth could cause a panic reaction with uncertain results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.