Zuma Discussion

[mikegarrison]

Being in orbit is a much stronger claim than not being in orbit. It makes more sense to assume something is not in orbit until you prove that it is rather than the other way around.

[kerbiloid]

1 minute ago, PB666 said:

not in orbit.

?..
As I can see, here is a discussion:

• did they drop Zuma,
• did they secretly put Zuma into orbit,
• or was Zuma a suborbital hypersonic craft which they even weren't going to put into orbit.

So, as unlikely a suborbital hypersonic experimental craft would be going to be tested just once, so I wonder: how many mystic Falcons should be declared as a successful launch which had put nothing into orbit?
Long version: is Falcon really the best rocket for this?
Even longer version: I don't think that it was a intentionally suborbital test.

[ment18]

I think it is something similar to MISTY, though operated by someone else since I think the NRO has said it isn't theirs.  The launch was successful, everything worked but noone will say anything because its classified.  There have been no substantiated claims that it failed, and SpaceX says the rocket operated as expected.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misty_(satellite)

Edited January 12, 2018 by ment18

[magnemoe]

8 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

Being in orbit is a much stronger claim than not being in orbit. It makes more sense to assume something is not in orbit until you prove that it is rather than the other way around.

No, assuming Zuma is pretty stealthy, neither China nor Russia will say that they spotted it as this gives away their own capabilities even if they are not the target.
If target is terrorist as in listening to cell phones and other radio in affected areas none major actors want to tell its orbit. 
Spying is an very convoluted business because you don't want the others to know your capabilities. Pretending to be stupid is also an part of diplomacy. 

In short we don't know its in orbit as no bloggers has spotted it in orbit. 

[PB666]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

?..
As I can see, here is a discussion:

• did they drop Zuma,
• did they secretly put Zuma into orbit,
• or was Zuma a suborbital hypersonic craft which they even weren't going to put into orbit.

So, as unlikely a suborbital hypersonic experimental craft would be going to be tested just once, so I wonder: how many mystic Falcons should be declared as a successful launch which had put nothing into orbit?
Long version: is Falcon really the best rocket for this?
Even longer version: I don't think that it was a intentionally suborbital test.

Not hypersonic (except at launch), was in orbit, and could have only deorbited itself or waited for drag to do the same. The video above listed Zuma numeric designation as nominal, a status that is only supplied once a craft is in a stable orbit of its desired "a". And we have pretty good idea that second stage reached its targeted altitude and deorbited we also have a pretty good idea that the second stage and payload fairing separated. We also know one other thing, that for someone to report on classified material would be a violation of the espionage act and they could be prosecuted. Only the president can report its status or someone has to declassify it. Obviously not done.  So the people who are arguing it failed are either criminals are misleading the public.

Finally to address the comment that they secretly put Zuma in orbit... It was put in orbit and its not secret, its current status is in orbit . . . .on whether they intentionally dropped it again that would be classified so you cant really trust someone who says otherwise.

Lets go through this again. F9 launches, heads northeastward between 40 and 50 degrees on a launch trajectory, over Saudi Arabia it makes a circularization burn. If F92nd stage did not do this the F92s could not have orbited one more time and deorbited. So F92s and PL were in orbit, the only exception is that they separated before the second stage circularized as some sort of subterfuge, which means that the purchaser did not get their moneys worth, because SX sells contracts to LEO.  If they separated before circularization then its really not SpaceXs problem, but if the separation occurred prematurely it would be SpaceXs problem. But the government said "ask Space X if the payload reached its target", SpaceX says they did, all mission objectives were accomplished , which implies either the government is lying or SpaceX is lying or both or niether. Again if we approach the problem from a null hypothesis, that the default state or expected state is the actual state, until proven otherwise. In this case SpaceX defines the expected state (nominal) thus we assume that is the actual state, the government says that SpaceX knows the status and does not contradict that status, claiming that SpaceX is the authority on the success. The lack of evidence for an unexpected status does not support an unexpected status conclusion.

The second logic is appearances. What appears to be is not always what is. For example gravity appears to be a force, and spacetime does not appear to be curved. But neither gravity or spacetime have a fathomable appearance, we can only mark space-time in very abrupt changes. This is not to argue that rigorous physics and mathematics can unveil them, just in appearances they go unobserved. This situation then has a logic, the satellite either is or is not a stealth satellite. If it is neither will the government will confirm or deny it. If the satellite is a stealth satellite then its default state while in orbit is not to appear (be dark from the ground), and if it isn't then we have to beg the question how certain can amateur astronomers be at detecting it. Either could be true and neither reveal its status. 

As far as authorities. ABC News, Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg news are not an authorities on classified stealthy satellites. If they were then the US Govt is doing a very poor job at keeping national secrets. They can only report what sources say, their sources would be, if reporting a true status be violating the espionage act (questioning their credibility), of course calling the report anonymous obscures that, but an anonymous source could be reporting subterfuge or fact. Daniel Ellsberg reported facts, classified, that were true, but he also documented his sources, increasing his credibility, he was also to be tried but was not convicted because the plumbers broke into his Psychatrist's office and stole documents (decreasing the government's credibility). So an anonymous source can be a Shrodingers cat (truthful or deceptive) until you peal back the layers of the source and disclaimants, one is uncertain . The object of the classification is a 1 billion dollar satellite, an ample motivation for an anonymous source, its either disclosure of a massive government waste or a smoke screen to hide a very expensive and sensitive government program, the cost of the project can be justification for both behaviors. I should point out that ABC News, Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg all predicted that it was likely that Hillary Clinton would be president.

And finally for actors (pretenders, competitors) <==== We are. We pretend to know the status based on appearance and know the facts, again a null hypothesis is something when proven has a 'false negative' rate, and when disproven has a 'false positive' rate. So if the status is nominal based on logic, we accept that this will be wrong sometimes, and if we reject it based on logic it will also be occasionally wrong. So that unless multiple valid perspectives are provided, the risk of a wrong answer is pretty high. But the whole idea of warfare and espionage is the thwart a 'competitors' plan. His plan is going to be based on his own logical analysis of the facts, and so its not in the interest of the principle to provide facts that can be used to direct his logic, so that we take any government report  on a classified project to be an invalid perspective, because such reports are a self-contradiction. So the government cannot be a source on whether SpaceX was successful or not. Whatever spaceX says is true may or may not be true, it could simply be a default answer to any question concerning a 'disappeared satellite'. Therefore there is only one valid source, SpaceX and SpaceX does not apparently know the current status of the PL, which means  the current (vocal) valid source is a null set.

 

 

Edited January 12, 2018 by PB666

[kerbiloid]

20 minutes ago, PB666 said:

.

http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/ogch.htm

Count the required Falcons.

[luizopiloto]

I've found some interesting info that can maybe... Maybe... explains the real nature of Zuma...
https://goo.gl/maps/VyHgfwoPXhw
 

[Piatzin]

[snipped for fear of triggering people ]

Edited January 13, 2018 by Earthlinger

[Gaarst]

8 minutes ago, luizopiloto said:

I've found some interesting info that can maybe... Maybe... explains the real nature of Zuma...
https://goo.gl/maps/VyHgfwoPXhw
 

Hypersonic Test Vehicle sitting in a parking in the middle of an open airfield right next to a highway somewhere in FL. Did you know they used to test B-2s from ATL?

[PB666]

32 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/ogch.htm

Count the required Falcons.

You are trying to fabricate hype. It could also be a giant statue of Vladimir Putin on a horse riding with a bear-chested woman. It could be designed to drop USB drives on N. Koreans. It could be an alien from Roswell NM stored at area 51 that the wanted to place in orbit before the News media could find out. IT could be a laser designed to cut the Earth in half, it could be NTR rocket that the want to test in Deep Space.
It could be Obama's secret Kenyan birth certificate . .It could be the RV from Witch Mountain.

[sevenperforce]

25 minutes ago, luizopiloto said:

I've found some interesting info that can maybe... Maybe... explains the real nature of Zuma...
https://goo.gl/maps/VyHgfwoPXhw
 

Just a touch too large to fit inside the fairing, I believe.

[Josh IN SPACE]

ZUMA was actually an alien spaceship that crashed here long ago along with it's crew, who then took up work in Area 51 and become registered government faculty. They funded their own secret voyage home using a Falcon 9 as cover and launch provider. They were able to repair their ship's engines so that they can fire up once in vacuum, but lacked the necessary materials from our planet to fix their ship's advanced cloaking abilities. Thus the cover-up.

Source: My daydream. 

[Piatzin]

4 minutes ago, PB666 said:

You are trying to fabricate hype. It could also be a giant statue of Vladimir Putin on a horse riding with a bear-chested woman. It could be designed to drop USB drives on N. Koreans. It could be an alien from Roswell NM stored at area 51 that the wanted to place in orbit before the News media could find out. IT could be a laser designed to cut the Earth in half, it could be NTR rocket that the want to test in Deep Space.
It could be Obama's secret Kenyan birth certificate . .It could be the RV from Witch Mountain.

I'm with the birth certificate theory. That thing looks very much like a birth certificate. Especially one from Kenya.

I'll be mildly peeved if someone takes this seriously lol

[sevenperforce]

24 minutes ago, Earthlinger said:

If Zuma is military-related, then I hope it's actually destroyed. No offense to anyone.

I'm a pacifist, and I've always hoped that countries will eventually refrain from showing off and provoking each other. I dislike how the US/Russia/other countries are always attempting to 'establish' which one is superior, and I avoid people who think we should 'put the others in their place,' or 'show them who wields the big guns.' I'm a fan of collaboration, so if the government's putting something in orbit, point the business end towards space, not at the 'enemy.' Not to say that space and the potential worlds beyond are the enemy, but neither is Russia. Or China. Or even NK.

I'd like to see a country swallow their pride for once and offer a hand of friendship. To stop being so cynical.

This went somewhat off-topic.

*Sighs*

While this is veering dangerously political, I would weigh in with the view that no matter how pacifist my tendencies generally are, I am happy with any and all missile defense systems.

[Piatzin]

2 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

25 minutes ago, Earthlinger said:

 

While this is veering dangerously political, I would weigh in with the view that no matter how pacifist my tendencies generally are, I am happy with any and all missile defense systems.

Yeah, let's ignore that post of mine.

Though I have no problem with defense systems either, so long as they're not actually used. Cough. Moving on...

[DDE]

3 hours ago, insert_name said:

To be fair, there has been a lot of advances in miniturization and electric propulsion since polus was launched

Electric propulsion, maybe. Strategic-class laser weapons? Nope. It's the small Counter-(Drone) Rocket Artillery Mortar category that's blooming thanks to solid-state lasers, but the megawatt-class death rays are stagnant.

27 minutes ago, PB666 said:

It could also be a giant statue of Vladimir Putin on a horse riding with a bear-chested woman.

I don't know if it's a typo, but we're getting there...

[GoSlash27]

I don't see using a Falcon for a sub- orbital test. We have other launchers that are better- suited for that sort of thing.

Best,
-Slashy

[Nibb31]

My guess is that it's still up there. I don't buy the "failed to separate from upper stage story". That is not a common failure mode, and with all the talk about this being a very valuable payload, I don't think it's something that they could have missed.

If it is indeed up there, it's probably stealthy. Amateur satellite spotters use optical telescopes, which are easy to fool (paint it black). Radar systems might detect it, but after several random plane changes, it will be hard to link any newly detected bird to the Zuma launch.

The reason for the secrecy would be that it's doing dirty business that would be interpreted as a casus belli by foreign governments or a violation/twisting of the Outer Space Treaty:

• Evesdropping on foreign satellites by approaching and intercepting comms.
• Close inspection of foreign satellites.
• Capability of offensive disablement of foreign satellites.

You don't need a super large laser to blind the enemy's sensors, to burn a hole through a solar panel or a propellant tank. You can also spray paint over optics, solar panels, and fuel tanks (which can cause overheating and failure). 

[YNM]

1 hour ago, Earthlinger said:

I'm a pacifist, and I've always hoped that countries will eventually refrain from showing off and provoking each other.

Welcome to the cyber world then. Don't trust anyone.

Like, anyone.

At all.

 

 

@OP : I think it's currently working up there. It says "Indian Ocean" but there's nothing on the warning whatsoever (it's not that empty you know). What fascinates me is how far the "US Govt." have went with SpaceX... Did Elon got into them finely as well, or is it a better tactics ?

I mean, "cock-up before conspiracy", but the statements is too lacking and clearly SpaceX wants to increase their reliability level, why faking a failure ?

[monstah]

2 hours ago, luizopiloto said:

I've found some interesting info that can maybe... Maybe... explains the real nature of Zuma...
https://goo.gl/maps/VyHgfwoPXhw
 

There are some 5 star reviews, seems legit...

[GoSlash27]

Some handy info that @Nibb31 dug up...

 It's not often that we have launches of super- secret sats for an unnamed agency. The only other two were called PAN (USA-207) and CLIO (USA-257) , and now ZUMA (USA-280). All code names in capital letters, all classified launches for an unnamed agency.

A little google-fu about the previous sats suggests that these were both SIGINT sats for the NSA, which makes sense. NSA doesn't even like to acknowledge that they exist. The old running joke is "NSA: No Such Agency". Who else would refuse to take credit for their launches? DARPA acknowledges theirs, as do the DoD and NRO.

The difference is that the previous two went to GSO, and this one went... somewhere else. Or (allegedly) into the Indian Ocean. I think this is a SIGINT sat for the NSA, and I don't believe there was a failure. SpaceX would've noticed the extra mass in their telemetry during deorbit if the sat hadn't separated.

Best,
-Slashy

 

 

Edited January 12, 2018 by GoSlash27

[PB666]

49 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

Some handy info that @Nibb31 dug up...

 It's not often that we have launches of super- secret sats for an unnamed agency. The only other two were called PAN (USA-207) and CLIO (USA-257) , and now ZUMA (USA-280). All code names in capital letters, all classified launches for an unnamed agency.

A little google-fu about the previous sats suggests that these were both SIGINT sats for the NSA, which makes sense. NSA doesn't even like to acknowledge that they exist. The old running joke is "NSA: No Such Agency". Who else would refuse to take credit for their launches? DARPA acknowledges theirs, as do the DoD and NRO.

The difference is that the previous two went to GSO, and this one went... somewhere else. Or (allegedly) into the Indian Ocean. I think this is a SIGINT sat for the NSA, and I don't believe there was a failure. SpaceX would've noticed the extra mass in their telemetry during deorbit if the sat hadn't separated.

NSA definitely exists, they question is whether they exist within or out side of the law and the second question is which law (US or international). The NSA is just closer joined to the hip to the executive branch as he acts under the Director of National Intelligence (cabinet level position-although technically part of the defense hierachy, the DNI is appointed by the president, not the SoD)  and is a constitutive member of the National Security Council. The CIA has equal ability but they are tasked with human-based resource gathering overseas. The other defense intelligence agencies follow the more traditional chain of command. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Intelligence_Community#Members

You can see that there are a number of agencies that could afford as part of their budget Zuma.

Don't worry, be happy, smile for the cameras, keep sending those snaps, . . . . . .

[GoSlash27]

1 minute ago, PB666 said:

You can see that there are a number of agencies that could afford as part of their budget Zuma.

PB666,

 Yes, but those agencies admit ownership of their sats. NSA doesn't.

Best,
-Slashy

[PB666]

3 hours ago, DDE said:

Electric propulsion, maybe. Strategic-class laser weapons? Nope. It's the small Counter-(Drone) Rocket Artillery Mortar category that's blooming thanks to solid-state lasers, but the megawatt-class death rays are stagnant.

I don't know if it's a typo, but we're getting there...

I have to say, this image starts to grow on you after a while.

[Exploro]

1 hour ago, GoSlash27 said:

....I don't believe there was a failure. SpaceX would've noticed the extra mass in their telemetry during deorbit if the sat hadn't separated.

You know I had mused about that too. A stuck spacecraft would cause signifcant changes to how the Upper Stage would perform during the de-orbit manuevers.