GoSlash27

Schpaget, Yeah, I get that. I just don't think there's enough wiggle- room in the wording to support that conclusion. Moreover, if the sat actually went down, there would be no reason to obfuscate. They could just say "the classified mission failed, but it wasn't due to our hardware". The very fact that there's obfuscation going on tell me they want us to be misled without directly lying. That goes without saying. The entire purpose of this thread is speculation because none of us know anything and we probably never will [snip]

Schpaget, Office of Management and Budget. They're the ones who would normally investigate "failures" like this. Their exact wording was "after review of all data to date, Falcon 9 did everything correctly on Sunday night". If there was a hunk of mass stuck to the front, it could not have done everything correctly.

Nah. They're too far apart. This is why I don't bother setting up interplanetary relays until I have the RA-15. Best, -Slashy

Shpaget, After further review, yes. That's the figure that the press and congress have been throwing around. Sure it does. We have a secretive agency that launches satellites, not one that conducts investigations. And as I said, there is no need for the investigation itself to be secret. OMB could look into it without needing to know who it belongs to or what it does. I concur. 2nd stage deorbit is part of SpaceX's performance, and they said that went nominally. If it had a big ol' satellite stuck to it, it wouldn't have been nominal.

Not really. The investigation wouldn't need to delve into what the payload was designed to do or who owns it, merely what went wrong and who was at fault for it's loss. The fact that the government isn't upset about chucking a billion dollars into the IO tells me that they don't think they actually lost that money. Best, -Slashy

Wcmille, https://i.imgur.com/TTd3hTA.jpg $780/ tonne https://i.imgur.com/qudtYyO.jpg $690/ tonne A lot of good tips 'n tricks in the "Cheep & Cheerful Challenge" Best, -Slashy

Another big discrepancy: The U.S. Government paid Northrop- Grumman and SpaceX a billion dollars for this satellite. If that satellite is currently debris in the bottom of the Indian Ocean, where's the investigation? Even the Federal government doesn't just shrug off that kind of loss. Best, -Slashy Yup. The de-orbit burn would've been sluggish also, since the vehicle would've weighed many times more than nominal. But SpaceX reported that all indications were nominal. Does not compute.

PB666, Yes, but those agencies admit ownership of their sats. NSA doesn't. Best, -Slashy

I was never a fan myself. Found them cheesy and pointless. They do have a huge cult following tho', so I'm in the minority. Best, -Slashy

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

I wish they would've covered it up until the first stage jettison.

here we go...

Here we go with the final checks. All go. starting the clock at 22:07

4 minute count starts now Disregard.forgot to carry the one

True, but burning extra fuel is cheaper than discarding extra engines. Best, -Slashy

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

Alpha360, It's on my desktop Writing it myself was the non- lazy part... I can kick you a copy if you want. Best, -Slashy

I think they just said "T- 1:05:00"... 2211z

Helium valve problem is resolved.

Stream is live for today's attempt. Having a problem with the ground helium system. No T-0 announced yet.

Alpha 360, Actually, I wasn't the one who said that, but I do agree. I also don't KER, but rather an even lazier tool: A spreadsheet using the reverse rocket equation. I tell it what I need the stage to do, and it tells me what I need to build, how much it will cost, and how much it will weigh. Best, -Slashy Somebody upstream asked what we're seeing for cost/ tonne to orbit? Excluding the cost of the payload itself and assuming no recovery, under $2000/tonne if I'm not really trying (serial staged liquid fuel), and as low as $600/tonne if I am (quasi-asparagus SRB types).

SpacedCowboy, Best, -Slashy

I don't commonly use standard lifters, but I do use the same vehicles fairly frequently. I agree with @OhioBob on the t/w question, since I'm a "career" guy and the most important considerations in career mode are 1) cost per tonne and 2) reliability/ ease of use. My lower stage is 1.2 t/w minimum and my upper stage is 0.7 minimum. lower stage t/w computed at 1 atm and upper stage computed at vacuum. Both stages generate roughly 1,700 m/sec DV each. Lower stage computed at 1/2 atm, upper computed at vacuum. Best, -Slashy

I'm going with an ELINT sat for the NSA. I think it's up there and operational. Best, -Slashy

BM, Yup. Intakes are still ridiculously- scaled. You don't really need more than one intercooler per engine. Best, -Slashy