sh1pman Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 1 hour ago, KSK said: Not that I have any reason to doubt you, but do you have a link for that? Purely because it would be a relief to this SpaceX fanboy. I'm wondering though if that might also explain the unexplained fairing issues with the first launch attempt - there was a problem getting the NG payload separator to play nicely with the SpaceX fairing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 3 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. Maybe indeed (read the small font) 6 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said: Just saying... but if the estimates of 50* inclination are correct, that’s useless for overflying most of Russia, however... ”Why, hello there, Mr. Uncooperative Dictator! My, that’s a very nice thing-we-don’t-want-you-to-have you’ve got there, be a shame if someone... dropped a malfunctioning satellite on it...“ darn shame about those solid tungsten rods, too. There was this really big light bub, y’see... Rods are heeaavy (9 t each, according to wiki). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shpaget Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 So, sat not in orbit, but mission acomplished? That would explain the NRO not claiming the sat. It's really not theirs. The reentry location is well clear of any civilisation and good for testing, but it's still imposible to hide it from other space nations. I suppose Russians could be gentlemen about it and not disclose the info they have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 14 minutes ago, Shpaget said: So, sat not in orbit, but mission acomplished? That would explain the NRO not claiming the sat. It's really not theirs. The reentry location is well clear of any civilisation and good for testing, but it's still imposible to hide it from other space nations. I suppose Russians could be gentlemen about it and not disclose the info they have. How would they know, Zuma didn’t pass over Russia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSK Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 (edited) @sh1pman Thanks. Bad day at the office for somebody then but hopefully not for Elon. And yes - that is horribly partisan and possibly unworthy, but the geek in me does care more about SpaceX's continuing good record (since that ultimately translates into more Cool Space Stuff (RTM) ), than it does about a super-sekrit TLA payload. Edit: It also helps that I'm pretty sure my tax pounds didn't fund said super-sekrit payload. Edited January 9, 2018 by KSK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shpaget Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 17 minutes ago, sh1pman said: How would they know, Zuma didn’t pass over Russia. High orbit spy sats of their own. I doubt there is a spot on Earth not monitored 24/7, except possibly near polar regions, which could have some periods of no coverage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSlash27 Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 All this breathless reporting of "possible failure" is just another example of bad journalism. One single unconfirmed rumor, and all the news agencies go into a feeding frenzy quoting each other. It's really quite pathetic... Best, -Slashy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSlash27 Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 4 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. I don't know what it is, but I don't think it's a spy sat. I think it's something that would cause a huge flap if people knew it was up there. Perhaps a testbed nuclear rocket engine, or some type of weapons platform... Best, -Slashy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Baron Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 (edited) If it was something big and nuclear and it reentered there will be measurements of bad isotopes soon. Nothing is known for sure, only that the second stage deorbited as planned, or not ? I only hope it wasn't SpaceX's fault or we are likely to see more delays :-/ Edited January 9, 2018 by Green Baron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibb31 Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 (edited) If I wanted to secretly launch a stealth satellite, I would probably Set the launch window when lighting conditions make post-launch events hard to track. Include orbital propulsion to manoeuver out of its inital orbit while nobody can see it. Cover it with light absorbing material. Run rumors that the satellite failed to separate and that it reentered with the upper stage and that all is lost. Make a custom-built payload adapter part of the classified project so as to exclude the launcher's liability and to avoid a post mortem inquiry. ??? Profit ! Just sayin'. Edited January 9, 2018 by Nibb31 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSlash27 Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 55 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said: I don't know what it is, but I don't think it's a spy sat. I think it's something that would cause a huge flap if people knew it was up there. Perhaps a testbed nuclear rocket engine, or some type of weapons platform... Best, -Slashy 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 If the sat carried its own kick stage for GTO insertion, it could go do eavesdropping spysat stuff. But if it launched with a sharp inclination, this is unlikely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 13 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: Testbed NTR would be in violation of treaties. An orbital weapons platform would be in violation of even more treaties. Not if you can cover it up and make it look like a failed launch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 24 minutes 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. How would an NTR be any more violation than an RTG? And it would be no reason to keep an NTR secret, its only useful for fairly large payloads / high dV mission so manned moon / an heavy probe to outer solar system is lower bounds for its use. It might been an idea to cooperate with Russia or other with it to avoid lawfare. Orbital weapons is also legal, only restriction is non nuclear and not on Moon or other bodies. Also pretty pointless it looks like the US prefer ballistic interceptors over killer satellites. Now it could be an test of an hypersonic reentry vehicle, China has done work with an icbm warhead to hit moving targets, an falcon 9 is cheaper than an icbm and its easier to hide the project as an failed launch. Most likely its some sort of spy satellite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 22 minutes ago, sh1pman said: Not if you can cover it up and make it look like a failed launch. Someone is still going to find out about it at some point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cassel Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 Secret emdrive test? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightfury Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 18 minutes ago, magnemoe said: How would an NTR be any more violation than an RTG? And it would be no reason to keep an NTR secret, its only useful for fairly large payloads / high dV mission so manned moon / an heavy probe to outer solar system is lower bounds for its use. NTR potentially violates the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. But yeah, there's no reason to keep it secret and we don't need it anyway. 7 minutes ago, Nightfury said: Note that she didn't say Zuma was a success, only that F9 did everything right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 There was some talk about it possibly being a hypersonic test vehicle, as well. Any cloud of uncertainty helps them disguise the payload. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starman4308 Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 So: The Falcon 9 worked. The custom payload adapter and Zuma may or may not have worked. We don't really know anything else for sure. As to launching an NTR to orbit, I doubt it. If a nuclear reactor reenters Earth on a failed launch, it won't take long for people to figure that out due to the whole "radioactive material dumped all over some ocean" thing. On top of that, IIRC, Atlas V is the US's only nuclear-rated launch vehicle, so a nuclear/radioactive element almost certainly would've gone up on one of those, not a Falcon 9. All we know is this: the Falcon 9 worked, and if Zuma actually failed, it was not SpaceX's fault... though this sort of launch would be the perfect opportunity to spread rumors that it did fail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSlash27 Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 So summarizing what we *think* we know: Not nuclear, Doesn't weigh more than 10 tonnes, approx. 50 degree inclination... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSEP Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 12 minutes ago, tater said: Spaceflight isn't something for the impatient No what we do is wait... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shpaget Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 10 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said: So summarizing what we *think* we know: 10 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said: Not nuclear, We don't know that and can't know. Lack of evidence of something is not the proof of contrary. We just don't know. 10 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said: Doesn't weigh more than 10 tonnes, approx. What if intended trajectory was suborbital? Then the payload could have been heavier, up until the F9 thrust. 10 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said: 50 degree inclination... This one ok. 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.