Zuma Discussion

[tater]

8 hours ago, Racescort666 said:

Stealth is something that some of the more hype-y blogs have been talking about. In truth, stealth in space just isn't practical in some regard but there are a lot of ways that it doesn't necessarily need to be. Even if the orbit and location of the spacecraft is unknown temporarily, that still might be useful for the mission. 

In a sci fi sense stealth is nonsense. It’s not nonsense for mitigating the radar and optical signature of small satellites, however.

Edited January 14, 2018 by tater

[YNM]

11 hours ago, PB666 said:

They would of hear the planned reentry of the F92s

 

8 hours ago, PakledHostage said:

... If someone is listening for that re-entry using infrasound detectors or whatever, then so be it; it would be coming down anyway.

From investigation PoV that's more than enough. Not to mention other "sounds".

[kerbiloid]

If this were a really secret experiment, why so much solemnity? "a top secret Zuma, nobody never-never knows what is it", so on.
Why not just a "special payload in the interest of the Government"?

[magnemoe]

2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

If this were a really secret experiment, why so much solemnity? "a top secret Zuma, nobody never-never knows what is it", so on.
Why not just a "special payload in the interest of the Government"?

It was it is however it draw media attention for multiple reasons, first an weird abort and long delay, after the spectacular launch in California and just before falcon heavy, 
Had the first launch gone as planned few would noticed.

[Shpaget]

18 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

 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.
 

Internal investigation.

BTW, what is OMB?

18 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

 

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 necessarily. Deorbit with an unplanned sat stuck to it may not be a nominal mission, but SpaceX never said the mission was nominal, only the F9 performance, so if there was a problem with separation, the mission profile would certainly change, but the upper stage and its Merlin engine could still perform nominally, an that is what SpeceX said happened. They never mention cargo or mission, only their own hardware. If the mission changed due to some outside event, it does not mean their hardware performed outside of what would be considered nominal.

Upper stage once in orbit has a certain impulse (not specific impulse, but impulse of force) available. Usually it's enough for decent deorbit, but if it is hampered with unexpected mass, it may not achieve the same trajectory, but it will still produce the same impulse, and that is what SpaceX said happened - F9 performed nominally - as expected given the mass it has to push around.

[kerbiloid]

If a passenger broke a leg after getting out from the taxi, is his trip successful from the driver's pov?

Edited January 14, 2018 by kerbiloid

[DDE]

6 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

If this were a really secret experiment, why so much solemnity? "a top secret Zuma, nobody never-never knows what is it", so on.
Why not just a "special payload in the interest of the Government"?

If you're then going to declare it lost, creating a louder kerfuffle in advance about it makes sense.

Plus it's one of three sats, ever, that have been launched with this degree of secrecy.

[Shpaget]

25 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

If a passenger broke a leg after getting out from the taxi, is his trip successful from the driver's pov?

Irrelevant since SpaceX never said the mission was successful.

They said the F9 operated nominally, which translated to your analogy is a "yes" - the taxi car would have operated nominally regardless of the passenger braking his leg or not due to his clumsiness.

[GoSlash27]

1 hour ago, Shpaget said:

Internal investigation.

BTW, what is OMB?

Schpaget,
 Office of Management and Budget. They're the ones who would normally investigate "failures" like this.

1 hour ago, Shpaget said:

Not necessarily. Deorbit with an unplanned sat stuck to it may not be a nominal mission, but SpaceX never said the mission was nominal, only the F9 performance, so if there was a problem with separation, the mission profile would certainly change, but the upper stage and its Merlin engine could still perform nominally, an that is what SpeceX said happened.

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.
 

[Shpaget]

Thanks.
If the second stage managed to deorbit with the sat attached (after Northrop acknowledged the failure and the owner gave the go ahead for deorbit), that could still have been deemed a success on SpaceX's part of the deal.

Furthermore, even if we agree and accept that "Falcon 9 did everything correctly on Sunday night",  but what about Monday morning?

I am trying to make a distinction between mission parameters and hardware performance. If the sat failed to separate but F9 operated as intended (correct burn times and vectors) but the trajectory is not as planned, I do not consider that as anything other than "Falcon 9 did everything correctly". Just because somebody else didn't do their part, it doesn't mean SpaceX is to blame or that their hardware failed to perform.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm playing a devils advocate here.  I'm trying to read between the lines for the sake of argument.

My position is that we just have no clue what is going on.

[DDE]

1 hour ago, Shpaget said:

Irrelevant since SpaceX never said the mission was successful.

They said the F9 operated nominally, which translated to your analogy is a "yes" - the taxi car would have operated nominally regardless of the passenger braking his leg or not due to his clumsiness.

Moreover, if we take a look at Roscosmos, everything post-third stage is considered to be the fault of the tug (and its manufacturers) and not the launcher, even though by all accounts it's just a fourth stage.

[YNM]

2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

If a passenger broke a leg after getting out from the taxi, is his trip successful from the driver's pov?

Who knows that it's actually been broken since the start ?

But in reality for your analogy : maybe not. On some of the more strict side of land transport (called "railways"), fatalities of the network also consider fatalities due to simply falling within the terminal, or their staff killed en route (even if it's actually not on the network; ie. on the "road"). So I'd say that it depends.

 

But yeah. I think we all are just speculating... For pure pedanticity, some parts of the mission is back on land as intended; some stayed in orbit as intended; and some went down on sea as intended or not. What parts are they are guesses.

Edited January 14, 2018 by YNM

[PB666]

4 hours ago, Shpaget said:

BTW, what is OMB?

OMB if fed is budget, the are charged with making sure the government spends its money according to law (Sort of, in extreme political environments its really the opposition party that states the case, and if they are weak or abdicate their responsibility then . . .)

[tater]

OMB is the Office of Management and Budget. It's a principal part of the Executive branch of US government. As a result, it serves the President.

[StrandedonEarth]

On 1/13/2018 at 12:24 AM, Shpaget said:

Everything else is speculation based on rumors.

More like rumors based on speculation. Or six of one and half-a-dozen of the other.

Edited January 14, 2018 by StrandedonEarth

[GoSlash27]

10 hours ago, Shpaget said:

Don't get me wrong, I'm playing a devils advocate here.  I'm trying to read between the lines for the sake of argument.

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.

10 hours ago, Shpaget said:

My position is that we just have no clue what is going on.

 That goes without saying. The entire purpose of this thread is speculation because none of us know anything and we probably never will [snip]

[GoSlash27]

A helpful quote from the WaPo:

U.S. Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.), who said he received a “preliminary briefing,” had two concerns about the possible loss of the satellite.

“One is the loss of the intelligence that would have been available,” he said. “The second concern is the reliability of the delivery systems. And that issue is being debated between the contractors, SpaceX and the satellite manufacturer, Northrop.”

 This is why they don't like to brief congress- critters: They talk too much.

Best,
-Slashy

 

 

[PB666]

6 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

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 

 

The secrecy of a mission may have as much or more residual value as the function of a mission.

[snip]

[tater]

32 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

A helpful quote from the WaPo:

U.S. Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.), who said he received a “preliminary briefing,” had two concerns about the possible loss of the satellite.

“One is the loss of the intelligence that would have been available,” he said. “The second concern is the reliability of the delivery systems. And that issue is being debated between the contractors, SpaceX and the satellite manufacturer, Northrop.”

 This is why they don't like to brief congress- critters: They talk too much.

Best,
-Slashy

 

 

Like the Congress guy who publicly stated that IJN destroyers set the depth on their depth charges too shallow, and out boats just safely cruised beneath them... 

was quickly picked up, and they set them deeper.

[PB666]

5 minutes ago, tater said:

Like the Congress guy [getting back to our modern counterpart]

Who preliminarily briefed him, the DoD or his ex-intern (adding plausibly [who just happens to be a Russian spy])

The point about hype is that once you dive into it you can't control its direction. Its best not to dive in.

[GoSlash27]

1 hour ago, PB666 said:

Who preliminarily briefed him, the DoD or his ex-intern (adding plausibly [who just happens to be a Russian spy])

The point about hype is that once you dive into it you can't control its direction. Its best not to dive in.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

Best,
-Slashy

1 hour ago, tater said:

Like the Congress guy who publicly stated that...

Yup. Like all the congress- critters who like to show off their status by publicly commenting on classified matters. Plus, this one has it in for SpaceX, so he's always looking for a reason to blame them, even if "it" isn't their fault.

 Put 'em together, and he blabs to the press that Zuma is (was?) an intelligence gathering satellite. Which I kinda figured anyway.. This is just a supporting data point.

[PB666]

4 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

Best,
-Slashy

Yup. Like all the congress- critters who like to show off their status by publicly commenting on classified matters. Plus, this one has it in for SpaceX, so he's always looking for a reason to blame them, even if "it" isn't their fault.

 Put 'em together, and he blabs to the press that Zuma is (was?) an intelligence gathering satellite. Which I kinda figured anyway.. This is just a supporting data point.

[snip]

The disclosure may support a point if you understand the motive for saying as such, you also understand that he is privy to valid information, and that his motives and the public motive are shared.  We can apply the logic to the code-breakers of the Enigma machine, lets say that for a day or two it failed to generate transcription and some politician saw it of value to say, look the machine does not work so that I will publicly disclose it. In that case the secrecy of the code breaking IS AS IMPORTANT as the code breaking machine itself if not more so. because once it is disclosed then so it is also the case that the Enigma users will convert those machines to some other behavior.  The reason it is more-so is because your enemy now sees a weakness in your system. So if he can figure out what he did to break the machine for 2 days, he can send all real documents via the break and send false information in the previous state. Of course it is largely believed that the secrecy of the Enigma code-breaking machine was the most important weapon the Allies had in WWII.  Alternatively it could have become the most valuable weapon the Axis had once they find that an error in its operation was reported.

EDIT: I should point out that the more a person is willing to offer conspicuously unsolicited information (such as making themselves available to the media) for brief and less then informed comments, the more often they do so usually implies that they are trying to extract some political value (to themselves or their party) out of that 'disclosure'.

 

[GoSlash27]

PB666,

 Sorry, but this is all just a word salad to me. Can you explain it in plain English?

Best,
-Slashy

[PB666]

5 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

PB666,

 Sorry, but this is all just a word salad to me. Can you explain it in plain English?

Best,
-Slashy

It means you can hardly trust here-say information unless you have some other information about the validity context and reliability of the source. The context is what are his rights to full disclosure and what are is access to full truthful disclosure. If he got his briefing from an aid who talked to another aid, or heard from an ex-aid . . . .its not a reliable source. If he has made such public disclosures in the past, then his sources may be actively manipulated (for example one such president getting information from a Neo-pedant extremist living in another country). Again you should be using the propaganda tools you learned (if you learned) in grade school to filter comments made in the public space. To be properly informed...... the US polity is polarized to the extreme, this is not to say one side or the other side is more extreme, but either side can compromise the state for the sake of ideology without great concern of the public good. Knowing this and having dealt with the Wikileaks fiasco twice one has to question the validity of passed information that is further from the source than Wikileaks sources because greater protections obviously now are in place. The misconception is that someone is disclosing a failure of X as a public information service by leaking the potential may or may not be providing a service to the public, there is no assumption of reliability, and there is no assumption that he had, to begin with, accurate information. So the construct is

If [Source was close enough to problem to accurately describe] and if [the public source is reliable] and if [he has full motivation for disclosing framed information] then it could be another point of support.

[GoSlash27]

Here's an interesting possibility: ZUMA (an NSA SIGINT sat) actually was released into LEO and the Falcon 9 did perform nominally... but then ZUMA failed afterward and was left in a low, degrading orbit. Nobody knows where or when it will come down.
 It would, naturally, be to our advantage to not have our enemies aware of this fact. Obscuring this satellite's true fate would be helpful in the short term in that case.

 I think this fits best with the info we have at the moment.

Best,
-Slashy