Zuma Discussion

[Vanamonde]

Modern politics may be relevant to the discussion, folks, but history has shown that it cannot be discussed politely on this forum. Therefore, some posts here have been edited or removed. Please stay away from that sort of thing. 

[NSEP]

 

[PB666]

8 hours ago, NSEP said:

 

I love the beginning,

Its the cannae drive!!!!!!!!

[DDE]

10 hours ago, PB666 said:

Its the cannae drive!!!!!!!!

Ayy lmao quantum vacuum!

[PB666]

11 hours ago, PB666 said:

I love the beginning,

Its the cannae drive!!!!!!!!

I cropped this from the video and found its source online

http://hubski.com/pub/399315
"

Quote

 

Think stuff like embargo-runners, e.g. embargo-breaking shipments of coal and oil to for example North Korea, illegal weapons exports from North Korea, oil exports from Syria, illicit weapons transports to the Middle East, and human trafficking as well as drugs shipments.

Ships engaged in such illegal activities sometimes turn off their transponder, making it harder to track their whereabouts once out of sight of landbased shipping radar (see also the story about one particular embargo-breaking ship here). The classified US NOSS duo ELINT satellites and similar Chinese Yaogan triplets are meant to track ships from passive radiosignal crosslocation, but when a ship displays strict radio silence, these systems will not detect them either. But Space-Based Radar will.

 

Quote

"I would have to direct you to SpaceX, who conducted the launch.

This was a quote from a government official who had a kind of a queer smile in the corner of her mouth when she said it, its one of the slip things, like people shaking their head "no" when they are lying.

[monstah]

12 minutes ago, PB666 said:

Space-Based Radar

Yeah, but, wouldn't blasting Earth with radio waves from above be the opposite of stealth? It might locate one ship... but then detectors in a whole hemisphere will suddenly ask themselves, "what is that radio-screaming thing... oh, right. So, there it is."

[Hannu2]

27 minutes ago, PB666 said:

This was in quote from another source:

"But Space-Baser Radar will"

It would be futile to try to keep a radar satellite as classified as Zuma. There are many reconnaissance ships of other countries on oceans and they would detect the radar satellite immediately it pass over and try to scan ocean.

[PB666]

12 minutes ago, monstah said:

Yeah, but, wouldn't blasting Earth with radio waves from above be the opposite of stealth? It might locate one ship... but then detectors in a whole hemisphere will suddenly ask themselves, "what is that radio-screaming thing... oh, right. So, there it is."

If the monitoring space ship is not generating the radio waves then its passive. You can also use frequency modulation to make it difficult to locate the source. But then the other problem is that with a big hairy 'top' shaped shield how does one detect the waves passing through that.

Anyway I think its active defense not passive, my bets are that it is a weapon.

But to answer 1 question, at 51 degrees (sin 51 = 0.777) X extends the center of its range another 700 miles north, and this covers most of Russia.

[Hannu2]

8 minutes ago, PB666 said:

If the monitoring space ship is not generating the radio waves then its passive. You can also use frequency modulation to make it difficult to locate the source. But then the other problem is that with a big hairy 'top' shaped shield how does one detect the waves passing through that.

Anyway I think its active defense not passive, my bets are that it is a weapon.

But to answer 1 question, at 51 degrees (sin 51 = 0.777) X extends the center of its range another 700 miles north, and this covers most of Russia.

I do not think that USA attacks against Russians with illegal space weapon. That would give very little benefits but be a huge risk. At least it would lead to aggressive and insanely expensive race to launch weapons to space (with also China).

But how about some kind electromagnetic weapon which can temporarily block or disturb some important radio communications in North Korea?

[Just Jim]

I'm going to try and not be too political, but given everything I've read so far... if it still in orbit, and didn't burn up or anything, then my guess is it's a really new, super sophisticated camera, hovering right over Pyongyang.

[DDE]

56 minutes ago, monstah said:

Yeah, but, wouldn't blasting Earth with radio waves from above be the opposite of stealth? It might locate one ship... but then detectors in a whole hemisphere will suddenly ask themselves, "what is that radio-screaming thing... oh, right. So, there it is."

Assuming it's Zuma who's emitting them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_radar

Or it's equipped with a nuclear rector and the classified status is just to avoid the PR debacle.

[Canopus]

1 minute ago, DDE said:

Or it's equipped with a nuclear rector and the classified status is just to avoid the PR debacle.

I doubt they'd launch an RTG let alone a whole reactor on a Falcon 9.

[DDE]

12 minutes ago, Canopus said:

I doubt they'd launch an RTG let alone a whole reactor on a Falcon 9.

What's wrong with a reactor swiftly disappearing at the bottom of the Indian Ocean?

[monstah]

1 hour ago, DDE said:

Assuming it's Zuma who's emitting them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_radar

It was assuming that, yes:

2 hours ago, PB666 said:

but when a ship displays strict radio silence

[tater]

29 minutes ago, WildLynx said:

Reactor that was never started is pretty safe. Radiation levels are noticeable, but not lethal.

On other paw, RTG is dangerous from the start, especially when they use strontium instead of plutonium.

In case of plutonium RTG, the casing blocks all alpha radiation, if intact. If not ...

RTGs are never dangerous to launch.

If a rocket blows up, you put out the fire, pick up the RTG, and reuse it on the next spacecraft. They are incredibly durable.

They survived end-on impact tests at 57 m/s with no failures. At higher velocities, there were some internal failures, but not necessarily leakage. Those were solid surface impacts, not ocean. Actual losses of RTGs occurred, and their fuel was reused for subsequence spacecraft after being picked up off the bottom of the ocean.

Short of hitting granite at the maximum plausible velocity they might obtain by the point of impact, they are safe.

[DDE]

3 hours ago, tater said:

Actual losses of RTGs occurred, and their fuel was reused for subsequence spacecraft after being picked up off the bottom of the ocean.

OK, I need a link to throw at the anti-nuke people.

[Dfthu]

2 hours ago, DDE said:

OK, I need a link to throw at the anti-nuke people.

Looks like you can look up "Rocket crash with RTG" and you can find links. I would give you some but the stupid school blocker blocks the sites. this looks good thoughhttps://listverse.com/2012/01/20/top-10-space-age-radiation-incidents/

Edited January 16, 2018 by Dfthu

[tater]

https://fas.org/nuke/space/pu-ulysses.pdf

Quote

Concern  for  the  safety  of  RTGs  has  always  been  a part  of  the  U.S.  space  program,  and  design  of  the  RIGs  has  evolved  from  a health  protection  philosophy  of  "dilution"  and  "dispersion"  to  one  of  "containment".  The  earliest  plutonium  power  sources,  preceding  the  current  RIGs,  were  designed  to  burn  up  at  high  altitude.  One  power  source  fueling  a Navy  naviftional  satellite  did  burn  up  on  accidental  orbital  reentry  to  the  earth's  atmosphere,  leaving  17  ,000  curies  of  23  Pu  (about  3 pounds)  in  a dilute  band  around  the  Earth.  Since  then,  the  RIGs  have  been  designed to  contain  the  plutonium  in  case  of  an  accident.  The  238Pu  is encased  in  an  iridium  metal  shell  surrounded  by  two  graphite  shells,  and  these  are  inside  another modular  container  to  provide  further  protection.  Three  subsequent  accidents  served  to  prove  the  efficacy  of  the  multilayered  container  design  philosophy:  two  plutonium  heat  sources  were  recovered  after  they  landed  intact  in  the  Pacific  Ocean  in  1968  after  a weather  satellite  failed  to  reach  orbit,  and  their  fuel  was  used  in  a later  mission.  Another  heat  source  fell  into  the  South  Pacific  Ocean  after  separating  from  an  Apollo  13  command  module;  the  subsequent  search  turned  up  no  evidence  that  238Pu  was  released.  Only  if  an  RTG  hits  something  as  hard  as  granite  on  its  plunge  back  to  Earth,  or  if  it is  hit by  a shard  from  an  explosion  of  a solid  rocket  booster,  does  it  have  any  chance  of  fracturing.   

 

[KerikBalm]

So far what I can tell is that all we know is:

* the 2nd stage of the Falcon 9 did achieve orbit, and deorbited after over a full orbit.

* according to SpaceX, there was no problem with the Falcon 9.

Based on these facts, the null hypothesis should be that Zuma is in orbit. If its not it either had to 1) deorbit itself, or it 2) deorbited along with the 2nd stage.

* The government and Northrup won't officially comment one way or the other about whether it failed or not.

* We have no source for reports that it failed.

* From what I gather, the reports aren't even entirely consistent with each other, with the only commonality being that there was some failure that renders Zuma a loss.

These last 2 points mean that the reports are of little value unless there is corroborating evidence. One report mentioned a payload adapter failure. A payload adapter failure and a controlled deorbit along with 2nd stage to maintain security/secrecy seems to be the most likely failure scenario.

So, what would corroborating evidence be? Reentry of something that size would be hard to hide, but if it went in with the 2nd stage it could go unnoticed. So I don't see how we can differentiate between the possibilities on the basis of observations of the reentry

Satellites are generally fairly easy to spot and track. The X-37 was extensively tracked by amateurs even though it was highly secretive.

* No one has observed the Zuma satellite in orbit

Of course, absence of evidence != evidence of absence... but sometimes it kind of is... like if I look at an open box in a well lit room, an it appears empty, I can be pretty sure that there isn't a cat in there... the cat would have to be invisible, which is quite an extraordinary claim.

So I see 2 scenarios based on the available information:

1) There was a problem and they de-orbited the satellite (btw I'm going to assume most of the 1 billion cost was in R&D, and it wouldn't cost them 1 billion to build a replacement)

2) The satellite is "invisible". Hiding IR signatures from ground based observation shouldn't be too hard, and this is a scenario where directional radiation could work to hide from space based observation. Then its just down to hiding from visible light and Radar, which actually shouldn't be too hard and would use similar technology to what exists for stealth aircraft (and maybe some Vantablack?)

2) is obviously the more "fun" scenario

vvv  ***Warning, going off the deep-end into speculation*** vvv

A potential problem with 2) would be if its "stealth" characteristics degrade over time when exposed to high energy radiation, micro-meteorites, trace gas, etc. How long would it retain its stealth characteristics? Maybe thats what the X-37 spent all those years up there testing? One of the best (IMO) ideas was that it was testing various materials and how they held up to long term exposure to the environment of space?

 

[magnemoe]

5 hours ago, tater said:

RTGs are never dangerous to launch.

If a rocket blows up, you put out the fire, pick up the RTG, and reuse it on the next spacecraft. They are incredibly durable.

They survived end-on impact tests at 57 m/s with no failures. At higher velocities, there were some internal failures, but not necessarily leakage. Those were solid surface impacts, not ocean. Actual losses of RTGs occurred, and their fuel was reused for subsequence spacecraft after being picked up off the bottom of the ocean.

Short of hitting granite at the maximum plausible velocity they might obtain by the point of impact, they are safe.

Still true that an small un-started reactor is U238 and say 30% U235.
On the other hand this is only relevant for deep space missions, not something you bother to keep secret, in fact having Russia do the testing and launch would reduce US lawfare. 
This also apply to new RTG types. 
Some sort of stealth satellite makes sense, naturally neither Russia or China will say they saw it to keep US in the dark. 

[GoSlash27]

KerikBalm,

 A critical piece of information is that our .gov won't divulge which department ZUMA belongs to. That is critical because it's such a rare occurrence. The only department that is known to have done this in the past is NSA, so that points to the most likely mission as NSA SIGINT sat.

Best,
-Slashy

[PB666]

12 hours ago, tater said:

RTGs are never dangerous to launch.

If a rocket blows up, you put out the fire, pick up the RTG, and reuse it on the next spacecraft. They are incredibly durable.

They survived end-on impact tests at 57 m/s with no failures. At higher velocities, there were some internal failures, but not necessarily leakage. Those were solid surface impacts, not ocean. Actual losses of RTGs occurred, and their fuel was reused for subsequence spacecraft after being picked up off the bottom of the ocean.

Short of hitting granite at the maximum plausible velocity they might obtain by the point of impact, they are safe.

The radiation from an RTG would go unnoted in any ocean, there are constant leaks of radon from the ocean floor.

[KerikBalm]

8 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

KerikBalm,

 A critical piece of information is that our .gov won't divulge which department ZUMA belongs to. That is critical because it's such a rare occurrence. The only department that is known to have done this in the past is NSA, so that points to the most likely mission as NSA SIGINT sat.

Best,
-Slashy

Is it really that critical? It doesn't seem to be relevant to the possibility that it failed or that it succeeded - only what its purpose may be.

I doubt its a weaponized sat. Its high inclination would make it useful for surveillance. If it was "stealth" then it would also be better for surveillance, because then the ones that you want to observe won't know when it is overhead and when it is not overhead.

Then we have that statement that implies if we lost it we'd be losing intelligence. Its highly likely that it was some sort of surveillance sat, but does that inform us about the possibility of success or failure? I think it does not.

[GoSlash27]

26 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

Its highly likely that it was some sort of surveillance sat, but does that inform us about the possibility of success or failure? I think it does not.

KerikBalm,
 It does make some theories seem less likely, such as payloads that were intended to reenter.

Best,
-Slashy

 

Edited January 17, 2018 by GoSlash27

[Hannu2]

43 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

KerikBalm,
 It does make some theories seem less likely, such as payloads that were intended to reenter.

Best,
-Slashy

 

Maybe. But on the other hand, we can not be sure that such leak is not intentional disinformation. It is probably quite easy to organize that SpaceX says something, Northrop something else, some politician says something "accidentally" and official authorities does not say anything.

What I wonder is against who that kind of security measures are really intended. Probably all other major states know exactly is Zuma on orbit and they can track it from launch to the end of mission. I do not believe in such stealth technology which would hide a satellite from advanced military radars on Earth and on orbit. And I believe that major states leak that information to smaller states too, which are involved to conflicts with USA, if there are reasons to expect that the satellite has something to do with them.

It is possible to confuse interested people some time, but I do not see why. In my opinion some kind of re-entry testing or other very short lived mission, like quick testing of some kind of electromagnetic weapon against test target on Ocean, sounds more credible, because other states see that there is no new satellite but they can not distinguish it from failed separation. But of course I know that I can not think with such paranoid way, which is typical for security authorities.