|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
No Zuma Zombie
Regarding the success or failure of the Zuma launch...
The latest rumors seem to indicated that although the Falcon 9 launch was succesful, the newly designed Northrup/Grumman payload adapter failed. Preventing the satellite from separating from the F9 2nd stage and hence Zuma went down with it when the F9 2nd stage was de-orbited as part of the normal procedure so as to not clutter up LEO with spent stages. No confirmation from either SpaceX or Northrup/Grumman, nor will there be. But sparing some observation from the amateur sat watch network, more likely than not.... https://qz.com/1175393/zuma-satellit...ret-us-launch/ Dave |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
No Zuma Zombie
Maybe Zuma is gone, maybe it isn't:
"Rumors are swirling about the fate of a top-secret spacecraft, known as Zuma, which Northrop Grumman supposedly built for an unknown U.S. government agency and launched aboard a SpaceX Falcon-9 rocket on Jan. 7, 2018. There are a number of theories about what might have happened already circulating, but a fairly obvious one seems glaringly absent: that the satellite didn't crash at all and that it’s working as planned." See: http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone...as-intended-to |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
No Zuma Zombie
On Jan/13/2018 at 9:16 AM, Jeff Findley wrote :
In article , says... Maybe Zuma is gone, maybe it isn't: "Rumors are swirling about the fate of a top-secret spacecraft, known as Zuma, which Northrop Grumman supposedly built for an unknown U.S. government agency and launched aboard a SpaceX Falcon-9 rocket on Jan. 7, 2018. There are a number of theories about what might have happened already circulating, but a fairly obvious one seems glaringly absent: that the satellite didn't crash at all and that it?s working as planned." See: http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone...as-intended-to Hard to say exactly, but from the people that have talked a bit about it (Congressional staffers leaking that the mission failed to the press), I'd say it failed. It's quite unlikely that whoever owns this thing in the US Government would lie to Congress and it's unlikely that Congressional staffers would leak a lie. They wouldn't lie to congress, but they would give incomplete and misleading information. Someone who doesn't know what happened to the mission can tell a few congressmen that he doesn't know what happened and can't establish contact with the spacecraft. It can also be a little more removed. People working at the right agency making sure that they are overheard by someone who is going to talk to people at congress. Disseminating false information without breaking the law is a skill that is well developed in some circles. Alain Fournier |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
No Zuma Zombie
As I mentioned over on the A-Rocket mailing list. If the amateur
satellite tracking community finds it then I'd say it was a success at least in the sense that it achieved orbit. Rumors based on Congressional leakage is that it did not. If no sightings are found by the tracking community I'd say that pretty well sums it up as a failure. If the rumored price tag for Zuma is correct, I'd say likely two things: 1) It was a fairly big payload. 2) Too expenive to be a cover for something else. Also based on SpaceX's reaction, I'd say also not likely a failure due to anything SpaceX was responsbile for. Otherwise we'd see launch delays. So far it appears to be full speed ahead. Dave |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
No Zuma Zombie
On Jan/13/2018 at 4:45 PM, David Spain wrote :
As I mentioned over on the A-Rocket mailing list. If the amateur satellite tracking community finds it then I'd say it was a success at least in the sense that it achieved orbit. Rumors based on Congressional leakage is that it did not. If no sightings are found by the tracking community I'd say that pretty well sums it up as a failure. Stealth technology does exist. If it's black, small and has a very small radar signature, and if you make a small orbit change with a cold gas thruster, it is very hard to spot it. Alain Fournier |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
No Zuma Zombie
In article , says...
As I mentioned over on the A-Rocket mailing list. If the amateur satellite tracking community finds it then I'd say it was a success at least in the sense that it achieved orbit. Rumors based on Congressional leakage is that it did not. If no sightings are found by the tracking community I'd say that pretty well sums it up as a failure. If the rumored price tag for Zuma is correct, I'd say likely two things: 1) It was a fairly big payload. 2) Too expenive to be a cover for something else. 1. I agree with the assertion that it is likely "fairly big". But, given the fairly high orbital inclination (50 some degrees) of the launch and the fact that the first stage returned for a landing at Cape Canaveral, that places a clear upper limit on the mass. This would be nowhere near the Falcon 9 fully expendable payload to a 28 something degree orbit in LEO, which would be the maximum. So, emphasis on "fairly" when saying "fairly big". 2. I agree with. Also based on SpaceX's reaction, I'd say also not likely a failure due to anything SpaceX was responsbile for. Otherwise we'd see launch delays. So far it appears to be full speed ahead. Speculation is that it is likely a failed payload adapter, which was not provided by SpaceX. I don't believe that there have been any failures of the "standard" SpaceX payload adapter. Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
No Zuma Zombie
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
No Zuma Zombie
JF Mezei wrote:
On 2018-01-13 09:16, Jeff Findley wrote: Hard to say exactly, but from the people that have talked a bit about it (Congressional staffers leaking that the mission failed to the press), I'd say it failed. It's quite unlikely that whoever owns this thing in the US Government would lie to Congress and it's unlikely that Congressional staffers would leak a lie. Is it likely the rocket lauched something else on top of Zuma, and that something else was succesfully deployed and Zuma failed? (either on purpose or by accident) ? Unlikely in the extreme. Assuming this had been a commercial launch of only 1 satellite, would SpaceX still get paid for bringing the payload where its contract stated it would bring it (and blame the payload folks for failiure to detach from stage 2) ? That depends. If the commercial satellite designed to the SpaceX interface documents so that a standard payload adapter could be used, then SpaceX is responsible. If, on the other hand, things were like they were with Zuma, where L-M designed and built a specialized payload adapter and that's where the failure was, then SpaceX did what they were contracted to do and they get paid. Also, in a military launch, would regular SpaceX staff man the control room for both stage I and 2, or would stage 2 and satellite deployment switch to some miliatry staff control room so SpaceX not involved in actual secret deployments ? SpaceX would control the mission. While I am at it: would super secret milirary launch still have various cameras on board to monitor success/failures (buit not brodcasted publicly, of course) or would the confidential nature of it preclude any video feeds from the rocket ? Maybe yes, maybe no. -- You have never lived until you have almost died. Life has a special meaning that the protected will never know. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
No Zuma Zombie
On Jan/14/2018 at 9:28 AM, Jeff Findley wrote :
In article , says... On Jan/13/2018 at 4:45 PM, David Spain wrote : As I mentioned over on the A-Rocket mailing list. If the amateur satellite tracking community finds it then I'd say it was a success at least in the sense that it achieved orbit. Rumors based on Congressional leakage is that it did not. If no sightings are found by the tracking community I'd say that pretty well sums it up as a failure. Stealth technology does exist. You simply can't completely hide the thermal signature of a satellite. If it's "doing something useful" then it's producing and using energy which means it's radiating heat (you can't escape the laws of thermodynamics). You could theoretically do things like limit thermal radiation emissions towards earth, but that would mean it is radiating heat away from earth. So, it would still be quite visible from the vantage point of, say, a GEO orbit. So, it would likely still be visible to "our enemies". So what would the point be exactly? If it's black, small and has a very small radar signature, and if you make a small orbit change with a cold gas thruster, it is very hard to spot it. Hard, but not at all impossible. It will emit infrared radiation. Also, with radar, we can currently track orbital debris down to about 4 inches (10 cm) in size. It's almost certain our enemies can do the same. Not all enemies. DAECH doesn't have satellites to observe heat radiated away from Earth. In fact, most countries don't have that capability. Even countries with GEO satellites, will usually have them for things like telecommunications, not for detection of stealth satellites. Yes, several countries could detect such a satellite if they worked hard to do so. But few countries do work hard on that. Of course, it is entirely possible that Zuma fell to the Indian ocean. Alain Fournier |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
SpaceX Zuma | Arc Michael | Misc | 0 | January 10th 18 02:18 AM |
Physics Like a Zombie | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 3 | October 9th 17 07:51 AM |
CLAUSIUS ZOMBIE WORLD IS MORE FUNDAMENTAL THAN EINSTEIN ZOMBIE WORLD | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 4 | September 12th 08 02:51 PM |
TRUTH IN THE CIA ZOMBIE WORLD | Ian Parker | Policy | 76 | September 9th 08 02:09 PM |
Zombie education at MIT | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 13 | September 4th 08 05:48 PM |