Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SpaceX Successfully Launches Its First Spy Satellite (arstechnica.com)

Posted by msmash on from the going-forward dept.

SpaceX successfully launched NROL-76, a classified U.S. intelligence mission, from NASA's Kennedy Space Center Monday. Sunday's launch attempt was scrubbed due to a sensor issue. From a report: Not much is known about the National Reconnaissance Office's NROL-76 satellite, a classified payload, which will liftoff into low Earth orbit from Launch Complex 39A at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

65 comments

  1. The First Comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one welcome our new spying overlords.

    1. Re:The First Comment by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      'new'.

      Care to retry that with a more accurate adjective?

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    2. Re:The First Comment by The+Real+Dr+John · · Score: 1

      Yes, there is no cause for alarm when the spy agencies and billionaires get together with the military industrial complex to do things that must be kept absolutely secret from the American people. I feel so much calmer now. Move along, nothing to see here.

      --
      A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
  2. Blur by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    Song 2

    1. Re:Blur by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      yes

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Blur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sucks

    3. Re:Blur by Phusion · · Score: 1

      Wooo-hoooo!

      --
      640k ought to be enough for anyone.
  3. Good luck to ula by WindBourne · · Score: 0

    Seriously, Bruno continues to run ula like another MBA running Sears. Not a brain in him. He brings in more management while laying off engineers. Sad.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Good luck to ula by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You mightn't be aware, but ULA has been aggressively driving down the launch costs on the Atlas V. It's still not as cheap as Falcon 9, but it is a lot cheaper than it was a few years ago. Atlas V also has a much better reliability track record than F9 does and has fewer launch delays, which is worth something to the people with very expensive satellites.

      They are also working on a new rocket named Vulcan to reduce costs even further. There is only so much they can do however because their profits are fed back into the 2 companies that own ULA, instead of being purely spent on R&D for their own improvement. They are making profit for the companies that own them, effectively trying to swim with an anchor around their neck.

    2. Re:Good luck to ula by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      As with anything else, launch costs are driven down by free application of technology in a competitive market, not by whoever happens to be ahead at the moment.

    3. Re: Good luck to ula by oobayly · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Atlas has a great record, but then it's the result of decades of experience and government contracts. SpaceX have under a decade of launch experience.

      And Boeing and Lockheed are really struggling due to the military being so careful about defence spending. Yeah, that business must be a real millstone...

    4. Re:Good luck to ula by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      no, I am VERY aware.
      Bruno cut the old upper management and now has brought in his cronies and pays them MORE. So, to pay for that, he is cutting engineers at a frightening rate.
      Those engineers are needed for ACE and other launch vehicles. In particular, capturing the engines from vulcan and then rebuilding a new rocket is just looney tunes.

      As to the safety record of Atlas V vs F9, that is true. The Atlas V has had 1 partial failure. The F9 has 1 partial and 1 failed launch, which is 1 more than Atlas. They DID have an explosion on the pad, but that was not during a launch. The fact that the payload was on there, was the fault of the customers, who INSISTED that it be there.
      As to delays, not a big deal. RIght now,they appear to be launching at the rate of 1.5-2 / month. In addition, it appears that they will be launching 3 / month towards the end of this year. OTOH, ULA has never launched more than 1 / month, and less than 11 / year. Not that impressive.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    5. Re:Good luck to ula by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They are making profit for the companies that own them"

      Do you think SpaceX is doing it for free? I don't doubt that they're maintaining some slim margins to get their foot into the market but they obviously intend to make a profit. ULA's (and their parent companies before them) problem is that their focus for decades has been reliability and profit. Innovation and launch costs have been secondary considerations if they were considered at all. The only thing that woke them up was the entry of competitors (SpaceX, Blue Origin, etc) who considered all four factors. Could they leverage their massive amounts of experience and talent to compete with or even beat the newcomers? Sure. Will they? Based on their efforts so far that is looking rather unlikely. Vulcan is a joke, and they've managed to scuttle every reusable concept that has came across their desks over the past two decades.

    6. Re:Good luck to ula by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The question is, would they have done ANYTHING if spacex/blueorigin/virgin/etc hadn't started? I kinda doubt it.

    7. Re:Good luck to ula by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sounds more like Mike Gass, the MBA-ish guy who "stepped down" (was fired?) once it became clear SpaceX was a real threat. Bruno seems to be interested in innovating instead of just coasting on inertia.

  4. Another nailed landing by MrLogic17 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The 1st stage landed at LZ1 again. I believe this was a new booster on this launch (as opposed to a "flight proven" stage).

    These landing are becoming so routine that it's almost boring. Almost.

    Also,the live feed this time around showed a ground based view of the first stage from launch, to separation, to boost back burn, to landing. Some very long stretches of single shots. Clear weather made for a very interesting perspective!

    1. Re:Another nailed landing by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      Yes! The weather really worked out for a great view. Loved seeing the reentry burn from the ground perspective.

    2. Re: Another nailed landing by oobayly · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah, watching the stage separate and seeing the RCS yaw it around for boostback was pretty cool.

      It's was interesting to see the vibration caused by the stage in the distance. You can understand why the cameras on the barge cut out on landing.

    3. Re:Another nailed landing by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      It is very impressive to be able to recover the 1st stage. Amazing engineering!

    4. Re:Another nailed landing by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      I hope they continue the live views after they get all the bugs worked out.

      Back when all the networks dropped NASA because they had made it so boring streaming services didn't exist. Today anyone with a decent net connection can watch instead of just whatever the networks deem worthy to show us.

      So i'd think they will be able to maintain the same viewership numbers.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    5. Re:Another nailed landing by EvilSS · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here's the launch/landing video if anyone missed it live: https://youtu.be/EzQpkQ1etdA

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    6. Re:Another nailed landing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the link! The SpaceX webcasts are so much better when they're low-key like that. Half they time they feature a bunch of millennials trying to turn the launch into an iCarly episode. This one was how they should all be done.

    7. Re:Another nailed landing by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the link! The SpaceX webcasts are so much better when they're low-key like that. Half they time they feature a bunch of millennials trying to turn the launch into an iCarly episode. This one was how they should all be done.

      SpaceX has been publishing two versions of its video launch coverage for a while now. The primary coverage has the talking heads, but there's also what they call the "technical" stream, which is just the launch net chatter.

  5. Thanks Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds greeeeeeeat!

  6. Re:Will they also launch weaponized satellites by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 1

    I haven't bough anything from Tesla in my life, but I don't think he gets the message.

    --
    Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
  7. Elon Musk then can have has stuff taken when we go by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Elon Musk then can have has stuff taken when we go to work and government takes his stuff over.

  8. Re:Will they also launch weaponized satellites by Topwiz · · Score: 1

    So you are proposing that a business refuse to service a customer because they don't support their lifestyle.

  9. Failing SpaceX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    They only recovered the first stage. All the rest wasted. SAD!

    1. Re:Failing SpaceX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better than ULA, Arianespace or Russians who just let the entire first stage land in the ocean as well. It sounds like SpaceX is planning on a second stage recovery with the Falcon Heavy.

      Let me know when ULA or Arianaspace recover anything from their launches, then we can talk about how the rest is wasted.

    2. Re:Failing SpaceX by MrLogic17 · · Score: 1

      So anything less than perfection is a failure. Gotcha.

      Dude, come on. They have the BEST reuse of rocket parts of any flying rocket on the planet. That's sad?

      Plus, at least with the previous launch, they are recovering that fairings. And there are plans for 2nd stage recovery, but that's a ways off.

    3. Re:Failing SpaceX by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Wow, way to go with the total lack of sense of humour!!

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    4. Re:Failing SpaceX by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They only recovered the first stage. All the rest wasted. SAD!

      Funny, but the truth is that everybody at SpaceX agrees with this!

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  10. The Next SpaceX Launch ( Score: +5, Good) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Should launch so-called President Chump on a one-way mission to Mars.

    On Mars, he can scream all he wants about his stupid executive orders which are nothing buy temper tantrums for the exorcisms of his madness.

    Yours In Democracy,
    Kilgore Trout

    1. Re: The Next SpaceX Launch ( Score: +5, Good) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      did the delicate Trumpkin snowflake get singed by the fiery wit?

    2. Re: The Next SpaceX Launch ( Score: +5, Good) by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      That's funny.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  11. A spy satellite...that you tell people about? by TheOuterLinux · · Score: 2

    I would say that's kind of stupid, but there are plenty of complacent, "nothing to hide" kind of people that don't care about privacy anyway.

    1. Re:A spy satellite...that you tell people about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You can't hide a space launch of a full sized satellite, and trying would just make people more curious about what's going on. On top of that satellites aren't exactly the most stealthy things either, your average backyard astronomer can spot/track them.

    2. Re:A spy satellite...that you tell people about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The NRO has been declassified for like 25 years now; what they do is not classified, HOW they do it is, hence the lack of payload information.

    3. Re:A spy satellite...that you tell people about? by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

      I watched the launch and landing and while they didn't say much about the payload you can discern i.e. engage in some bullshit conjecturing about a couple of things immediately.

      1. Since the booster landed back at LZ-1 and not out at sea you can infer its final orbit, it's likely at or plus a couple of miles of the ISS. Otherwise the stage 1 would have given it a much bigger push and would have needed to land out at sea.

      2. Since this was a F9 full thrust it's max to LEO is ~22T. Also we know what the max fairing size of an F9 is 13m long by 5.2m. Beyond that, knowing the scale of the F9 makes it easy to estimate weight, length and diameter. of the satellite.

      Now, as for the type of spy satellite, good question. Though my completely uninformed and uneducated guess is that it probably wasn't optical. I base this completely baseless argument on the idea that lenses are lenses and you can't cheat the laws of physics. You need a large aperture to gather lots of light. However, considering the many communications satellites that SpaceX has lofted in fairings that from a thumbs measure look about the same size, a decent sized satellite just bristling with antennae would fit nicely on a Falcon 9 and would be very happy working in LEO sniffing out stray emissions.

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    4. Re:A spy satellite...that you tell people about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds legit.

      I wonder what the logistics of putting a Stingray in space would be. It's need a powerful transceiver to be able to fake being closer than terrestrial towers so that's probably not what this sateliate is, but it makes for an awesome conspiracy theory so remember this next time your phone's signal spikes briefly before dropping down a bar.

    5. Re:A spy satellite...that you tell people about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I wonder what the logistics of putting a Stingray in space would be.

      You mean for that entire 30 seconds it's over the part of the ground you are targeting? Airplanes and helicopters are more suitable and cheaper for this.

      NRO tends to do things a bit more..quietly. Geospatial intelligence is what they do, not stingray crap. You leave that stuff to the local yokels on the ground.

      This satellite is likely used for either optical/radar observation or SIGINT. Given the weight, I'd say radar or SIGINT.

  12. Re:Will they also launch weaponized satellites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The scary thing is that an agency launching a weaponized satellite would probably hide that fact by using the cover of another agency like the National Reconnaissance Office, and calling it an "intelligence mission".

  13. Re:Will they also launch weaponized satellites by MrLogic17 · · Score: 1

    Weaponized? Why do you say that?
    This was a classified mission, but no payload details. Do you have access to some classified information that we don't?

    Don't spread rumors if all you have is FUD.

  14. Re:Will they also launch weaponized satellites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I could afford it, I'd buy two Teslas.

    Spying is what helped keep the Cold War from turning hot.

  15. well, aside for SIGINT... by Thud457 · · Score: 2

    spy satellites are only a problem if you go outdoors. So this affects 0 people on slashdot.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re: well, aside for SIGINT... by oobayly · · Score: 1

      "All we can ascertain from satellite reconnaissance is that he was doesn't keep it on the roof" - FBI agent regarding the trillion dollar bill.

    2. Re:well, aside for SIGINT... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah all they need to do to see indoors is tap your wi-fi signals

    3. Re:well, aside for SIGINT... by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      WRONG. This was a radio satellite designed to spy on you even if you stay indoors.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
  16. Re:Will they also launch weaponized satellites by known_coward_69 · · Score: 2

    yeah, they will. Because the government pays good money and once you get into the circle of trust it's a nice flow of cash to build the business

  17. Re:Will they also launch weaponized satellites by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    They need to design ICBM stages that land so they can be reused in our next nuclear conflict.

  18. Re:Will they also launch weaponized satellites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The F9 , technically, IS an ICBM... under ITAR restrictions no less.

  19. Re:Will they also launch weaponized satellites by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    Just not a very useful one. ICBMs need to be launched at a moment's notice. No time to fuel them up before launch.

  20. Re:Will they also launch weaponized satellites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, the payload consists of a multiple number of short-duration/high-boost LEO-to-ground thermonuclear warheads intended for extremely rapid first-strike capabilities vs Russia/China.

  21. Sonic booms by TheSync · · Score: 1

    If SpaceX gets up to the launch cadence they want, I suspect the locals will start to get mad the sonic booms of landings... (listen here: https://youtu.be/ApH_mRXwpT0?t... or here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...)

    1. Re:Sonic booms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Space Shuttle had the same problem with sonic booms, no? I'm sure the locals on the space coast aren't minding the boom to the local economy with the resumption of regular space launches and landings at Canaveral.

    2. Re:Sonic booms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad, NASA built in the middle of nowhere on an old Air force base/Naval base that had been in operation since the 40s. If people decided to buy/build in an area where they knew rocket activity would be taking place that's their problem.

    3. Re:Sonic booms by TheSync · · Score: 1

      I believe that KSC had an average of 2.5 shuttle landings per year from 1981-2011. So indeed, the locals know a bit about sonic booms, but if SpaceX is going to launch once per month, that is quite an increase.

      I also suspect the sonic boom of the Falcon 9 first stage is worse because it is basically coming right at KSC, whereas the boom of the Shuttle is spread out over its flight across Florida. The downward trajectory of the F9 booster may focus the boom to some extent.

  22. Patches! by DarthVain · · Score: 2

    OK I was going to write something funny and stupid, but when I looked up the Wiki page for some additional information I found something much more interesting. They make a launch patch seemingly for every single launch, of which there have been a lot! Some are hilarious, others sort of menacingly inappropriate, others just cool artwork. Honestly some of them could be a bit more ambiguous if they are supposed to be "classified" spy satellites... I mean when your patch is a sailing ship with an angry looking eye over top, I mean people can guess the purpose... Also did they all go to evil art school? Apparently not all of them, because some look like they were designed by a 10 year old and MS paint. Interesting to look at anyway!

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

  23. Re:Will they also launch weaponized satellites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously, he means the The ACME Orbital Anvil Launch System

  24. tucked away at some undisclosed location in Nevada by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    So we're going to start seeing a lot of Elon, who is going to start letting his fingernails grow and collecting his urine in bottles?

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  25. Re:tucked away at some undisclosed location in Nev by The+Real+Dr+John · · Score: 1

    ...and sterilizing Campbell's soup cans before opening them and watching old movies over and over, and... yes.

    --
    A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
  26. Re:Will they also launch weaponized satellites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you want to build and launch a orbital weapons platform you certainly do not need to use nukes. A projectile launched from orbit composed of nothing but iron or depleted uranium and covered in an ablative covering for atmospheric passage will deliver enough kinetic energy to match a nuclear warhead without all the residual radiation. Of course the best orbital weapons platform is one capable of taking out your enemies satellites at the start of the conflict. The vast majority of military and spy satellites are unreachable form any ground based missile system. But if you have a vehicle in orbit capable of changing it's orbital trajectories can take target enemy satellites with impunity. As of now there is only one country that already has this capability. Search on X-37B for the details.

  27. Re:Will they also launch weaponized satellites by budgenator · · Score: 1

    The launch was for NRO, National Reconaissance Office, they,

    Monitoring the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction
    Tracking international terrorists, drug traffickers, and criminal organizations
    Developing highly accurate military targeting data and bomb damage assessments
    Supporting international peacekeeping and humanitarian relief operations
    Assessing the impact of natural disasters, such as earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, and fires.
    NRO - What We Do

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds