Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Rumors Swirl That Secret Zuma Satellite Launched By SpaceX Was Lost (scientificamerican.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the top-secret dept.

Many media outlets are reporting that the U.S. government's top-secret Zuma satellite may have run into some serious problems during or shortly after its Sunday launch. Zuma was launched atop a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket from Florida's Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Sunday evening -- a launch that also featured a successful landing back on Earth by the booster's first stage. While everything seemed fine at the time, rumors began swirling within the spaceflight community that something had happened to Zuma. "According to one source, the payload fell back to Earth along with the spent upper stage of the Falcon 9 rocket," Ars Technica's Eric Berger wrote. Scientific American reports: To be clear: There is no official word of any bad news, just some rumblings to that effect. And the rocket apparently did its job properly, SpaceX representatives said. "We do not comment on missions of this nature, but as of right now, reviews of the data indicate Falcon 9 performed nominally," company spokesman James Gleeson told Space.com via email. Space.com also reached out to representatives of aerospace company Northrop Grumman, which built Zuma for the U.S. government. "This is a classified mission. We cannot comment on classified missions," Northrop Grumman spokesman Lon Rains said via email. All we know about the satellite itself is that it was destined for a low-Earth orbit and built for the U.S. government. We will update this story if we hear anything else about Zuma's status.

95 of 171 comments (clear)

  1. It may be lost .. it may be not by sTERNKERN · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If I was a secret agency with an agenda and everybody watched my satellite being sent up into space I'd claim it was lost, too.

    1. Re:It may be lost .. it may be not by MrKaos · · Score: 4, Funny

      If I was a secret agency with an agenda and everybody watched my satellite being sent up into space I'd claim it was lost, too.

      Maybe it's fake news.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    2. Re:It may be lost .. it may be not by AHuxley · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Smart people around the world have learned to look for the extra "darkness" of a US sat thats trying to hide.
      No new darkness, no new bright light ? No new sat? Did they get it just right this time?
      Misty (satellite) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:It may be lost .. it may be not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If I was the head of a secret agency with an agenda that just watched my multi-billion dollar spy satellite burn up in orbit due to my own agency's extreme incompetence I'd proudly declare that it was a complete loss and instruct my mockingbird CIA puppets in the media to call anyone who said otherwise a conspiracy theorist.
      Then I'd go have a drink and give myself a raise.

    4. Re:It may be lost .. it may be not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Depends on who is making the claim it was lost, if it was the Govt, then i would say possible cover up. If it was neutral 3rd parties that might have been monitoring the launch then there might be some truth to it. For example you could have been following the launch with a telescope and see the upper stage blow up in space. Though thats not to say that the upper stage couldn't have had multiple components, one piece designed as a decoy to blow up, while the real payload continued on is way. Would make it seem to a witness on the ground that something wrong happened, while the actual payload continued safely on its way.

    5. Re:It may be lost .. it may be not by AHuxley · · Score: 4, Insightful

      AC if it was a 100% gov/mil project then its cool to just try again. Nobody would know.

      The problem now is the private sector wants to claim its been successful for their role.
      So other projects have faith in their ability to put their things into space without fall apart.
      It got into space at the right location and time. The private sector did everything correct and then something after it moved away and became a gov/mil project?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    6. Re:It may be lost .. it may be not by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      If they have nearly unlimited resources to hide or obfuscate something, there is basically no way to know. It doesn't matter what they say, does it work, does it not work, what does it do, what does it not do. We can't know, because anything could be another layer of the cover story.

      Same as it always was.

    7. Re:It may be lost .. it may be not by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      They didn't say it got into space at the right time or location, they only said the rocket operated nominally.

    8. Re: It may be lost .. it may be not by icebike · · Score: 1

      Oh, hey, how about a Senate hearing? That will convince that crazy Kim nork that it's gone.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    9. Re:It may be lost .. it may be not by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2

      Hopefully the US is building a Rods from God kinetic bombardment system with all those secret launches.

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

      The God Emperor will smite North Korean rockets with his mind! With our mind! My cup runneth over!

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    10. Re:It may be lost .. it may be not by fred911 · · Score: 5, Informative

      "It may have had it's own thrusters that failed to operate after separation from the rocket"

      Except that Northrop Grumman provided its own payload adapter for this mission and wasn't SpaceX's design, nor their responsibility.

      https://www.theverge.com/2018/...
      "So what actually happened? No one is saying for certain, but there are a couple scenarios in which the Falcon 9 could have performed as it was supposed to and the spacecraft didnâ(TM)t deploy correctly. Typically, SpaceX uses its own hardware on top of its rocket to send a satellite into orbit, what is known as a payload adapter. Itâ(TM)s an apparatus that physically separates the satellite from the upper part of the rocket and sends it into orbit. However, a previous report from Wired noted that Northrop Grumman provided its own payload adapter for this mission. And if that payload adapter failed, it would have left the satellite still attached to the upper portion of the rocket. Thatâ(TM)s certainly a mission failure, but it wouldnâ(TM)t necessarily be the fault of the Falcon 9."

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    11. Re:It may be lost .. it may be not by Rei · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yep.

      Right now the focus is being put on the payload adapter, which mates the spacecraft to the stage. Normally SpaceX provides their own adapters, but for this mission, Northrop created a custom adapter for the spacecraft (makes you wonder what the unusual requirements were?)

      If the satellite was to be some sort of "stealth" payload, capable of hiding from ground observation, then "faking a separation failure" might be a perfectly prudent course of action. However, for most satellites, it would be immediately obvious whether it had separated or not, to any nation paying attention. And I'm sure lots of nations were paying attention to this.

      --
      The chloride owes the sodium money.
    12. Re:It may be lost .. it may be not by Rei · · Score: 1

      A nominal launch by definition launches a payload into the contracted trajectory.

      --
      The chloride owes the sodium money.
    13. Re:It may be lost .. it may be not by swb · · Score: 1

      I've thought that rods of god would be the best way to deal with DPRK.

      The total absence of any missile trajectory, radar signature or aircraft flight path could give the US plausible deniability, possibly even a way to argue it was meteor fragments and not a man made object, especially since there would be no explosive residue or radiological signature.

    14. Re:It may be lost .. it may be not by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Re "If they have nearly unlimited resources to hide or obfuscate something, there is basically no way to know."
      People can detect the shape moving, no matter the radar profile, a new color.
      Something new and bright/dark moving in front of everything else thats not as dark up in space that was not moving yesterday is going to get noticed by most nations able to map the night sky above their own nation to some level of skill over decades.
      The best way to avoid that is to use a space plane. Nobody expects an unmanned space plane and its very different movements.
      CIA searching for answers behind its India-Nuclear failure (May 16, 1998) https://fas.org/irp/news/1998/...
      "..able to halt suspicious activity during the periods when the spy satellites were passing overhead."

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    15. Re:It may be lost .. it may be not by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      The only worrying possibility is that China is using North Korea to probe US missile defences in order to be able to build missiles that can evade them.

      E.g the US sold Tai some Patriot PAC3 launchers but they are so concerned about Chinese radar snooping that Taiwanese personnel had to fly to the US to test fire them

      http://www.straitstimes.com/as...

      So if North Korea forced the US to intercept a missile with Aegis or GMD it would reveal a lot of information. And if it used Rods from God it would obviously reveal it had such a system.

      And if a NK missile got past Aegis and GMD and needed to be intercepted with THAAD or Patriot then all hell would break loose.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    16. Re:It may be lost .. it may be not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If I was a secret agency with an agenda and everybody watched my satellite being sent up into space I'd claim it was lost, too.

      Maybe it's fake news.

      Honestly, everything Elon Musk does is almost immediately followed up with news articles claiming that he'll fail. I've read about 20 so far, professing that he'll never sell cars outside of California, to his SpaceX rockets will never get off the ground, to his landing of a SpaceX rocket will never work, to his never getting permits for a hyperloop, to his mega battery plant going under, to his (recent) never being able to ship 1000 Model 3 cars before the year's end.

      It is like there is some news agency that feels that if Elon does it, it is worthy of an article that he'll fail. Slashdot seems to bite the hook every time.

      I'm tired of reading a new stream that's always wrong.

    17. Re:It may be lost .. it may be not by Software · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure a bunch of steel falling from orbit would show up on a military radar. They might have a lower radar cross section than a missile of similar destructiveness, but they won't be invisible.

    18. Re:It may be lost .. it may be not by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      Honestly, everything Elon Musk does is almost immediately followed up with news articles claiming that he'll fail.

      Well one day he will. And the lucky person who made that claim will finally get their time in glory.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    19. Re:It may be lost .. it may be not by The+Real+Dr+John · · Score: 1

      Yeah, exactly what we need now, private companies run by billionaires colluding with the government to launch secret spy satellites that we aren't allowed to know about, even if they crash back to earth (or don't). I fail to understand why people are so complacent about secret corporate/government collusion on projects we are not deemed worthy of knowing about.

      --
      A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
    20. Re:It may be lost .. it may be not by hey! · · Score: 2

      In that case you have to ask who it is a secret from. China and Russia have anti-satellite weapons and so presumably have the technology to track objects in orbit.

      Unless it is a stealth satellite. The USNRO had a stealth (optical and radar) reconnaissance satellite program which they spent almost twelve billion on by the time it was cancelled in 2007.

      If it actually was cancelled. The only thing better than the ability to spy on your rivals is the ability to spy on them without them knowing you can do it.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    21. Re:It may be lost .. it may be not by ddtmm · · Score: 1

      Except for the unexplainable 9 tons of tungsten embedded in everything in a 1/2 mile radius.

    22. Re:It may be lost .. it may be not by Arzaboa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are right, and its terrible.

      We live in a society where people have been convinced that they do talk about this stuff. They think yelling at each other about news headlines is equal to putting two and two together. They think holding people to the fire is a tweet-mob. People re-enforce that all of the time, because "They're too tired to think about it right now." How do you convince a group of people that their effort isn't much of one at all, when they are exhausted from trying?

      --
      It's all in the wrist

    23. Re:It may be lost .. it may be not by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Kinetic orbital strikes are neither cost effective nor practical, and plausibly deniable attacks can be carried out through far less conspicuous methods. If we were to lead a preemptive strike against DPRK or its leadership (as preemptive action and regime change has always worked out so well for us in the past), we would probably want credit anyway, otherwise it's just a freak accident, not a warning by example. There's no need for subtly.

      --
      https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
    24. Re: It may be lost .. it may be not by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      If the US Government wanted to fuck with every bad actorâ(TM)s brain; theyâ(TM)d send a geology grad student to the moon with a shovel and a bucket for about one month. Not send a paper weight into an ultra low earth orbit.

    25. Re: It may be lost .. it may be not by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      there IS multiple ways to know

      Argh.

    26. Re:It may be lost .. it may be not by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      The US needs infiltration units, like the CSM-101 T-800. Probably controlled by some sort of centralised AI. Those would be ideal for wiping out human survivors who hid in burrows after a nuclear war.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    27. Re:It may be lost .. it may be not by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      The government has spent a couple decades or so working on hiding satellites from optical and radar observation. There's no reason to believe that anything and everything launched today would be readily observable using the old methods.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    28. Re:It may be lost .. it may be not by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

      They've done this before.

      CIA built (or rather, paid Howard Hughes to build) the Glomar Explorer and recovered the wreckage of a Soviet nuclear submarine, which was lying on the ocean floor 3 miles below the surface. Soviets at the time had no way of recovering it themselves.

      Decades later the secret mission was revealed, and CIA claims that 2/3 of the wreckage was lost due to a grapple failure, and that all the valuable stuff (nuclear launch codes, warheads, etc) were lost in the 2/3. However many analysts believed they recovered ALL of it, and that CIA is lying through their teeth.

    29. Re:It may be lost .. it may be not by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

      SpaceX is saying they did that, they got the payload to where it needed to be to separate from the rocket. The suggestion is that it failed to separate, but that doesn't mean the actual launch itself failed. It means the mission failed, if that's true, but the launch and the mission aren't the same thing.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    30. Re: It may be lost .. it may be not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unless it was a huge cluster of micro satellites that are made to look like space debris.

      Imagine 1000 miniature x37b's flying up there.

    31. Re:It may be lost .. it may be not by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      Relax.

      Be comfortable with not knowing.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    32. Re: It may be lost .. it may be not by oobayly · · Score: 1

      Rods from the gods aren't the satellite itself, they're launched from a satellite, and unlike most satellites they're designed to be dense, and temperature resistant. So you're right, steel wouldn't be used, tungsten would, which is even less likely to be used to make satellites (or aircraft).

      The MIG-25 however was primarily made of steel.

    33. Re:It may be lost .. it may be not by erapert · · Score: 2

      What do you want? You want armed insurrection right this very minute? Against the most powerful military in human history?

      That's unrealistic. Things are just too comfy to go burning the entire country down. I got internet and plenty of food and water and shelter. Life isn't so bad that I want to risk it and almost the entire country is thinking this same way.

      Any other option amounts to basically impotent whining that the government can ignore.

    34. Re:It may be lost .. it may be not by The+Real+Dr+John · · Score: 1

      So you've got food and shelter, and that means you don't have to worry about anything your government is doing? Rather than insurrection, which no one mentioned except you, how about just complain to your representatives that military spending is out of control? How about complaining to them that our military should not be bombing other countries that did not attack the US? How about you stand up for yourself and your family and demand that all that money be spent here in the US to fix our failing infrastructure rather than making defense contractors rich? How about taxing the wealthy to pay for Medicare for All instead of having the wealthy collude with the government to launch spy satellites we are not allowed to know about? Who said anything about burning the country down? Oh, right, that was only you.

      --
      A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
  2. It's so stealthy the owners can't find it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's so stealthy that it is right where they left it but just can't see it..
    They should have put a whistling key ring on it!!!

  3. Isn't it cute... by unwesen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... how life imitates art?

    "Classified" does not mean secret. It merely means that it got assigned a classification level. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    But films in particular seem to find it using "classified" instead of the actual classification level much cooler. And now people use it for real.

    1. Re:Isn't it cute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      The classification level of the classified mission is very classified.

      Posted as AC for classified reasons...

    2. Re:Isn't it cute... by cmseagle · · Score: 1

      Every one of the classification levels in the article you linked (other than "unclassified") implies that the information should not be shared with the general public. "This information is classified" is synonymous with "this information should not be shared with the general public."

    3. Re:Isn't it cute... by unwesen · · Score: 1

      You're not wrong. That doesn't make the usage much better, though.

      Other than "unclassified" is part of the point. Information has to undergo the classification process (is classified) before it can be known that it's unclassified information, ironically. While the article clearly states that "unclassified" is not strictly speaking a classification level, information still has to be classified as "unclassified" in order to be shared.

      The other part of the point is that once information is "classified", it really, really, really becomes important what its classification level is. Without that, you can't know who can access it. So "classified" on it's own is practically a useless term outside of this one scenario here of somebody talking to the press.

      Still, it exists as a trope: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmw...

    4. Re:Isn't it cute... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 3, Informative

      In my own experience with military and NATO people, "classified" in everyday parlance means "assigned a classification level other than Unclassified". And in some cases you may not want to disclose the actual classification level. "That is classified" is useful shorthand for "Sorry, you cannot have / share this, because reasons", and applies internally as well between departments or organisations, not just the press. It's not a term made up by Hollywood.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    5. Re:Isn't it cute... by unwesen · · Score: 1

      Why do people read everything in absolutes? Nobody claimed it was made up.

      Not disclosing classification level is actually a good use case. I hadn't encountered that.

      I'm not encountering the term much, period. It's usually a classification level or another short hand, most often "can't share". YMMV.

    6. Re:Isn't it cute... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      But films in particular seem to find it using "classified" instead of the actual classification level much cooler. And now people use it for real.

      As an adjective applied specifically to information "classified" has a dual meaning of being both categorised AND restricted. This is consistent through all dictionaries.

      Even from your own link the only unrestricted classification is called "unclassified" which is specifically called out as "technically not a classification level". Films, media, and the general public are correct in using the term classified the way they do when talking about information.

    7. Re:Isn't it cute... by unwesen · · Score: 1

      So many things are correct, and yet useless.

      Let me pose the question differently: when your computer doesn't let you do something "for security reasons", and you need to do it for your job, what do you do?

      Do you say "oh well" and watch porn? Or do find out what access rights you need to do your job? Bonus question: what if it's watching porn that's not possible?

      What do you call classified information that you and the person you speak to both have access to?

    8. Re:Isn't it cute... by unwesen · · Score: 1

      I should have just written: "classified" and posted http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/...

    9. Re:Isn't it cute... by unwesen · · Score: 1

      Sure. Another commenter said as much, and I agree.

      It's just a fairly narrow use case, IMHO, where the word applies. And it's basically devoid of information. It's the equivalent to your computer saying "you can't access that file".

      What does the computer mean? Read? Write? Execute? What roles or permissions do I need to access it? The moment the file is relevant to me, "can't access" is beyond useless.

    10. Re:Isn't it cute... by fafalone · · Score: 1

      Oh come on, "Top Secret" is both way cooler and an actual classification.

    11. Re:Isn't it cute... by hey! · · Score: 2

      Stay classy.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  4. I don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    as long as Elon's Tesla Roadster arrived safely in orbit

  5. Could it simply be a false report? by BlueCoder · · Score: 2

    If it's super secret then maybe they made it disappear. It could be where it's suppose to be or never have actually launched.

    1. Re:Could it simply be a false report? by AHuxley · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Keeping the population in closed science cities kept other nations human spies out.
      Re "If it's super secret then maybe they made it disappear"
      Most nations with "nuclear" ambitions and other well hidden production lines have their "university" "astronomers" map the spies above their nation.
      For anything new and bright. Anything "new" that blocks out the existing data. Anything on the move.
      Nobody wants a new spy sat or spy platform thats on the move over their nation at an unexpected times.
      The mil toys get worked on when the spy sats have passed for a time then hide again.
      For the price of a few "astronomers" and a super computer any nation could have had some level of secrecy.
      That space plane upset all their nice calculations with its wide changes every 24h.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Could it simply be a false report? by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      If they pay to launch an empty rocket, that might cost other countries a lot of money searching for nothing! They probably do that.

    3. Re:Could it simply be a false report? by scottrocket · · Score: 1

      If they pay to launch an empty rocket, that might cost other countries a lot of money searching for nothing! They probably do that.

      And that is where most of their black budget money comes from...phantom satellites... : )

  6. Technically it met its goals by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Funny

    All we know about the satellite itself is that it was destined for a low-Earth orbit and built for the U.S. government.

    Well, it did achieve low-earth orbit... just somewhat lower than planned, and its tidally locked with the planet. But it's still orbiting once every 24 hours.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Technically it met its goals by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Well, it did achieve low-earth orbit... just somewhat lower than planned, and its tidally locked with the planet. But it's still orbiting once every 24 hours.

      If only we had a spacecraft that could maneuver close to it, grab it with a big arm, put it in the spacecraft's payload bay, and take it where it was supposed to go. That would be amazing.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    2. Re:Technically it met its goals by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      And I wonder if they can put (or it already has) and arm in this thing?

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    3. Re:Technically it met its goals by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 2

      If only we had a spacecraft that could maneuver close to it, grab it with a big arm, put it in the spacecraft's payload bay, and take it where it was supposed to go. That would be amazing.

      We did but it turned out to be ludicrously expensive to operate, flew missions at a rate an order of magnitude less than it was projected to do, and had an annoying tendency to kill astronauts who rode in it.

      The Shuttle was and still is a shitty design, an example of what you get when too many compromises are made on the original design objectives. We'd have been far better off spending that money on uprated Saturn V's.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    4. Re:Technically it met its goals by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      We used to have one, but it was a ridiculously overpriced government-run boondoggle that kept exploding. Honestly, it's just cheaper to launch a new satellite than send up a super expensive manned spacecraft that has to change orbits.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    5. Re:Technically it met its goals by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      There is no low Earth orbit where the satellite would orbit once every 24 hours. That is a geosynchronous orbit and they are very very high orbits. We would have noticed if the Falcon 9 had flown into a geosynchronous transfer orbit.

    6. Re:Technically it met its goals by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Re "grab it with a big arm"
      Canada has a spare space arm in a museum.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    7. Re:Technically it met its goals by religionofpeas · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hint: think very very low.

    8. Re:Technically it met its goals by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      I suspect the closest we can get is this.

    9. Re:Technically it met its goals by laurencetux · · Score: 3, Funny

      Like say a negative perigee??

    10. Re:Technically it met its goals by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      There is no low Earth orbit where the satellite would orbit once every 24 hours.

      Translation: Did not get the joke....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    11. Re: Technically it met its goals by jae471 · · Score: 1

      During STS-51-A Discovery retrieved two satellites and brought them back to earth for later relaunch.

      Hubble servicing missions included boosting it to higher orbit.

    12. Re:Technically it met its goals by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      I'd say Douglas Adams covered it...

      "There is an art to flying, or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. ... Clearly, it is this second part, the missing, that presents the difficulties." ..."

      As the rumors suggest, Zuma failed the second part.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  7. How uncertain? by rew · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Government officials confirm the mission was lost".

    Now you might doubt the veracity of that statement and keep your tinfoil hat on, but it doesn't get more certain than that.

    This: "rumors are going around that" story is simply a few hours older than the "it has been confirmed that"....
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/technol...
    http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/0...

    1. Re:How uncertain? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      Shocking. And I don't mean the satellite but whatever happened to CNN: autoplaying video commercials and enormous popover ads. Not going to visit there again...

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    2. Re:How uncertain? by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 1

      From the CBC article:
      "The classified intelligence satellite, built by Northrop Grumman Corp, failed to separate from the second stage of the Falcon 9 rocket and is assumed to have broken up or plunged into the sea, said the two officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity."

      This doesn't make sense. Stage 2 goes all the way to orbit (accepting SpaceX's assertion that Falcon worked entirely as planned). It only 'plunges into the sea' if they deliberately make a deorbit burn. (I assume that they do normally make a deorbit burn sometime after separation, to avoid making space junk, but launch coverage never talks about this part and at best only follows stage 2 up to payload separation, so I have no confirmation of this.) If the satellite failed to separate, they would delay the stage 2 deorbit burn while they tried to troubleshoot. If that failed, depending on the nature of the satellite, they might try to operate it with reduced capability while still attached to stage 2.

      From here
      "...it is known that the Zuma payload was not processed in any of SpaceX’s payload processing facilities." This appears to imply that if there was a problem with separation, it is Northrop Grumman’s fault rather than SpaceX's.

      I've seen in SpaceX launch coverage crowds of SpaceX employee spectators crowded around the glass walled SpaceX launch control room. I guess that for a classified launch that area would be out of bounds, to avoid uncleared people seeing satellite separation, so they must spectate from somewhere else for these missions.

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    3. Re:How uncertain? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      "Government officials confirm the mission was lost".

      Now you might doubt the veracity of that statement and keep your tinfoil hat on, but it doesn't get more certain than that.

      Well, I don't think it's necessarily tinfoil to wonder if official government statements about a secret project might be less than fully accurate.

    4. Re:How uncertain? by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

      This doesn't make sense. Stage 2 goes all the way to orbit (accepting SpaceX's assertion that Falcon worked entirely as planned). It only 'plunges into the sea' if they deliberately make a deorbit burn.

      If you schedule a deorbit burn to occur after separation, but separation fails... where does the satellite end up?

      SpaceX is probably waiting for the government or Northrop to admit that the satellite is ash because the docking adapter wouldn't let go.

      Or maybe it released, but the satellite thrusters failed so it didn't move. When the Falcon deorbited, it would have either contained... or bumped... the unexpectedly close satellite.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    5. Re:How uncertain? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      The shots of the crowd were noticeably thinner, and even only about 25% of the workstations in the control center were occupied. The broadcasted video for stage 2 stopped after stage separation, so video for anything after that was not publicly broadcasted. I'm also going to assume that the number of empty chairs in the control center meant that much of the mission was being controlled somewhere else without cameras.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    6. Re: How uncertain? by oobayly · · Score: 1

      In wonder if there's any overlap between the group of people that believe that "officials confirm our was lost", and those groups that don't believe official explanations for HAARP, Apollo, climate change.

  8. Where did the Second stage hit the water ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Go and look in the ocean where the second stage hit the water.
    If you see a US or Russian Navy ship moored there, you know the mission is now an underwater one.

    Capcha: discard.

    1. Re:Where did the Second stage hit the water ? by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      The second stage appears to have functioned normally, making the normal 1 1/2 orbits. It released excess fuel over Africa as normal, which an airline pilot was able to take a picture. It would then deorbit into the Indian Ocean.

    2. Re:Where did the Second stage hit the water ? by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      The Russians couldn't get there fast enough, and the US would send a submarine. Probably already has.

    3. Re: Where did the Second stage hit the water ? by oobayly · · Score: 1

      I didn't know this was done. To expand on the parent, here's a link to an article as to why venting for fuel is done, with the photos.

      https://sattrackcam.blogspot.c...

  9. It's not lost... by Narcocide · · Score: 1

    It's gone rogue!

  10. A Lousy Cover Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I say it all went well but they want everyone to think it failed. Oh wait, someone is knocking at the door. BRB........

  11. Payload did not separate by Dan+East · · Score: 4, Informative

    One article specifically pointed blame at Northrop Grumman, stating that the mechanism that controlled the release of the payload from the upper stage was built and controlled by Northrop Grumman. Which is why SpaceX can state that on their end, everything performed perfectly.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Payload did not separate by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      This doesn't really make sense. The second stage appears to have functioned normally. An airline pilot flying over Africa actually took a picture of the stage performing its normal fuel dump. It does this prior to deorbiting into the Indian Ocean, after the normal 1 1/2 orbits. If there was a problem with the satellite releasing, they would have keep it in orbit a few more times to attempt to release it. Particularly since the second stage was still functioning properly and had enough fuel to require a fuel dump.

    2. Re:Payload did not separate by jae471 · · Score: 1

      The second stage is autonomous. The current F9S2 does not have a long enough battery life to support extended duration missions. This is one reason why the current Falcon 9 cannot do a direct GEO launch -- it doesn't last long enough to do the circularization burn.

      Longer-endurance batteries are scheduled to fly something this year.

    3. Re: Payload did not separate by oobayly · · Score: 1

      Surely the customer would have said to SpaceX "we'd like you to keep the 2nd stage in orbit for a bit longer. 'Why?', you don't need to know that.

      Although, if the second stage only had enough electrical power to get the satellite into orbit then they may not have had a choice, as they wouldn't have been able to de-orbit the stage later.

    4. Re: Payload did not separate by oobayly · · Score: 1

      I love the thought of some rocket scientists saying "let's try sharing it loose on the upper atmosphere" ðY

    5. Re:Payload did not separate by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      Not long term, but you think they would have given it another orbit or two for say, 90 more minutes, to try something.

  12. Don't be naive by Sqreater · · Score: 1

    They do this with "secret" payloads.

    --
    E Proelio Veritas.
  13. So.... by MerlTurkin · · Score: 1

    freaking what? Is it lost? Is it still up there doing it's thing? WHO FREAKING CARES? This is a non story.

  14. Here's your lunch by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    I said launch, not lunch!

  15. Wot? by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    The airplanes obey the stable genius and don't fall from the sky (as he says) but gov. satellites don't?

  16. KA CHING! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    COSMIC TOP SECRET

    Louise, get my agent on the line, I've got a treatment for a sequel we should put in front of Val Kilmer with a big sack of money ASAP.

    --

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

  17. performed nominally? by fleabay · · Score: 1

    "We do not comment on missions of this nature, but as of right now, reviews of the data indicate Falcon 9 performed nominally," company spokesman James Gleeson told Space.com via email.

    nominally: in name only; officially though perhaps not in reality.

    --
    PlanetVulkan.com
    1. Re:performed nominally? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      5 : being according to plan : satisfactory - everything was nominal during the launch

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  18. If only... by Kelerei · · Score: 1

    ...rumors began swirling [...] that something had happened to Zuma.

    If only that were true for the other Zuma.

  19. Re:Now we know for sure by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    While that is a valid point, this one was, in fact, lost. It's not a good thing for anyone.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  20. Smells like crafted disinformation to me.. by X!0mbarg · · Score: 1

    The satellite didn't deploy, or was "lost" is a fairly flimsy smokescreen, IMNSHO.

    What better way to get people to "breathe a collective sigh of relief" that another top-secret set of Big Brothers' Glasses got "dropped outside the optometrist".

    Is it just me, or are these ploys getting to be more and more obvious?