User avatar
Tugger
Topic Author
Posts: 7162
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: SpaceX - Tests, Launches, Developments

Sat Jan 13, 2018 6:22 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
One of two things happened:

1. The Falcon9 launch went as planned. The 1st and 2nd stages performed nominally. The Northrop Grumman made payload adapter failed to release Zuma, and it tumbled into the ocean with the 2nd stage. This would make SpaceX's statements that Falcon9 performed nominally true.
2. Or the Zuma satellite was compromised in some form prior to launch, and the only way to keep the satellite was to fake it's demise, while it at the same time works exactly as planned.

Or 3. Everything went exactly as planned and we just don't know what this flight was doing or testing.

As far as I can tell no one informed is actually saying it was a failure. It could have been testing a new adaptor and how it worked with the SpaceX interface for all we know. Or doing the "stealth" thing some have hypothesized. We just don't know yet.

We don't even know how much whatever it was really cost. Could have been a few million or a billion, the few million for a test to insure against the loss of a billion is very much something the government would do.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 1725
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Re: SpaceX - Tests, Launches, Developments

Sat Jan 13, 2018 6:50 pm

Tugger wrote:
JetBuddy wrote:
One of two things happened:

1. The Falcon9 launch went as planned. The 1st and 2nd stages performed nominally. The Northrop Grumman made payload adapter failed to release Zuma, and it tumbled into the ocean with the 2nd stage. This would make SpaceX's statements that Falcon9 performed nominally true.
2. Or the Zuma satellite was compromised in some form prior to launch, and the only way to keep the satellite was to fake it's demise, while it at the same time works exactly as planned.

Or 3. Everything went exactly as planned and we just don't know what this flight was doing or testing.

As far as I can tell no one informed is actually saying it was a failure. It could have been testing a new adaptor and how it worked with the SpaceX interface for all we know. Or doing the "stealth" thing some have hypothesized. We just don't know yet.

We don't even know how much whatever it was really cost. Could have been a few million or a billion, the few million for a test to insure against the loss of a billion is very much something the government would do.

Tugg


Yes, option 3 is basically what I meant with option 2. Besides theorizing that the functionality and mission of Zuma had been compromised somehow (possibly by foreign intelligence), leading them to stage this confusion.

According to the Satellite Catalog, Zuma is listed as USA 280 with no decay data. This means two things, Zuma has entered the desired orbit, and secondly it has orbited the earth at least one round.

https://www.celestrak.com/satcat/search.asp
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24807
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: SpaceX - Tests, Launches, Developments

Sat Jan 13, 2018 7:11 pm

itchief wrote:
A quick goole search, Non-military intelligence funding for FY2016 was about $54 billion and the Trump FY2018 has $511 billion in nondefense discretionary spending. Plenty of room for other agencies to pay for ZUMA. I was able to complete the google search without my tinfoil hat.


Sure, but whom other than the Department of Defense or an intelligence agency would launch a classified payload into orbit?

It's not going to be the Department of Energy because the Outer Space Treaty prevents the stationing of nuclear weapons in orbit (plus an actual nuclear weapon would be controlled by Space Command and/or Global Strike Command under the USAF and not the DoE).

It's not going to be the FBI because their purview is domestic surveillance and ZUMA is not in a geostationary orbit over the United States.

It's not going to be the Department of Commerce because NOAA does not classify their Earth Observation birds.

Etc. Etc. Etc.
 
MatthewDB
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2017 6:33 pm

Re: SpaceX - Tests, Launches, Developments

Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:14 pm

salttee wrote:
MatthewDB wrote:
The CIA (is) not "military", they are civilian agenc(ey).

You're flat wrong about that. The first CIA director Admiral Sidney Souers wanted the CIA to be purely for intelligence, but by the time Bedell Smith became DCI the CIA was carrying on military ops. Currently, among other things, they are conducting drone strikes in Pakistan at least. The initial invasion of Afghanistan was purely a CIA operation.


We're arguing over definitions here. The accepted definition of "military" are people who wear a uniform and fight under a flag, are expected to follow the laws and conventions of warfare, are expected to be afforded humane treatment if captured, and are under a command and control structure. In the United States, the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, plus the Coast Guard in times of war are the only military organizations.

Other agencies can certainly conduct combat operations, but they are not military. They are combatants, but in the parlance of international law, they are not military.

Since you're getting hung up on that one word, you think people here are arguing that the satellite isn't for foreign surveillance, including possible US aligned combatant support. No one is making that argument. That's certainly not what I meant. You continuing to argue they/we are is making a strawman argument.

salttee wrote:
You can live in fantasyland if you want, but don't ask me to join you.


This is a very civil thread, and you're throwing insults at people over the definition of a word. Kindly refrain or go away.
 
o0OOO0oChris
Posts: 55
Joined: Sun May 13, 2012 10:27 pm

Re: SpaceX - Tests, Launches, Developments

Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:18 pm

Regarding Zuma:
UsLaunchReport, the guys who captured the Amos 6 failure, where lucky again. They caught fairing separation, right when they where supposed to, on camera:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MouF4CXkt7o
They just came to the wrong conclusion. They think one fairing was stuck, as you can see only one fairing falling away. That`s wrong, if you look closely, there is a short, brighter spot on the lower side as well, just not as good to see due to the different angle. The fairing is black inside, so you can see them only if the white, outer side gets illuminated by exhausts just at the right time.

I think one fairing cannot get stuck as the active half pushes both apart.

What`s really fishy in hindsight is that no 3 letter agency claimed the ownership for the bird as usual. As if they new that a failure was going to happen or was going to be pretended and they didn`t want that on their public success/failure sheet - if it was a failure after all.

Interesting analysis by a spy-satellite tracker:
https://sattrackcam.blogspot.de/2018/01/fuel-dump-of-zumas-falcon-9-upper-stage.html
Looks plausible. So stage 2 should have achieved orbit after all.

Which leads to the conclusion that the anonymous source who said it didn`t reach orbit either lied or doesn`t have sufficient knowledge on that matter to make such a statement. So 1 out of three anonymous sources should be ignored.

At least all sources seem to have gone silent. Nothing substancially new on the matter anywhere.
Last edited by o0OOO0oChris on Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24807
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: SpaceX - Tests, Launches, Developments

Sat Jan 13, 2018 10:09 pm

o0OOO0oChris wrote:
Which leads to the conclusion that the anonymous source who said it didn`t reach orbit either lied or doesn`t have sufficient knowledge on that matter to make such a statement.


Or they were deliberately given misinformation with the expectation that would be passed on to the public.
 
aviationaware
Posts: 1672
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 12:02 pm

Re: SpaceX - Tests, Launches, Developments

Sat Jan 13, 2018 10:39 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
It's difficult to understand all these safety issues. Space Shuttle ferried astronauts to the ISS, and so does Soyuz. What makes Dragon 2 (and Boeing's CST-100 Starliner) so difficult to meet similar safety standards?


I very much doubt Soyuz fulfils those safety standards, yet NASA choses to remain a slave to that Russian system rather than have something American. Hardly understandable in my book.
 
User avatar
Nomadd
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:26 pm

Re: SpaceX - Tests, Launches, Developments

Sat Jan 13, 2018 11:53 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
It's difficult to understand all these safety issues. Space Shuttle ferried astronauts to the ISS, and so does Soyuz. What makes Dragon 2 (and Boeing's CST-100 Starliner) so difficult to meet similar safety standards?

There's no problem meeting similar standards. The problem is meeting completely different standards, written by people who are not in favor of commercial manned spaceflight.
 
MatthewDB
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2017 6:33 pm

Re: SpaceX - Tests, Launches, Developments

Sun Jan 14, 2018 12:10 am

KarelXWB wrote:
Jayafe wrote:
The question Karel is, was this 270 flights standard made up brand new, or also applied to Soyuz?

You can create a list of requirements that no manufacturer can meet. It's a safe way of saving money and dropping the project...


It's a new standard, and clearly made up by bureaucrats.

For reference, Space Shuttle had a Loss of Mission rate of 1 to 90.



There were 135 launches, 134 made it to orbit and 133 returned (intact). That's a 1:67.5 rate.

KarelXWB wrote:
And while I don't have the official number for Soyuz, it had 16 failures out of 140 missions (thus 1 to 9).


I'm not able to find numbers either. Going back 10+ years, I know Soyuz was considered the most reliable launch vehicle but the success rate has declined recently.

The irony here is that if NASA blocks SpaceX, they're going to be committing to use exclusively Soyuz.
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 1725
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Re: SpaceX - Tests, Launches, Developments

Sun Jan 14, 2018 1:18 am

Stitch wrote:
o0OOO0oChris wrote:
Which leads to the conclusion that the anonymous source who said it didn`t reach orbit either lied or doesn`t have sufficient knowledge on that matter to make such a statement.


Or they were deliberately given misinformation with the expectation that would be passed on to the public.


Yes. I believe it was misinformation on purpose to create this confusion.
 
 
mxaxai
Posts: 257
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: SpaceX - Tests, Launches, Developments

Mon Jan 15, 2018 7:30 am

MatthewDB wrote:
The irony here is that if NASA blocks SpaceX, they're going to be committing to use exclusively Soyuz.

Or they're committing to use exclusively SLS for manned missions.
 
parapente
Posts: 2082
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: SpaceX - Tests, Launches, Developments

Mon Jan 15, 2018 8:03 am

4PM.Hope it goes will for them.Dont want to mess up the launch pad!
It's extraordinary how much additional power has been developed for these Falcon engines.I read somewhere that they are now 40% more powerful than the origonal ones.
Thing is that means a Block 5 (or full thrust) F9 can send nearly every 'standard' payload into space these days.Of course that could not have been known when they started on the FH a decade ago.I think there are only 3 commercial flights booked for this behemoth.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4646
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

Re: SpaceX - Tests, Launches, Developments

Mon Jan 15, 2018 8:09 am

parapente wrote:
4PM.Hope it goes will for them.Dont want to mess up the launch pad!
It's extraordinary how much additional power has been developed for these Falcon engines.I read somewhere that they are now 40% more powerful than the origonal ones.
Thing is that means a Block 5 (or full thrust) F9 can send nearly every 'standard' payload into space these days.Of course that could not have been known when they started on the FH a decade ago.I think there are only 3 commercial flights booked for this behemoth.


There have already been several Falcon 9 payloads which were originally booked for the Falcon Heavy, but launched on a Falcon 9 after various capability increases in the rocket.
 
User avatar
Jayafe
Posts: 744
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:12 pm

Re: SpaceX - Tests, Launches, Developments

Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:11 am

mxaxai wrote:
MatthewDB wrote:
The irony here is that if NASA blocks SpaceX, they're going to be committing to use exclusively Soyuz.

Or they're committing to use exclusively SLS for manned missions.


You are a bit confused between rocket and spaceship.
 
clam285
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2013 2:12 pm

Re: SpaceX - Tests, Launches, Developments

Mon Jan 15, 2018 12:03 pm

International Designator NORAD Catalog Number Name Source Launch Date Launch Site Decay Date Status Latest TLE
2018-001A 43098 USA 280 (ZUMA) US 2018-01-08 AFETR + TLE
Status is + (operational)
 
zanl188
Posts: 3547
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

Re: SpaceX - Tests, Launches, Developments

Mon Jan 15, 2018 4:18 pm

clam285 wrote:
International Designator NORAD Catalog Number Name Source Launch Date Launch Site Decay Date Status Latest TLE
2018-001A 43098 USA 280 (ZUMA) US 2018-01-08 AFETR + TLE
Status is + (operational)


What's the epoch date on this TLE? (TLE=Two Element Set)

If it's from the date of launch it does not mean much at this point.
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
 
mxaxai
Posts: 257
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: SpaceX - Tests, Launches, Developments

Mon Jan 15, 2018 4:25 pm

Jayafe wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
MatthewDB wrote:
The irony here is that if NASA blocks SpaceX, they're going to be committing to use exclusively Soyuz.

Or they're committing to use exclusively SLS for manned missions.


You are a bit confused between rocket and spaceship.

It's not as if you could mount a soyuz on a falcon heavy.
 
User avatar
Nomadd
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:26 pm

Re: SpaceX - Tests, Launches, Developments

Mon Jan 15, 2018 7:09 pm

Nomadd wrote:
moo wrote:

The point is that the second stage deorbited as planned and into the planned splashdown area on earth- which means it had no unexpected mass or volume on the way down, so separation did occur...

The payload mass was probably pretty small compared to the almost empty 2nd stage mass, so it wouldn't have made much difference in 2nd stage re-entry.


I had to double check this to be sure, but when the 2nd stage does it's re-entry burn, it burns until a certain velocity change occurs, not for a set time. So, if there was the extra mass of a payload still attached when the stage re-entered, it would still come down in the right spot unless it ran out of fuel.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4646
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

Re: SpaceX - Tests, Launches, Developments

Mon Jan 15, 2018 7:37 pm

Nomadd wrote:
Nomadd wrote:
moo wrote:

The point is that the second stage deorbited as planned and into the planned splashdown area on earth- which means it had no unexpected mass or volume on the way down, so separation did occur...

The payload mass was probably pretty small compared to the almost empty 2nd stage mass, so it wouldn't have made much difference in 2nd stage re-entry.


I had to double check this to be sure, but when the 2nd stage does it's re-entry burn, it burns until a certain velocity change occurs, not for a set time. So, if there was the extra mass of a payload still attached when the stage re-entered, it would still come down in the right spot unless it ran out of fuel.


You aren't taking into account the aerodynamic effects of the extra mass, which would cause it to take a different trajectory.
 
MatthewDB
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2017 6:33 pm

Re: SpaceX - Tests, Launches, Developments

Mon Jan 15, 2018 8:26 pm

mxaxai wrote:
MatthewDB wrote:
The irony here is that if NASA blocks SpaceX, they're going to be committing to use exclusively Soyuz.

Or they're committing to use exclusively SLS for manned missions.


You have far more confidence in SLS than I. They've already spent insane amounts of money for the pathetic results to date. I suspect the project is going to die.
 
MatthewDB
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2017 6:33 pm

Re: SpaceX - Tests, Launches, Developments

Mon Jan 15, 2018 8:28 pm

mxaxai wrote:
Jayafe wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
Or they're committing to use exclusively SLS for manned missions.


You are a bit confused between rocket and spaceship.

It's not as if you could mount a soyuz on a falcon heavy.


When you're talking about Soyuz, you get to use the name for all of the above. It's the name of a project, the name of a space vehicle (Soyuz-MS) and the name of a rocket (Soyuz-FG).
 
MatthewDB
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2017 6:33 pm

Re: SpaceX - Tests, Launches, Developments

Mon Jan 15, 2018 8:56 pm

 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4646
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

Re: SpaceX - Tests, Launches, Developments

Mon Jan 15, 2018 10:02 pm

MatthewDB wrote:


A January launch is looking less and less likely - I did put my money on "no earlier than February" much earlier in the thread, and it increasingly looks like SpaceX are going to agree with me :D

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: salttee and 4 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos