• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

SpaceX - Zuma launch Sunday 1/7 - 8pm

Thebobo

Thebobo

Lifer
I think- its a top secret launch not much info think 8 pm.

Artist rendering.
26220182_1678645178863920_7918400731217295293_n.jpg
 
wooo conspiracy theory time!

rumors are that zuma 'failed' after launch
https://arstechnica.com/science/201...be-lost-sources-tell-ars/?comments=1&start=80

the most interesting theory yet on the third page of comments - in short, the original launch window overlapped with another spy satellite passing overhead, subsequent windows were decoys until last night. zuma was meant to enter orbit, refuel/service the spy satellite, and on a subsequent orbit dispose of itself - appearing that it failed shortly after launch.
 
the original delay was because of concern about the fairings not separating cleanly

maybe they didn't get the fairing separation issue fixed after all
 
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44175.240

Adding to the intrigue surrounding Zuma: Reports that Musk has told his team that this is the company's most important/expensive payload ever launched.
Click to expand...

(1/5) About the rumours that #Zuma or its Falcon 9 failed: I have a positive, photographically documented observation of the Falcon 9 upper stage venting fuel after re-entry burn, ahead of re-entry, over East Africa some 2h15m after launch. Pretty much where it ought to be.

(2/5) This shows that the Falcon 9 certainly did reach what appears to be the intended 50 deg inclined LEO orbit & did its nominal re-entry burn. NB: it is *normal* for rb to vent fuel after re-entry burn (avoids risk of explosions on orbit creating space debris). #Zuma #SpaceX

(3/5) so if anything went wrong at all (which so far are rumours only, and they need not be true at all), it is either with #Zuma being succesfully deployed but dead on orbit, or not detaching from the Falcon 9 upper stage.

(4/5) So at the moment, I am "suspicious" of these rumours. I would tend to dismiss them, unless a clear statement is issued by @spaceX or the US Government. #Zuma

(5/5) #Zuma will not be visible to observers in the Northern Hemisphere untill a week or two from now, so that is the earliets that we might confirm whether something is on-orbit or not. But for the moment, I believe it is up there.
Click to expand...
 
From SpaceX

"More Zuma news --- the following statement is from Gwynne Shotwell, President and COO of SpaceX:

“For clarity: after review of all data to date, Falcon 9 did everything correctly on Sunday night. If we or others find otherwise based on further review, we will report it immediately. Information published that is contrary to this statement is categorically false. Due to the classified nature of the payload, no further comment is possible.
“Since the data reviewed so far indicates that no design, operational or other changes are needed, we do not anticipate any impact on the upcoming launch schedule. Falcon Heavy has been rolled out to launchpad LC-39A for a static fire later this week, to be followed shortly thereafter by its maiden flight. We are also preparing for an F9 launch for SES and the Luxembourg Government from SLC-40 in three weeks.”"

That's good to hear.

And sorta related, what we might hear on the Falcon Heavy static fire test later this week. Audio up!


And for fun open about 5 or six of this videos up and play them at the same time! lol
 
Last edited:
Thebobo said:
From SpaceX

"More Zuma news --- the following statement is from Gwynne Shotwell, President and COO of SpaceX:

“For clarity: after review of all data to date, Falcon 9 did everything correctly on Sunday night. If we or others find otherwise based on further review, we will report it immediately. Information published that is contrary to this statement is categorically false. Due to the classified nature of the payload, no further comment is possible.
“Since the data reviewed so far indicates that no design, operational or other changes are needed, we do not anticipate any impact on the upcoming launch schedule. Falcon Heavy has been rolled out to launchpad LC-39A for a static fire later this week, to be followed shortly thereafter by its maiden flight. We are also preparing for an F9 launch for SES and the Luxembourg Government from SLC-40 in three weeks.”"

That's good to hear.
Click to expand...

maybe not as good as they want it to appear

even if the spacex side performed perfectly, the payload adapter failed. So, if you if you have a super-duper important launch, are you going to choose the platform that you know you integrate with flawlessly or the one where they still might have kinks to work out?

bottom line: if Zuma would have been successful on Delta IV, that's tremendously painful for SpaceX whether it's technically their fault or not
 
If the de-orbit burn for the upper stage was normal, I strongly doubt there was trouble with detaching the satellite. First, if they had problems detaching, I would expect them to leave the whole upper stage in orbit for several orbits trying to correct that problem. And second, even if for some reason they didn't try to continue the mission, a de-orbit burn with the satellite attached should have had significantly different characteristics from a normal de-orbit burn.
 
tynopik said:
maybe not as good as they want it to appear

even if the spacex side performed perfectly, the payload adapter failed. So, if you if you have a super-duper important launch, are you going to choose the platform that you know you integrate with flawlessly or the one where they still might have kinks to work out?

bottom line: if Zuma would have been successful on Delta IV, that's tremendously painful for SpaceX whether it's technically their fault or not
Click to expand...

Reportedly, Northrop Grumman supplied the payload adapter. Doubt the gov would blame SpaceX if that's what failed.

https://www.wired.com/story/spacexs-top-secret-zuma-mission-launches-today/
 
Ok at lunch at work I loaded 7 of the YT videos of the saturn engine test yie-gods I shook the office with my cheap 2.0 speakers. Can't wait till I get home and try it lol.
 
K1052 said:
Reportedly, Northrop Grumman supplied the payload adapter. Doubt the gov would blame SpaceX if that's what failed.
Click to expand...

it's not about assigning blame, it's about ensuring success

if NG can make payload adapters that work successfully on Delta IV but are squirrely on Falcon9, they will go Delta IV
 
Another interesting tidbit, the alleged NORAD tracking data from SATCAT for ZUMA shows the satellite in orbit and operational as indicated by the plus symbol. Eh or,

26196030_1812614282117083_9206560677281443767_n.jpg


It all could be a bunch of giblets.
 
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-spacex-launch-that-ended-with-lost-satellite

Congressional inquiries into the satellite failure may revive debate about SpaceX’s rivalry for military contracts with United Launch Alliance, a joint venture of Boeing and Lockheed Martin Corp.

Republican Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, who heads the panel that approves appropriations for NASA, said the lost satellite raises new questions about SpaceX contracts. Shelby is a strong supporter of United Launch Alliance, which has operations in his state.

“The record shows they have promise, but they’ve had issues as a vendor,” Shelby said Wednesday, referring to SpaceX. “United Launch, knock on wood, they’ve had an outstanding record.”
Click to expand...
 
tynopik said:
it's not about assigning blame, it's about ensuring success

if NG can make payload adapters that work successfully on Delta IV but are squirrely on Falcon9, they will go Delta IV
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I'd like to be the NG rep arguing you should use the Delta IV because the adapter I built failed when used on a SpaceX's launcher and incinerated your (possibly) several billion dollar satellite. The customer may come to a different conclusion.
 
Last edited:
K1052 said:
I'm not sure I'd like to be the NG rep arguing you should use the Delta IV because the adapter I built failed when used on a SpaceX's launcher and incinerated your (possibly) several billion dollar satellite. The customer may come to a different conclusion.
Click to expand...

it's not just NG. The same argument would apply to whoever they use. The Falcon9 ecosystem is still new, and as we all know, new things tend to have bugs. The Delta IV platform is very mature with decades of experience. If you have a sat that absolutely must succeed regardless of cost, it's very tempting to go with what is known to work well. And I'm not sure they'd be wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top