Falcon 9 Zuma discussion

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
If the satellite didn't separate, it's not in the Atlantic. If it separated, but was stillborn, it's not in the Atlantic. If it is carrying out it's secret mission, it's not in the Atlantic.

You are correct. ABC News is reporting this morning that government officials are now confirming that it is not at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean. It is, in fact, at the bottom of the Indian Ocean presently.
 
Oh, to add another bit to it, for whatever worth using space dot com as a source is.
Langbroek said both photos show what appears to be a normal venting of excess fuel by the upper stage of the SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket after separating from its payload. Such venting procedures are typical after launches, done to avoid explosions after spacecraft separation, Langbroek wrote on his satellite-tracking website.
https://www.space.com/39338-spacex-zuma-rocket-sky-spiral-photos.html
 
You are correct. ABC News is reporting this morning that government officials are now confirming that it is not at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean. It is, in fact, at the bottom of the Indian Ocean presently.

Maybe this is why a new MH370 search was announced this morning.
 
A big satellite re-entering from orbital velocity and impacting the ocean is a pretty effective destruction method. Things like fuel tanks etc. might survive but not much else. These things are built light.

I am sure the impact would be quite devastating as would the reentry. However if it as top secret as claimed then I am pretty sure the US Gov wouldn't simply call it a day. The prudent thing to do would be to ensure that the remains are either recovered or at a min confirm that it is destroyed sufficiently to hide it's nature.
 
Maybe this is why a new MH370 search was announced this morning.
This has been in the works for a while. It made news because details were finalized but it isn't a new initiative. Also it would be a remarkable coincidence for the failed Zuma to land in a small patch of a big ocean being searched for MH370. No need for conspiracy theories.
 
An article from a space-oriented source about the Zuma loss:

https://www.americaspace.com/2018/0...-loss-after-falling-into-ocean-say-officials/



NSF article on FH Static Firing which MAY be as early as Wednesday.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/01/spacex-static-fire-falcon-heavy-1/

What's funny (or sad) about it potentially being NG's fault (if the payload adapter was the problem) is that NG/ULA are presently making a big deal about their launch of the next NRO satellite and how their systems are so much more reliable than SpaceX. That rocket has 100+ flights with no failures, which is great. Still, saying people should come to you because SpaceX "failed" when it was your part that didn't work is pretty low.
 
I think "at the bottom of the Atlantic" was a figure of speech. A deorbit burn putting it in the southern Indian Ocean (a common dumping ground) is more likely. They wouldn't leave the second stage up there, for debris mitigation purposes.

Supposedly this is based on leaked info about Congress being briefed on the loss of the satellite. So it's probably really lost. You wouldn't raise a stink to "cover your tracks" about a sat launch - you'd just stay quiet. Or say it worked, no further details forthcoming.

Insurance filings are unlikely (or might not be obvious). The costs of these birds are often classified, so no insurance. Northrop's "insurance" will be that they will be paid their costs, regardless. They might have taken out insurance against any award fee they'd have gotten if the satellite worked (but not sure they'd even be allowed to do that, on a sufficiently classified sat).
 
The Secret Zuma Spacecraft Could Be Alive And Well Doing Exactly What It Was Intended To
A great way to put an experimental stealthy craft into orbit is to imply that it never even made it there in the first place
12 Jan 2018

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...nd-well-doing-exactly-what-it-was-intended-to

Excerpts:

At present, there are three main competing theories as to what might have happened to the payload. There may have been a problem with the payload fairing, the payload adapter might have been unsuccessful in inserting Zuma into orbit, or the spacecraft might have failed to deploy properly after the payload adapter successfully released it.

Satellite watchers have so far not been able to spot Zuma in orbit...


From what I've read from observed characteristics of the second stage, the second, highlighted speculation would be my guess. But those claimed to be witnessed abnormalities could be INTENTIONALLY pre-programmed, no? What would be the penalty for a second stage you were discarding anyway?

SeeSat-l mailing list's (those "satellite watchers") mentions of Zuma:

https://www.google.com/search?q=zuma+site:www.satobs.org/seesat/&filter=0&biw=1097&bih=548

Zuma pre-launch and updated search elements on that satellite observers mailing list:

https://www.satobs.org/seesat/Nov-2017/0055.html

Misty (two 1990s stealth spysats)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misty_(satellite)

The estimated project costs in 2004 dollars are US$9.5 billion (inflation adjusted US$11.9 billion in 2018).

So, a HUGE amount of money was spent... and the results TOTALLY abandoned? Perhaps. It wouldn't be the first time.

More about Misty:

A Spy Satellites Rise... and Faked Fall
12 Jul 2001

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/3077830/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/spy-satellites-rise-faked-fall/

Excerpt:

For more than a decade, the United States has had at least one and possibly more stealth spy satellites capable of peering down at targets without fear of detection, according to a new book by an intelligence historian. The author, Jeffrey T. Richelson, says that while the Soviet space tracking network failed to detect the satellite, it did not evade a small cadre of civilian space trackers.

No patch I can find is by the unknown owning agency, just a SpaceX patch which is pretty much useless from what I have found online for speculation about the mission. NRO patches have been used in the past along with other data to speculate about a satellite series and mission. The absence of one for this mission is interesting:

The Creepy, Kitschy and Geeky Patches of US Spy Satellite Launches
9 Dec 2014

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/creepy-kitschy-and-geeky-patches-us-spy-satellites-

Searches on "Zuma":

Meanings and history of the name Zuma: Arabic origin meaning peace

How Zuma, the smiling spy, controls South Africa
4 May 2016

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...iling-spy-controls-south-africa-idUSKCN0XV1RB

JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) - As head of intelligence for the outlawed African National Congress during apartheid, Jacob Zuma neutralized perceived traitors and sidelined opponents to shore up his position, people who worked with him say.
 
What gets me is the "unnamed government officials" who deliver "news" about the mission off the record because they aren't officially allowed to talk about it!

No Crap you're not supposed to talk about classified missions....... an engineer grunt would be jailed for much less. [/rant]
 
What gets me is the "unnamed government officials" who deliver "news" about the mission off the record because they aren't officially allowed to talk about it!

No Crap you're not supposed to talk about classified missions....... an engineer grunt would be jailed for much less. [/rant]
Haven't seen the "unnamed government officials" stuff. It's not really needed. I'm sure our competent adversaries (Russians, Chinese, Iranians, etc.) can put 2+2 together as I have along with the likely copious amounts of info they may obtain via espionage.

Hopefully, if this IS a stealth satellite it remains successfully hidden from everyone INCLUDING the amateur satellite observers this time. I DO NOT contribute to their observations because while what they do cannot be of any use whatsoever to our sophisticated adversaries, one of whom, the Russians, has said they were going to be releasing US spysat orbital elements just as the US releases theirs, but never followed through, possibly because they don't want us to know for sure what they know, the amateur spysat elsats created of a limited number of our spysats in orbit, limited because every time those satellites which maneuver do so they are lost track of again, ARE potentially useful to the murderous, cave dwelling, religious fanatics who are also our enemy, the ones capable of operating an occasionally Internet connected laptop anyway to visit one of the online satellite pass prediction sites who use those amateur created elsets.
 
Interesting stuff here: The Space Review:The Mystery of Zuma

With that lack of official word, the rumor mill continues to churn. One congressman, Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA), who said he was briefed about the Zuma mission, speculated that it would come down to a dispute—potentially a lawsuit—between Northrop Grumman and SpaceX. “Those two companies are going to have a long and, I suspect, very expensive discussion,” he told the Washington Post.

and later...

But as the debate about the apparent loss of Zuma continues, there’s another question: just what was Zuma anyway? Speculation has focused on some kind of experimental radar imaging satellite, along the lines of USA 193—another mission that failed after reaching orbit—based on sources in the intelligence community and the orbit the spacecraft was being launched into. “But let’s be honest. None of us really knows at this stage,” cautioned one account.

And, for what it’s worth, the National Reconnaissance Office, which operates other radar imaging satellites, appears to be distancing itself from Zuma. After the launch Friday of a classified payload on a ULA Delta IV, a launch designed NROL-47 and also thought to be a radar imaging satellite, NRO tweeted that the launch was “the first of two planned NRO launches for 2018.” In other words, it wasn’t counting Zuma as an NRO mission. And so the mystery continues.
 
Northrop Grumman, not SpaceX, reported to be at fault for loss of top-secret Zuma satellite

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/09/northrop-grumman-reportedly-at-fault-for-loss-of-zuma-satellite.html

Two independent investigations, made up of federal and industry officials, pointed to Northrop's payload adapter as the cause of the satellite's loss, the report said, citing people familiar with the probes. The payload adapter is a key part of deploying a satellite in orbit, connecting the satellite to the upper stage of a rocket.

Zuma is believed to have cost around $3.5 billion to develop, according to the report. The satellite was funded through a process that received a lesser degree of oversight from Congress compared with similar national security-related satellites, industry officials said.

The investigations tentatively concluded that onboard sensors did not immediately communicate to ground systems that the satellite did not separate from the rocket, according to the Journal. Unbeknownst to officials at the time, the planned return of the rocket's upper stage — a method of disposal to avoid adding space debris around the Earth — brought the satellite back down with it. By the time the satellite separated from the rocket it was too late, putting Zuma too low in orbit to save, according to the report.

The unique design of Zuma, according to officials, means it was built in such a way that made it particularly fragile. Northrop reportedly modified its payload adapter to help absorb vibrations that might damage the satellite. While those modifications remain unspecified, payload adapters traditionally use small, controlled explosives to release satellites from a rocket's upper stage.


Hmmmm, "particularly fragile" is a nice clue. Must consider...
 
Back
Top