Author Topic: SpaceX adds mystery “Zuma” mission, Iridium-4 aims Vandenberg status  (Read 13312 times)

Offline Chris Bergin

Latest round up of upcoming manifest events and some additional details via L2 - by Chris Gebhardt:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/10/spacex-zuma-iridium-4-aims-vandenberg-landing/

And with that there's been a change on the Iridium situation.

New article!

IR-4 now flight proven booster, the first from the West Coast! But back to Block 3, so can't RTLS as was the plan. Thanks to Iridium for being helpful in updating the status:

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/10/iridium-4-flight-proven-falcon-9-rtls-vandenberg-delayed/

- by Chris Gebhardt again :)
« Last Edit: 10/19/2017 12:01 pm by Chris Bergin »
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10205
  • US
  • Liked: 13885
  • Likes Given: 5933
The number of unknown/undecided details for flights in the next two months will keep things interesting.  Nice to see all of this wrapped up in one article.

Offline AndyX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 602
  • Liked: 375
  • Likes Given: 594
Epic round up!

I wonder how long they can get closer to the Zuma launch without actually giving it its real name?

Offline ChrisGebhardt

  • Assistant Managing Editor
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7842
  • ad astra scientia
  • ~1 AU
  • Liked: 7877
  • Likes Given: 853
Epic round up!

I wonder how long they can get closer to the Zuma launch without actually giving it its real name?

There's no requirement to divulge its real name at any point before, during, or after launch.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Epic round up!

I wonder how long they can get closer to the Zuma launch without actually giving it its real name?

There's no requirement to divulge its real name at any point before, during, or after launch.

Sure but isn't that extremely odd, even unprecedented, that they don't give a mission name or say who they are launching it for? Even NRO missions get that.

Offline Okie_Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1886
  • Oklahoma, USA
  • Liked: 1141
  • Likes Given: 725
At a guess, it's a backup satellite from a previous mission that could be prepped quickly by Northrop Grumman and launched quickly by SpaceX to take a peek at some hot spot like North Korea or Iran and they don't want to let anything about the specific capabilities out so as to hinder counter measures.

Offline vaporcobra

At a guess, it's a backup satellite from a previous mission that could be prepped quickly by Northrop Grumman and launched quickly by SpaceX to take a peek at some hot spot like North Korea or Iran and they don't want to let anything about the specific capabilities out so as to hinder counter measures.

I sincerely doubt this is a military/NRO payload of any sort. It makes absolutely zero sense given what Reddit /u/ASTRALsunder said about it being crucial for the company's revenue targets. Instead, it points to a small stealth startup working with LEO satellites of some sort, as it is quite literally impossible that NG would be depending on a single launch to satisfy their shareholders.

Furthermore, I would expect SpaceX and the Federal govt. to have immediately an unmercifully intervened to prevent this from being discussed further if it was actually a critically secretive payload. SpaceX requested NSF remove an unwarranted pic of LC-40's TEL a handful of days ago, I can only imagine that they would be far more sensitive about a military payload that explicitly requested secrecy.

Still plenty of things that don't quite add up, but I would bet a fortune that the only connected to the DoD is NG being the contracted manufacturer.

Edit: NSF confirmed that the payload is labelled "government". I somehow missed that tidbit, thanks meberbs. This only serves to complicated matters, all three sources (NSF and the two Reddit users) can't logically be correct at this point ???
« Last Edit: 10/17/2017 01:37 am by vaporcobra »

Online Craig_VG

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 219
  • Liked: 730
  • Likes Given: 528

I sincerely doubt this is a military/NRO payload of any sort. It makes absolutely zero sense given what Reddit /u/ASTRALsunder said about it being absolutely crucial for the company's revenue targets. Instead, it points to a small stealth startup working with LEO satellites of some sort, as it is quite literally impossible that NG would be depending on a single launch to satisfy their shareholders.


I agree wholeheartedly. The information we have points directly to this. That information could be wrong, we shall see soon.

Offline meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3096
  • Liked: 3379
  • Likes Given: 777

I sincerely doubt this is a military/NRO payload of any sort. It makes absolutely zero sense given what Reddit /u/ASTRALsunder said about it being absolutely crucial for the company's revenue targets. Instead, it points to a small stealth startup working with LEO satellites of some sort, as it is quite literally impossible that NG would be depending on a single launch to satisfy their shareholders.


I agree wholeheartedly. The information we have points directly to this. That information could be wrong, we shall see soon.
I am confused how the information we have can "point directly to this" when the information we have directly states that it is a government mission.

From the article:
Quote
NASASpaceflight.com has confirmed that Northrop Grumman is the payload provider for Zuma through a commercial launch contract with SpaceX for a LEO satellite with a mission type labeled as “government” and a needed launch date range of 1-30 November 2017
If the article is wrong, the way we find out will likely be due to the FCC license for operating the satellites, which I would expect to exist by now.

Also, I am not sure why anyone expects there to be a name for this mission beyond Zuma. When talking about classified payloads, any name is a code name, and they are unlikely to associate more than one code name with a mission publically. I seem to remember reading that some past classified missions did not state exactly what branch of the government owned them, so lack of this information would not be without precedent.

Offline Gary NASA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 626
  • KSC
  • Liked: 4867
  • Likes Given: 67

I sincerely doubt this is a military/NRO payload of any sort. It makes absolutely zero sense given what Reddit /u/ASTRALsunder said about it being absolutely crucial for the company's revenue targets. Instead, it points to a small stealth startup working with LEO satellites of some sort, as it is quite literally impossible that NG would be depending on a single launch to satisfy their shareholders.


I agree wholeheartedly. The information we have points directly to this. That information could be wrong, we shall see soon.

Payloads have three levels of restrictions for movement and processing. This one will be top of the scale.

Offline wolfpack

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 743
  • Wake Forest, NC
  • Liked: 159
  • Likes Given: 4
Payloads have three levels of restrictions for movement and processing. This one will be top of the scale.

Does LC-39A vs SLC-40 have anything to do with that? In other words, is this payload something that couldn't go from SLC-40 and needed to go from 39A prior to the FH work?

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10205
  • US
  • Liked: 13885
  • Likes Given: 5933
Payloads have three levels of restrictions for movement and processing. This one will be top of the scale.

Does LC-39A vs SLC-40 have anything to do with that? In other words, is this payload something that couldn't go from SLC-40 and needed to go from 39A prior to the FH work?

It would be schedule certainty, not security driving the pad choice.  If they want to launch in that time frame LC-39A is a much better bet than SLC-40.

Offline Eagandale4114

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 294
  • Liked: 541
  • Likes Given: 500

I sincerely doubt this is a military/NRO payload of any sort. It makes absolutely zero sense given what Reddit /u/ASTRALsunder said about it being absolutely crucial for the company's revenue targets. Instead, it points to a small stealth startup working with LEO satellites of some sort, as it is quite literally impossible that NG would be depending on a single launch to satisfy their shareholders.


I agree wholeheartedly. The information we have points directly to this. That information could be wrong, we shall see soon.

Payloads have three levels of restrictions for movement and processing. This one will be top of the scale.

Is there any website/doc that describes the levels of restrictions?

Offline vaporcobra

Payloads have three levels of restrictions for movement and processing. This one will be top of the scale.

Care to compare and contrast with the processing/movement of OTV-5? ;) Thanks for the info, Zuma is only getting more curious the more we learn...

Offline Chris Bergin

And with that there's been a change on the Iridium situation.

New article!

IR-4 now flight proven booster, the first from the West Coast! But back to Block 3, so can't RTLS as was the plan. Thanks to Iridium for being helpful in updating the status:

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/10/iridium-4-flight-proven-falcon-9-rtls-vandenberg-delayed/

- by Chris Gebhardt again :)
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline JoerTex

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 211
  • Austin, Texas
  • Liked: 432
  • Likes Given: 482

I sincerely doubt this is a military/NRO payload of any sort. It makes absolutely zero sense given what Reddit /u/ASTRALsunder said about it being absolutely crucial for the company's revenue targets. Instead, it points to a small stealth startup working with LEO satellites of some sort, as it is quite literally impossible that NG would be depending on a single launch to satisfy their shareholders.


I agree wholeheartedly. The information we have points directly to this. That information could be wrong, we shall see soon.

Payloads have three levels of restrictions for movement and processing. This one will be top of the scale.

Is there any website/doc that describes the levels of restrictions?


No document that you'd see without already having the clearance need-to-know about "Zuma"

Offline Moskit

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 138
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 22
"COSMIC TOP SECRET" seems appropriate :-)

As we got used to non-expendable rockets by now, it's nice that SpaceX keeps us entertained with these secret missions.

Offline Grandpa to Two

SpaceX’s Patricia Cooper stated at the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee yesterday that within the next few months SpaceX will be launching two test satellites of their new low orbit broadband satellites. She is SpaceX’s Vice President of Satellite Government Affairs. These prototypes will be used to test the viability of use prior to the planned launch of the constellation in the next few years. I submit that these two satellite will be “absolutely crucial for the company's revenue targets”. Zuma.

"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them" Galileo Galilei

Offline tleski

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 477
  • Washington, DC
  • Liked: 367
  • Likes Given: 758
SpaceX’s Patricia Cooper stated at the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee yesterday that within the next few months SpaceX will be launching two test satellites of their new low orbit broadband satellites. She is SpaceX’s Vice President of Satellite Government Affairs. These prototypes will be used to test the viability of use prior to the planned launch of the constellation in the next few years. I submit that these two satellite will be “absolutely crucial for the company's revenue targets”. Zuma.

We know that Northrop Grumman made this payload for a US Government customer, so your theory directly contradicts publicly known facts.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10205
  • US
  • Liked: 13885
  • Likes Given: 5933
SpaceX’s Patricia Cooper stated at the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee yesterday that within the next few months SpaceX will be launching two test satellites of their new low orbit broadband satellites. She is SpaceX’s Vice President of Satellite Government Affairs. These prototypes will be used to test the viability of use prior to the planned launch of the constellation in the next few years. I submit that these two satellite will be “absolutely crucial for the company's revenue targets”. Zuma.

No.  Those SpaceX sats are expected to fly with PAZ.  The "absolutely crucial" quote you're referring to is a secondhand interpretation of possibly misleading information.
« Last Edit: 10/27/2017 02:55 am by gongora »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0