We may need to carve off a thread for the speculation posts. Unless you have a concrete theory with some analysis behind it, maybe just wait and see? "it feels like X" posts may not be that helpful. Several mods have now said to curb the speculation... Please?
Millennium Space System's website has said for some time that a sat using their Aquila M8 bus of around three tons is 'scheduled to fly in 2016 as a GEO platform'; as far as I know this has not yet happened. This would seem like a good candidate as bus for this launch. If we do assume the launch is ultimately for the US government, a delivery-on-orbit contract through Aquila could still jive with the statements about a commercial customer.
Quote from: Kryten on 10/16/2017 06:55 pm Millennium Space System's website has said for some time that a sat using their Aquila M8 bus of around three tons is 'scheduled to fly in 2016 as a GEO platform'; as far as I know this has not yet happened. This would seem like a good candidate as bus for this launch. If we do assume the launch is ultimately for the US government, a delivery-on-orbit contract through Aquila could still jive with the statements about a commercial customer.If you are referring to the USAF WFOV satellite, a SpaceflightNow article listed it as part of the AFSPC-12 payload, which is part of a current RFP.
From reddit user /u/teku45. He claims that he was/is an intern at SpaceX.QuoteThe Zuma mission involves Northrop Grumman in some capacity. I know this for a fact. They are likely the payload integration service.
The Zuma mission involves Northrop Grumman in some capacity. I know this for a fact. They are likely the payload integration service.
More from the Reddit conversation
Article on site updated to reflect the following: 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.
Nice, now I can get rid of that unknown Northrop Grumman entry from the bottom of the manifest.
Quote from: gongora on 10/16/2017 09:06 pmNice, now I can get rid of that unknown Northrop Grumman entry from the bottom of the manifest.Yeah, this mission seems to have been on the books for a few years and isn't a rushed RapidLaunch-esque contract
"One friend did mention that the customer was pretty open and up front with SpaceX about their financial situation to give them an idea on how extremely crucial this flight was for them"
Why does this thread title say KSC while the general speculation one says Vandenberg?