Why would faking a fairing issue be better than simply saying the customer requested that the launch date be moved back for unspecified reasons?
Quote from: dorkmo on 01/08/2018 02:55 amcould the second stage "hover" instead of entering orbit?Tentative yes. It's got a high T/W ratio for a second stage. So in theory it could do a lofting 'boostback'. 2000+ km apogee would bring it down around T+25min, close as you like to the coast.Maybe a launch was the ultimate cover for a readiness review mission .
could the second stage "hover" instead of entering orbit?
If I were to wear my tinfoil hat, in fact, I'd say that the November "fairing issue" was much more likely to be a classified issue with the Zuma payload.
NG used their own payload processing facilities
Quote from: pb2000 on 01/08/2018 11:50 pmQuote from: quagmire on 01/08/2018 11:10 pmIf the Falcon 9 was the cause of this rumored loss of Zuma, we wouldn't be seeing continued preparations for the Falcon Heavy WDR, static fire, and launch campaign.Unless the mission is so highly classified that SpaceX is contractually obligated to continue on as if nothing ever happened, even if the second stage turned into a sperm whale and the payload into a bowl of petunias.That would be one absurd contract to not allow a company to stand down to investigate a failure.
Quote from: quagmire on 01/08/2018 11:10 pmIf the Falcon 9 was the cause of this rumored loss of Zuma, we wouldn't be seeing continued preparations for the Falcon Heavy WDR, static fire, and launch campaign.Unless the mission is so highly classified that SpaceX is contractually obligated to continue on as if nothing ever happened, even if the second stage turned into a sperm whale and the payload into a bowl of petunias.
If the Falcon 9 was the cause of this rumored loss of Zuma, we wouldn't be seeing continued preparations for the Falcon Heavy WDR, static fire, and launch campaign.
If it were in fact a payload issue, the customer could simply have said nothing. It's a classified mission with no need to invent cover stories that in effect unfairly blame your launch vehicle provider for a launch slip he didn't cause.
tho the articles coming out are hitting SpaceX pretty hard.
Notably, the Pentagon’s Strategic Command, which keeps track of all commercial, scientific and national-security satellites along with space debris, hadn’t updated its catalog of objects to reflect a new satellite circling the planet.
My personal view: (not vetted with other mods yet...)Go ahead and speculate if your speculations are well founded, within the realm of physical possibility, and are not repeats of stuff already said, that is, they add value.Go ahead and deconstruct speculations if you can do so collegially and can add value and learnings by doing so.
Quote from: Inoeth on 01/09/2018 01:42 am tho the articles coming out are hitting SpaceX pretty hard. It's the Wall Street Journal, aka the Bezo's News Service.
So i'm a little confused as to whether or not SpaceX is at fault, and what happened. the WSJ https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-spy-satellite-believed-lost-after-spacex-mission-fails-1515462479 repeat the "zuma failed to detach and fell" line, while others have said that it reach the correct orbit and that S2 worked just fine, but that Zuma was dead/nonresponsive... So much conflicting information...