Author Topic: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION  (Read 390352 times)

Offline mn

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 246
  • United States
  • Liked: 114
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #1520 on: 01/16/2018 02:24 AM »
NASA has launched secret payloads

I suspect that means they launched on behalf of other agencies?

His question was whether NASA owned any secret payloads.

Offline geza

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 144
  • Budapest
    • Géza Meszéna's web page
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #1521 on: 01/16/2018 04:03 AM »
Pentagon: direct you question to SpaceX. Strange.
https://www.space.com/39374-pentagon-shuts-down-questions-about-zuma-and-raises-more-questions.html
No.  Not strange at all.  Zuma wasn't an avowed DoD mission.  It was a SpaceX commercial launch for Northrop Grumman.  NG's customer was an unnamed US gov't entity.  Why would the DoD choose to answer questions about a payload that they aren't claiming responsibility for?  It would be tantamount to saying the payload was the DoD's, which if that was the case, is something they've been careful to avoid saying/suggesting before now.  The only other thing they might have said was to include directing further questions to Northrop as well as SpaceX.  Otherwise that response was totally predictable and shouldn't have "shocked" any reporter at all.


edit: Northrop spelling.
I know nothing about the relationships between different US government entities. However, DoD could just decline telling anything, citing secrecy. Naming one company, but not the other, unnecessarly, is finger pointing. Anybody, who is not familiar with the issue ("dispenser", "separation signal") will read it, as a hint for SpaceX failure.

Online woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7479
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 3259
  • Likes Given: 949
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #1522 on: 01/16/2018 09:41 AM »
So, if y'all wonder why the possibility that NG could be lying to Congress bothers me so much, well... that's why.  SpaceX could get us to Mars.  NG could care less.
If SpaceX = good, then Northrop Grumman (or any other non-SpaceX entity) must = bad?  I'm tired of that point of view on these forums. 

Surely both companies were working to serve their country with this mission.   

 - Ed Kyle


Both companies were working to serve their respective customer, not so much their country.

Offline Jet Black

I know nothing about the relationships between different US government entities. However, DoD could just decline telling anything, citing secrecy. Naming one company, but not the other, unnecessarly, is finger pointing. Anybody, who is not familiar with the issue ("dispenser", "separation signal") will read it, as a hint for SpaceX failure.

and they can misread it if they like. SpaceX customers will understand though - remember as much as the public take an interest in rocket launches, informing the public is not really important to SpaceX's bottom line.
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled. -- Richard Feynman

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3552
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2119
  • Likes Given: 2531
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #1524 on: 01/16/2018 03:37 PM »
Pentagon: direct you question to SpaceX. Strange.
https://www.space.com/39374-pentagon-shuts-down-questions-about-zuma-and-raises-more-questions.html
No.  Not strange at all.  Zuma wasn't an avowed DoD mission.  It was a SpaceX commercial launch for Northrop Grumman.  NG's customer was an unnamed US gov't entity.  Why would the DoD choose to answer questions about a payload that they aren't claiming responsibility for?  It would be tantamount to saying the payload was the DoD's, which if that was the case, is something they've been careful to avoid saying/suggesting before now.  The only other thing they might have said was to include directing further questions to Northrop as well as SpaceX.  Otherwise that response was totally predictable and shouldn't have "shocked" any reporter at all.


edit: Northrop spelling.
I know nothing about the relationships between different US government entities. However, DoD could just decline telling anything, citing secrecy. Naming one company, but not the other, unnecessarly, is finger pointing. Anybody, who is not familiar with the issue ("dispenser", "separation signal") will read it, as a hint for SpaceX failure.

No, the DoD referring questions to SpaceX not NG is not finger pointing.  It's perfectly natural.  SpaceX was the company broadcasting the launch.  SpaceX was the company that put out a statement after the launch.  There was no statement from NG.  So, if you're speaking for the DoD and you can't say anything yourself, the most natural place to refer questions to is the only company that said anything about it, and, probably, the only one that legal could.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2937
  • Liked: 1368
  • Likes Given: 911
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #1525 on: 01/16/2018 04:18 PM »
NSA is an indepenent Executive agency. NRO is DoD. CIA is also an independent Executive agency.

NSA and NRO are both under DoD, unlike CIA.
I just call them all "national security," as it would include CIA.
The question that prompted this was whether the DoD had oversight to the Zuma payload. Which they should, unless it was procured soley by a civilian agency like CIA.

Does the CIA (or any other civilian agency) have any of their own recon sat platforms? From what I understand they were and are jointly operated with at least one DoD agency.

Online RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 1040
  • Likes Given: 812
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #1526 on: 01/16/2018 05:21 PM »
NSA is an indepenent Executive agency. NRO is DoD. CIA is also an independent Executive agency.

NSA and NRO are both under DoD, unlike CIA.
I just call them all "national security," as it would include CIA.
The question that prompted this was whether the DoD had oversight to the Zuma payload. Which they should, unless it was procured soley by a civilian agency like CIA.

Does the CIA (or any other civilian agency) have any of their own recon sat platforms? From what I understand they were and are jointly operated with at least one DoD agency.

Interesting question, but it doesn't matter in this case. No government agency is on the record having anything to do with Zuma. No one in government is going to officially say anything about this mission.

Does make me wonder what the Zuma project is all about. Unfortunately, we'll never know* and speculating without evidence is not a productive exercise.

*Maybe some of the younger folk here will be around when it's eventually declassified.

Offline Roy_H

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Liked: 208
  • Likes Given: 1253
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #1527 on: 01/16/2018 05:46 PM »
You just knew Loren Thompson would weigh in at Forbes, this time trying to use ZUMA to claim an increased risk to astronauts in Commercial Crew,

Forbes....
That link brought me to the general page rather than the article.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2018/01/15/doubts-about-spacex-reliability-persist-as-astronaut-missions-approach/#322d01383305
"If we don't achieve re-usability, I will consider SpaceX to be a failure." - Elon Musk

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3985
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 808
  • Likes Given: 489
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #1528 on: 01/16/2018 05:48 PM »
You just knew Loren Thompson would weigh in at Forbes, this time trying to use ZUMA to claim an increased risk to astronauts in Commercial Crew,

Forbes....
That link brought me to the general page rather than the article.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2018/01/15/doubts-about-spacex-reliability-persist-as-astronaut-missions-approach/#322d01383305

Both links are not permalinks and will expire and change

Offline JimO

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1836
  • Texas, USA
  • Liked: 260
  • Likes Given: 57
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #1529 on: 01/16/2018 08:36 PM »
.....
Can anybody query Khartoum contacts for any all-sky cameras that could provide duration info on the double-spiral event?

I've initiated email and press inquiries, will report back.

Offline Wolfram66

You just knew Loren Thompson would weigh in at Forbes, this time trying to use ZUMA to claim an increased risk to astronauts in Commercial Crew,

Forbes....
That link brought me to the general page rather than the article.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2018/01/15/doubts-about-spacex-reliability-persist-as-astronaut-missions-approach/#322d01383305

Both links are not permalinks and will expire and change

Loren Thompson obviously is heavily invested in ULA - Boeing - Lockheed  & MIC related companies. Doesn't seem to mention all of the Russian Failures recently, yet we still put our personnel on them. #Jackwagon

Offline Ludus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 898
  • Liked: 343
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #1531 on: Today at 05:59 AM »
Hypothetically, if a secret expensive payload failed to separate from an F9 S2 for any reason, would SpaceX or the nameless government customer likely proceed to deorbit the second stage anyway destroying all possibility of salvaging the mission or would they just let it orbit for awhile to see if something could be done?

Does SpaceX have the capability of leaving the S2 in orbit and deciding at some future time to deorbit it?

Would it be pretty clear that nothing could be done soon after the event or would that be a difficult call until the problem had been worked for awhile?

Online QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8276
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3066
  • Likes Given: 739
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #1532 on: Today at 06:01 AM »
Yeah, I really do think it would be completely obvious if the payload didn't separate. This whole discussion is based on a rumour from an unnamed source. It's stupid.
Jeff Bezos has billions to spend on rockets and can go at whatever pace he likes! Wow! What pace is he going at? Well... have you heard of Zeno's paradox?

Tags: