F9: SpaceX Mission 1039, code name "ZUMA"


Recommended Posts

DocM

Slips to Saturday, Jan 6

 

Upper level winds forecast.

Link to post
Share on other sites
anthdci
3 hours ago, DocM said:

Slips to Saturday, Jan 6

 

Upper level winds forecast.

would it put back falcon heavy since they are on different pads?

Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM

Likely as Zuma is a personnel hog. Not necessarily a 1:1 slip ratio though.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM

And here we go....

 

Orbit destination is no longer "LEO," just "orbit." Hmmm....

 

Weather now 80%

 

Window: 2000-2200 Eastern (0100-0300 UT)

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim K

^ Coverage now live.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim K

Making it look easy. :)  

Need some infrared cameras for these night time landings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM

Smooootthhhhhh....

 

Ninjaed

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM

ZUMA, there & back

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM

 

Someone tracked S2 all the way to SECO-1. Neat footage of S2 sep and the landing too.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Beittil

Yeah that John Kraus photo is totally my new background on my phone now :D

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Skiver
On 06/01/2018 at 11:24 PM, DocM said:

And here we go....

 

Orbit destination is no longer "LEO," just "orbit." Hmmm....

 

Weather now 80%

 

Window: 2000-2200 Eastern (0100-0300 UT)

<snip>

 

2

Could this be something like the Boeing X-37? My head told me launches were always secret but wiki tells us the launch dates so I'm guessing I'm way off here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM
58 minutes ago, Skiver said:

Could this be something like the Boeing X-37? My head told me launches were always secret but wiki tells us the launch dates so I'm guessing I'm way off here.

SpaceX launched one of the two X-37B's last September and it was a very public launch. This is very, very different in that the agency it belongs to won't say so and even minor  leaks are non-existent. 

 

Even NRO claims its birds, giving them the NROL-## ,(NRO Launch) designation before launch and USA-### after they're on station.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM

CNBC and WSJ/Dow Jones are running with stories, based on Twitter rumors, that ZUMA either malfunctioned or didn't separate from the F9 upper stage. 

 

The WSJ/Dow Jones story is by Andy Pasztor, who is notoriously anti-SpaceX, and CNBC ran with his story. 

 

Northrop Grumman says we don't comment on classified launches.

 

SpaceX says F9 performed nominally, and so far insider info says the same. 

 

We also have the tweet below by a regular satellite tracker showing F9's S2 where it should have been, when it was supposed to be there, before the planned re-entry over the Indian Ocean.  Strategic Command has also listed ZUMA as USA-280, seeming to indicate it made orbit.

 

There is also independent tracking video of S2's burn, and the LaunchNet callout of fairing separation.

 

Take these rumors with a massive dose of salt until something official comes from N-G or the govt. saying otherwise. 

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/08/highly-classified-us-spy-satellite-appears-to-be-a-total-loss-after-spacex-launch.html

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-spy-satellite-believed-lost-after-spacex-mission-fails-1515462479

 

 

 

Edited by DocM
Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM

More: N-G made the payload adapter, they didn't use the standard SpaceX adapter. If it didn't separate from the upper stage....

 

https://www.wired.com/story/spacexs-top-secret-zuma-mission-launches-today/

 

Quote

>

Veteranaerospace manufacturer Northrop Grumman built the payload, according to a document obtained by WIRED and later confirmed by the company. The company says it built Zuma for the US government, and it’s also providing an adapter to mate Zuma with SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket. But that’s where information starts tapering off. 

>

Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM

And....an astronomer at Harvard-Smithsonian

 

 

Edited by DocM
Link to post
Share on other sites
+John.

Would it be possible that, if it did fail to separate due to the custom payload adapter, that SpaceX forced it to come down with S2 as they couldn't control S2 properly?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM

The upper stage was programmed to come down after a couple of orbits anyhow, orbital debris mitigation, so if the satellite didn't separate it was coming down as well.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Skiver
3 hours ago, DocM said:

The upper stage was programmed to come down after a couple of orbits anyhow, orbital debris mitigation, so if the satellite didn't separate it was coming down as well.

Straight down to a certain leaders house in North Korea? :shiftyninja:

 

What is the likely hood of us finding out whether it was successful or not? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
flyingskippy

SpaceX says F9 performed nominally and there was confirmation of fairing deployment. Everything else besides delta v and trajectory is on NG. Maybe they should have gone with SpaceX's payload adapter.....

 

This mission has been so f***ing weird since the get-go. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM

Statement by Gwynne Shotwell, President and COO of SpaceX,

 

Quote

For clarity: after review of all data to date, Falcon 9 did everything correctly on Sunday night. If we or others find otherwise based on further review, we will report it immediately. Information published that is contrary to this statement is categorically false. Due to the classified nature of the payload, no further comment is possible.  

Since the data reviewed so far indicates that no design, operational or other changes are needed, we do not anticipate any impact on the upcoming launch schedule. Falcon Heavy has been rolled out to launchpad LC-39A for a static fire later this week, to be followed shortly thereafter by its maiden flight. We are also preparing for an F9 launch for SES and the Luxembourg Government from SLC-40 in three weeks.

 

It's looking more and more like (a) the mission went as planned, perhaps a hypersonic or reentry vehicle test or the vehicle pulled a disappearing act, (b) the custom Northrop-Grumman supplied payload adapter failed to separate the vehicle from the upper stage, or (c) the vehicle failed after separation. Pick one.

Edited by DocM
Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.