Talk-Polywell.org

Maybe flying a car off to Mars is just a cover story, and it's actually related to the Zuma Sat.

I don't think so but I have see the stars 5+1 symbol on the mission patch before.

Not likely given the inclination.

Rumors are that Zuma is dead. Conflicting as to whether it is dead in orbit or burnt up with the 2nd stage. At least one source says that, if true, SpaceX is not at fault... but would we every really know?

ladajo wrote:Not likely given the inclination.

Maybe they are just the money men It looks like a joint mission to me.
but what do I know anymore, I now enjoy a exciting life in simulation and training.
it was my understanding they safely disposed of the second stage.

Up Close Footage of the SpaceX Launch of Zuma! 1-7-18

Maui wrote:U.S. Spy Satellite Believed Lost After SpaceX Mission Fails

By Andy Pasztor who does't have a track record of impartiality for SpaceX

SpaceX Zuma has been added to the Norad catalog as 2018-001A / 43098 / USA-280. So it didn't fall back to Earth (yet)

SpaceX spokesperson regarding the Zuma failure: “We do not comment on missions of this nature; but as of right now reviews of the data indicate Falcon 9 performed nominally.”

45th space wing tweet
Congratulations Sharks & @SpaceX! What an incredible way to start off 2018 w/the world's 1st successful launch and landing of this year!
(45th could sometimes describes 'successful launch' in ways that don't mean to imply satellite in-orbit health post separation. )

The world may never know what happened (at least not for 7 to ten years operational life.)
but again I have no first hand knowledge but it is fun to guess.

Interesting that it's status is also listed as +/operational. It seemed like there was too much noise for there not to have been something that went wrong, though.

Now, for the similar launches of NROL-76 & OTV-5 (2nd stage de-orbited), the catalog shows 2 objects from each launch, one labelled as the payload and the other as Falcon 9 Rocket Body.....

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index. ... =44175.240

According to a source familiar with discussions on Capitol Hill, both SpaceX and Northrop Grumman are blaming each other for the failure.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01 ... a-payload/

From what I'm seeing, they're saying that the Falcon 9 performed "nominally" which means it did it's job. SpaceX loathes pyrotechnic separators, but Northrop and the government loves the things. I'm wondering if the pyrotechnics failed to separate the satellite, so even though it was placed into its proper transfer orbit, the satellite is still stuck to the second stage.

I'm further wondering if there's enough fuel left to just boost the combined package into a stable orbit until they can attempt to separate the two again.

At least with mechanical ejection systems, you can try again. With pyros you get one shot. I'm starting to understand why SpaceX hates pyros.

The is pictures of stage 2 deorbiting over Sudan at its scheduled time 2 hrs after liftoff. It’s surprising to me that if there was failed separation, why did they deorbit so quickly?

Maui wrote:The is pictures of stage 2 deorbiting over Sudan at its scheduled time 2 hrs after liftoff. It’s surprising to me that if there was failed separation, why did they deorbit so quickly?

a fast deorbit? yes, but it landed in the graveyard so... once again it looks like spacex did their job.

jnaujok wrote: At least with mechanical ejection systems, you can try again. With pyros you get one shot. I'm starting to understand why SpaceX hates pyros.

The one time I've used pyros, they were fantastically expensive for what they are, hand-made specials with a long leadtime and difficult to ship. So there we were, with a set for each of the two birds, and maybe one set of spares. The Wallops Island range safety officer shows up and wants to see us demonstrate these because they are used in flight termination.

So we had to actually fire off a pair of these to satisfy the tests. At least we were permitted to substitute a light bulb for most of the tests. The lead time was the real killer ... one bird had to sit idle for months waiting for the replacements.

For a mechanical system, you just trigger it and reset it.

I've worked on mechanical release components for OSC, too. I believe they prefer them for the same reason.