9 ms·

SpaceX says its rocket performed exactly as intended in Zuma launch

88 points by artsandsci 9y ago

linsomniac 9y ago
The launch of a super secret spy satellite failed, the satellite is lost. No need to worry about a new spy in the sky? Seems like the sort of thing you'd HAVE to say about a secret satellite... :-)
- mikeash 9y ago
  Yeah, that’s my feeling too. “Everything you could actually see worked fine, but right afterwards we, uh, like, lost it. Yes, thats right, it’s gone. No need to look for it.”
  - sillysaurus3 9y ago
    So, what are the chances we have more than N nukes in orbit, where N > 0? I've always wondered. The time between launch and strike would be greatly reduced. Space is pretty close to land. But beyond conspiracy theories, do we know of any confirmed secret satellites? They should be detectable, but on the other hand there are so many satellites that it'd be hard to index them all. What could you do with a secret satellite? It seems like the signals would be detectable, but I'm not sure.
    - samfriedman 9y ago
      The Outer Space Treaty forbids, among other things, the placing of weapons of mass destruction in Earth orbit. Conventional weapons are fair game though, which has led to plenty of speculation on kinetic bombardment approaches. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty
      - hprotagonist 9y ago
        "Rodding". OF course, hauling a few tons of tungsten up there is going to be a giant pain.
    - QAPereo 9y ago
      Nukes in orbit would be obvious unless you shielded the absolute crap out of them, and shielding is heavy. Besides, if you get caught with a nuke in orbit, you're in real trouble, and the benefit is...? A secret satellite though? Oh the possibilities! The big problem with satellite surveillance is that people can figure out where your bird is, and simply you know... avoid it. Granted you can't hide large buildings, but you can predict when it will fly over and hide your troop numbers, mobile launch systems, etc. How do you avoid a satellite you have no tracking data on? Of course, that would require some really impressive optical, radar, and thermal stealth tech, but that's quite plausible. Of course if you were really paranoid, then maybe you'd think this isn't a satellite, but a satellite killer. I doubt it, and there are proven options to kill satellites from the ground, but it's possible.
      - elif 9y ago
        Can you explain why they would be so easily detectable? my understanding is that many space vessels use micro-reactors for power. Couldn't you just use plutonium warheads so that they look like one of those?
        aw1621107 9y ago
        I wouldn't say "many"; nuclear-powered vessels generally are ones that are going well beyond Earth's orbit. They also aren't "normal" nuclear reactors, since they use the heat from radioactive decay to power thermocouples, as opposed to sustaining an active fission reaction like most nuclear power plants here do.
      - cuspycode 9y ago
        I don't think unshielded nukes in orbit are easy to detect. Back on Earth you need to get up close (within a few meters) in order to distinguish the radiation signature from the background radiation, and in space the background level is much higher. Source: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R40154.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R40154.pdf (see page 78 and onwards for a discussion about detecting nukes at a distance)
        9y ago
    - aw1621107 9y ago
      >So, what are the chances we have more than N nukes in orbit, where N > 0? I've always wondered. Legally speaking, 0, since the Outer Space Treaty forbids placing nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in orbit, and all spacefaring nations so far have signed. Even if the military kept things under wraps, I'm not so sure that stationing nukes in orbit would provide a significant advantage, as you would only be able to strike a particular target when it rotates under your orbit, which means you can hit a target only twice a day at fairly specific times, while ICBMs can be launched at any time. In addition, modern ICBMs have flight times on the order of 30 minutes ([0], [1]), so satellites aren't going to be reaching a target much faster. Edit: forgot to address another point >They should be detectable, but on the other hand there are so many satellites that it'd be hard to index them all. We already track more than half a million pieces of space debris, with 20,000 of those larger than a softball ([2]), so I'd imagine a "secret" satellite wouldn't stay secret for long. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercontinental_ballistic_missile#Flight_phases [1]: https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/12028/is-it-correct-that-it-takes-approx-30-minutes-for-an-icbm-to-reach-russia [2]: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/news/orbital_debris.html
      - ceejayoz 9y ago
        > Legally speaking, 0, since the Outer Space Treaty forbids placing nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in orbit, and all spacefaring nations so far have signed. Signing treaties didn't stop us from waterboarding torture. > Even if the military kept things under wraps, I'm not so sure that stationing nukes in orbit would provide a significant advantage, as you would only be able to strike a particular target when it rotates under your orbit, which means you can hit a target only twice a day at fairly specific times, while ICBMs can be launched at any time. The big benefit would be that a target can be wiped off the map without a giant "LOOK WE DID IT" flag immediately beforehand. > We already track more than half a million pieces of space debris, with 20,000 of those larger than a softball ([2]), so I'd imagine a "secret" satellite wouldn't stay secret for long. Space debris follows a predictable track once spotted and isn't deliberately constructed to be hard to find with visual/radar observation. This is a bit like saying stealth bombers are impossible because we can easily spot airliners.
    - ambicapter 9y ago
      Keeping nukes in orbit is not that beneficial. Its stuck on a single path orbit, and it takes only slightly less energy to de-orbit it than to put it there in the first place. ICBMs take what, half an hour, to hit a target around the world?
      - ceejayoz 9y ago
        If I slap you, chances are you can figure out who did it pretty quickly. An ICBM launch followed by a vaporized city 30 minutes later points pretty conclusively to the culprit. If a disembodied hand comes out of nowhere and slaps you, you may have difficulty proving it was me that did it, especially if the hand vaporizes in the process.
        simonh 9y ago
        Only a few countries both have nukes and have orbital launch capability, so it's going to be an extremely short list of suspects to start with. Then there are all the other disadvantages of orbital nukes. They can only strike on their orbital path, and only when they're in the right point of the orbit, otherwise they're very expensive to re-target because it means changing orbits. Because of all those points they're actually a lot slower to target than ICMBs. If they're in a low orbit then the orbit will decay and they will come down in a few years whether you want them to or not. If they're in a high orbit the costs are even higher and they're even slower to target. Finally, they're vulnerable to detection if they're up for any length of time. They really are a terrible idea.
        ceejayoz 9y ago
        Spy satellites have had to tackle those issues for decades already (staying in orbit, retargeting, etc.). It's mostly solved problems, and the use case for such a thing would be more the "I want that factory in Iran to go away but it's OK if it takes six months" than immediate needs you'd use an ICBM for. Plausible deniability goes a long way, even if it's not very plausible. Plenty of cases in the Cold War where everyone knew a side did something they shouldn't have but couldn't prove it.
    - foobarbecue 9y ago
      > So, what are the chances we have more than N nukes in orbit, where N > 0? Your question is equivalent to "what are the chances we have more than 1 nuke in orbit." Is that what you meant?
  - tc313 9y ago
    Except now everybody is looking for it...
    - cobookman 9y ago
      Which might have also been there plan.
    - ninkendo 9y ago
      I'm sure even if there was a failure you'd still be able to visibly see the satellite... it's not like the fairing separation would have caused it to suddenly lose enough delta-v to deorbit. The failure, apparently, is that they can't contact the payload, not that it disappeared.
  - dullgiulio 9y ago
    Or just a justification for when it's found following a trajectory that is somewhat embarrassing to explain.
- sloan_royal 9y ago
  I'm sure we'd never do anything like tha... nevermind http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3077830/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/spy-satellites-rise-faked-fall/ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3077830/ns/technology_and_science-...
  - westbywest 9y ago
    Today sure was an odd time for that NBC news story to turn into 404. (Cached version still on Google, as of this writing.)
- aw1621107 9y ago
  We already find/track orbital debris in LEO, so I'd imagine finding a satellite should be doable by interested parties, unless there's some new tech on there that makes detection significantly harder.
  - sloan_royal 9y ago
    The X-37B has been known to vanish from being tracked from time to time. We've got some clever stuff.
    - aw1621107 9y ago
      Might that be just because it changed orbit and had to be reacquired? Might take a while since you have no clue what the parameters for the new orbit are or when the burn(s) took place. Some kind of new stealth tech would be pretty cool, though.
  - Kelbit 9y ago
    It's been speculated that advanced spy satellites carry thrusters and fuel to conduct frequent orbit changes. I think it's pretty telling that the DoD just did a SBIR competition for software to detect evasive behavior in space junk: https://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/1319195 https://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/1319195
    - aw1621107 9y ago
      > It's been speculated that advanced spy satellites carry thrusters and fuel to conduct frequent orbit changes. That's not really surprising; I'd imagine most long-term satellites carry thrusters and at least some amount of fuel for stationkeeping, especially in geostationary orbit. It'd definitely make it much more difficult to track, unless you keep something pointed at it 24/7 so you notice the change in velocity. And nice find with the SBIR competition! Does seem to point towards satellites being much more difficult to track than I thought if they're constantly moving.
- samfriedman 9y ago
  And that interpretation is so obvious that you have to wonder if the satellite really is some classified new reentry vehicle, and the decision to publicly announce its loss is designed to make adversaries devote resources to looking for a super-stealth satellite that isn't there.
- elif 9y ago
  "Unfortunately, we decided to take our spy satellite on a hunting expedition, and it was permanently lost when our canoe tipped over. We looked for hours, but could not find it in that lake"
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Shivetya 9y ago
Northrop was in charge of the payload adapter mounting the satellite so as long as hand over took place I don't see how Space X has an issue other than being tied in search results to the loss
dooglius 9y ago
If true, this sounds like the best possible outcome: SpaceX succeeded and will continue getting closer to Mars, and the NSA or whoever essentially burned money without getting any more powerful.
- wang_li 9y ago
  >NSA or whoever essentially burned money without getting any more powerful. If you are an American that was your money. It's not good to simply burn it up.
  - dooglius 9y ago
    True, but de-funding of the military-industrial complex was not a potential outcome of the launch. My point is that I consider this outcome preferable both to failed launch + failed payload and to successful launch + successful payload.
  - elif 9y ago
    When the alternative is investing it in compromising my own security and freedom, bring on the bonfire IMO.
    - wang_li 9y ago
      What if I tell you the alternative is that they'll just get funding to try again. They successfully made the case that building and launching this satellite was necessary. Presumably the same argument will apply.
iooi 9y ago
>The Wall Street Journal and other sources, including our own, had suggested that Zuma failed to separate from the second stage of the Falcon 9 rocket following successful first stage separation, at which point it potentially fell back to Earth and was lost in the ocean. They're really downplaying how bad their coverage was, it really feels like people love to watch Space X fail. For example: WSJ Headline: "U.S. Spy Satellite Believed Lost After SpaceX Mission Fails" TC Headline: "SpaceX apparently lost the classified Zuma payload from latest launch"
- ProAm 9y ago
  I dont know enough about the Falcon, but who is responsible for creating the separation process or mechanism from the second stage of the rocket? I assumed it would be SpaceX's?
  - benmorris 9y ago
    On this launch it was Northrup Grumman that built the mechanism that connected to the 2nd stage.
  - JshWright 9y ago
    Generally speaking it is SpaceX. However, due to the very sensitive nature of this payload, the satellite's manufacturer supplied the payload adapter (the bit that handles the detaching) and did the processing themselves (mating the two together, etc). So, in this specific case, if it was a failure of the payload to deploy properly, that would almost certainly be Northrup Grumman's "fault".
    - planteen 9y ago
      > So, in this specific case, if it was a failure of the payload to deploy properly, that would almost certainly be Northrup Grumman's "fault". Many scenarios would point that way, yeah. But there are still things the launch vehicle (LV) could have done wrong. At the end of the day, this is a mechanical and electrical interface. Interfaces must be specified and that always leaves room for misinterpretation or incorrect specifications. There had to have been an electrical harness that signaled when it was time to deploy. A failure there could absolutely be on the LV side.
rsbartram 9y ago
I wonder if the rocket was recycled like previous SpaceX rockets? https://latechnews.org/spacex-launches-bulgariasat-1-recycled-rocket/ https://latechnews.org/spacex-launches-bulgariasat-1-recycle...
- foobarbecue 9y ago
  No, it wasn't. It was core B1043, which had not been previously launched. It was originally intended for a NASA mission but Zuma swiped it. See https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/wiki/cores#wiki_b1043 https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/wiki/cores#wiki_b1043
reaperducer 9y ago
I don't see anything contradictory here. Media says Zuma didn't make orbit. SpaceX says everything worked the way it should have. I think the flaw is in the second-guessers assuming the mission was to make orbit, and not to test some kind of (laser?) anti-rocket/satellite technology.
- james_pm 9y ago
  https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/08/spacex-apparently-lost-the-classified-zuma-payload-from-latest-launch/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/08/spacex-apparently-lost-the... TechCrunch specifically called it out as a Space X failure: "SpaceX apparently lost the classified Zuma payload from latest launch" And in the story under that headline: "The satellite was likely worth billions, according to the WSJ, which makes this the second billion-dollar plus payload that SpaceX has lost in just over two years; the last was Facebook’s internet satellite, which was destroyed when the Falcon 9 it was supposed to launch on exploded during preflight preparations in September 2016. This could be a significant setback for SpaceX, since these kinds of contracts can be especially lucrative, and it faces fierce competition from existing launch provider ULA, jointly operated by Boeing and Lockheed Martin."
- peeters 9y ago
  Media were the ones saying it was SpaceX's failure: > WSJ: U.S. Spy Satellite Believed Lost After SpaceX Mission Fails The SpaceX mission didn't fail if it checked all the boxes it was responsible for.
peeters 9y ago
This was an interesting launch. Launch was delayed a couple times IIRC, at least once due to them wanting to review data from fairing tests. Classified payload, so no video of fairing separation. On the webcast, the host went silent for over a minute when fairing separation should have occurred, before coming back with > sigh alright so we'll address the fairing deployment here in a second once we have more information Indicating something might be up. Later he just says > Quick sidebar, we did get successful confirmation that the fairings did deploy. So seems like they knew something was up with the payload at that point, but that their telemetry indicated their mission was successful. As others have noted, it was Northrop Grumman who was responsible for the payload adaptor attaching it to second stage. So unless fairing deployment or the launch damaged the payload/adaptor somehow, SpaceX would have done their part. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PWu3BRxn60 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PWu3BRxn60
- jnsaff2 9y ago
  > On the webcast, the host went silent for over a minute when fairing separation should have occurred, before coming back with Or the host was not cleared to view the fairing separation/payload themselves and had to get their information from others.
  - Robotbeat 9y ago
    Bingo. Everything even close to the payload would need to be approved before being mentioned by the host. And the penalty for screwing that up is pretty stiff (for the company and employee), so you sure as heck are going to error on the side of caution.
  - peeters 9y ago
    Oh no doubt he was waiting for info to be relayed to him, I just felt the combination of his sigh, his language (we'll address the situation), and the fact that there was such a long silence indicated that he didn't anticipate it taking so long to have confirmation of fairing deploy. In typical launches the confirmation comes a few seconds after deployment, not a couple minutes. And if you anticipate 1-2 minutes of nothing to report, usually you'd plan to be saying something in the meantime to avoid dead air. I could obviously be misinterpreting it, but this was my impression when watching it live, before we even knew there was an issue with the payload. When I watched it I thought they had lost it until he came back and said fairing deploy was successful.
caio1982 9y ago
For anyone looking for more technical and "inside" intel on this I suggest https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/7p7ev8/official_rspacex_zuma_postlaunch_discussion_thread/ https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/7p7ev8/official_rsp... My explanation of choice as of today is that NG launched a refueling (dockable) sat to a previously launched spysat.
- boardwaalk 9y ago
  This blog post suggests that the orbit was much higher than USA 276's: https://sattrackcam.blogspot.nl/2018/01/fuel-dump-of-zumas-falcon-9-upper-stage.html https://sattrackcam.blogspot.nl/2018/01/fuel-dump-of-zumas-f...
onepremise 9y ago
This is stupid. Nothing went wrong during the launch. It's a top-secret satellite they are not commenting on. Move along.
mabbo 9y ago
SpaceX is getting paid for a successful launch, meeting their contractual obligations. The booster landed perfectly. There's no damage to the launchpad delaying other rockets. There's no investigation into "what went wrong?" holding back further launches. No real customer is looking at this and going "Wait, maybe we'd better use ULA instead!" because they know SpaceX launched just fine. This is an absolute win for SpaceX, despite however anyone wants to spin it. Dramatic headlines about the downfall of the successful sell newspapers, but they don't mean anything real.
- kogepathic 9y ago
  > SpaceX is getting paid for a successful launch, meeting their contractual obligations. I would assume most contracts for space launches involve putting the payload in question into the correct LEO/GEO, or at least an agreed upon point at which the payload maneuvers itself into the intended orbit. > The booster landed perfectly. That benefits SpaceX. The customer isn't likely to care what happens to the rocket after it launches their payload. > There's no damage to the launchpad delaying other rockets. Not the customer's problem even if it did explode on the pad. That would be between the launch company and the launch facility. In the case of a private customer, the payload is almost always insured (though insurance does little to help with schedule delays in manufacturing a new payload). > There's no investigation into "what went wrong?" holding back further launches. There might be for the US military, we don't know. > No real customer is looking at this and going "Wait, maybe we'd better use ULA instead!" because they know SpaceX launched just fine. According to SpaceX's account of the launch. > This is an absolute win for SpaceX, despite however anyone wants to spin it. Wouldn't an "absolute win" be launching the payload into the intended orbit with no anomalies?
  - rst 9y ago
    For most launches, it would be SpaceX's job to demate the payload from their stage -- but not for this one. Unusually (per coverage from Ars and others), the hardware that mated the payload to the rocket was supplied by the customer of record, Northrup/Grumman, not SpaceX -- so if it failed, SpaceX can't really be blamed for that. https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/what-we-know-and-what-we-dont-about-the-secretive-zuma-payload/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/what-we-know-and-wha...
benmorris 9y ago
We'll see how long this blame game continues. My guess is that it Spacex will continue launching rockets (as normal) and Northrop will keep getting Satellite contracts. The fuss will likely fade away if the satellite (or whatever it is) functioned as normal. I tend to believe this is just misinformation until someone finds some hard evidence otherwise.
- JshWright 9y ago
  What blame game? SpaceX says their rocket did its job. Northrup Grumman hasn't said sanything.
gebeeson 9y ago
Or. The Zuma payload is working exactly as intended and will be forgotten in a weeks time once this fades from daily news. Might be a good time to reinforce your tinfoil hats.
exabrial 9y ago
Is there insurance for these things? A billion-dollar satellite costs each person in the USA ~ $3.10.
- QuotedForTruth 9y ago
  There is space launch insurance. Private companies almost always have it since the risk of a failure and loss of a very expensive satellite is not negligible. However, the government tends not to buy insurance. For an entity as big as the US government, insurance will surely be a net loss when you add up all of the times they would want to buy it. For instance federal employees don't buy any of the insurance offered with rental cars. Obviously with the number of federal rentals, there are lots of accidents that the government must pay for, but this figure is lower than total cost of all the insurance they would have to pay for to avoid it. In general insurance is only advisable if the avoided costs would be too much for the insured to pay out of pocket. And the federal government can essentially pay for anything. That's not even mentioning specific concerns with this highly classified payload. The insurance company would want some knowledge of what they are insuring to assess its value and that's just unnecessary risk to the secrecy.
manicdee 9y ago
There are no credible sources claiming that Zuma failed. All the news we have heard is rumour and conjecture, with no two reports getting anything like a consistent story. F9 S2 deorbited as expected. S2 got to orbit. Thus the payload got to orbit too.

88 points by artsandsci 9y ago

The launch of a super secret spy satellite failed, the satellite is lost. No need to worry about a new spy in the sky? Seems like the sort of thing you'd HAVE to say about a secret satellite... :-)

mikeash 9y ago
Yeah, that’s my feeling too. “Everything you could actually see worked fine, but right afterwards we, uh, like, lost it. Yes, thats right, it’s gone. No need to look for it.”
- sillysaurus3 9y ago
  So, what are the chances we have more than N nukes in orbit, where N > 0? I've always wondered. The time between launch and strike would be greatly reduced. Space is pretty close to land. But beyond conspiracy theories, do we know of any confirmed secret satellites? They should be detectable, but on the other hand there are so many satellites that it'd be hard to index them all. What could you do with a secret satellite? It seems like the signals would be detectable, but I'm not sure.
  - samfriedman 9y ago
    The Outer Space Treaty forbids, among other things, the placing of weapons of mass destruction in Earth orbit. Conventional weapons are fair game though, which has led to plenty of speculation on kinetic bombardment approaches. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty
    - hprotagonist 9y ago
      "Rodding". OF course, hauling a few tons of tungsten up there is going to be a giant pain.
  - QAPereo 9y ago
    Nukes in orbit would be obvious unless you shielded the absolute crap out of them, and shielding is heavy. Besides, if you get caught with a nuke in orbit, you're in real trouble, and the benefit is...? A secret satellite though? Oh the possibilities! The big problem with satellite surveillance is that people can figure out where your bird is, and simply you know... avoid it. Granted you can't hide large buildings, but you can predict when it will fly over and hide your troop numbers, mobile launch systems, etc. How do you avoid a satellite you have no tracking data on? Of course, that would require some really impressive optical, radar, and thermal stealth tech, but that's quite plausible. Of course if you were really paranoid, then maybe you'd think this isn't a satellite, but a satellite killer. I doubt it, and there are proven options to kill satellites from the ground, but it's possible.
    - elif 9y ago
      Can you explain why they would be so easily detectable? my understanding is that many space vessels use micro-reactors for power. Couldn't you just use plutonium warheads so that they look like one of those?
      - aw1621107 9y ago
        I wouldn't say "many"; nuclear-powered vessels generally are ones that are going well beyond Earth's orbit. They also aren't "normal" nuclear reactors, since they use the heat from radioactive decay to power thermocouples, as opposed to sustaining an active fission reaction like most nuclear power plants here do.
    - cuspycode 9y ago
      I don't think unshielded nukes in orbit are easy to detect. Back on Earth you need to get up close (within a few meters) in order to distinguish the radiation signature from the background radiation, and in space the background level is much higher. Source: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R40154.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R40154.pdf (see page 78 and onwards for a discussion about detecting nukes at a distance)
      - 9y ago
  - aw1621107 9y ago
    >So, what are the chances we have more than N nukes in orbit, where N > 0? I've always wondered. Legally speaking, 0, since the Outer Space Treaty forbids placing nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in orbit, and all spacefaring nations so far have signed. Even if the military kept things under wraps, I'm not so sure that stationing nukes in orbit would provide a significant advantage, as you would only be able to strike a particular target when it rotates under your orbit, which means you can hit a target only twice a day at fairly specific times, while ICBMs can be launched at any time. In addition, modern ICBMs have flight times on the order of 30 minutes ([0], [1]), so satellites aren't going to be reaching a target much faster. Edit: forgot to address another point >They should be detectable, but on the other hand there are so many satellites that it'd be hard to index them all. We already track more than half a million pieces of space debris, with 20,000 of those larger than a softball ([2]), so I'd imagine a "secret" satellite wouldn't stay secret for long. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercontinental_ballistic_missile#Flight_phases [1]: https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/12028/is-it-correct-that-it-takes-approx-30-minutes-for-an-icbm-to-reach-russia [2]: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/news/orbital_debris.html
    - ceejayoz 9y ago
      > Legally speaking, 0, since the Outer Space Treaty forbids placing nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in orbit, and all spacefaring nations so far have signed. Signing treaties didn't stop us from waterboarding torture. > Even if the military kept things under wraps, I'm not so sure that stationing nukes in orbit would provide a significant advantage, as you would only be able to strike a particular target when it rotates under your orbit, which means you can hit a target only twice a day at fairly specific times, while ICBMs can be launched at any time. The big benefit would be that a target can be wiped off the map without a giant "LOOK WE DID IT" flag immediately beforehand. > We already track more than half a million pieces of space debris, with 20,000 of those larger than a softball ([2]), so I'd imagine a "secret" satellite wouldn't stay secret for long. Space debris follows a predictable track once spotted and isn't deliberately constructed to be hard to find with visual/radar observation. This is a bit like saying stealth bombers are impossible because we can easily spot airliners.
  - ambicapter 9y ago
    Keeping nukes in orbit is not that beneficial. Its stuck on a single path orbit, and it takes only slightly less energy to de-orbit it than to put it there in the first place. ICBMs take what, half an hour, to hit a target around the world?
    - ceejayoz 9y ago
      If I slap you, chances are you can figure out who did it pretty quickly. An ICBM launch followed by a vaporized city 30 minutes later points pretty conclusively to the culprit. If a disembodied hand comes out of nowhere and slaps you, you may have difficulty proving it was me that did it, especially if the hand vaporizes in the process.
      - simonh 9y ago
        Only a few countries both have nukes and have orbital launch capability, so it's going to be an extremely short list of suspects to start with. Then there are all the other disadvantages of orbital nukes. They can only strike on their orbital path, and only when they're in the right point of the orbit, otherwise they're very expensive to re-target because it means changing orbits. Because of all those points they're actually a lot slower to target than ICMBs. If they're in a low orbit then the orbit will decay and they will come down in a few years whether you want them to or not. If they're in a high orbit the costs are even higher and they're even slower to target. Finally, they're vulnerable to detection if they're up for any length of time. They really are a terrible idea.
        ceejayoz 9y ago
        Spy satellites have had to tackle those issues for decades already (staying in orbit, retargeting, etc.). It's mostly solved problems, and the use case for such a thing would be more the "I want that factory in Iran to go away but it's OK if it takes six months" than immediate needs you'd use an ICBM for. Plausible deniability goes a long way, even if it's not very plausible. Plenty of cases in the Cold War where everyone knew a side did something they shouldn't have but couldn't prove it.
  - foobarbecue 9y ago
    > So, what are the chances we have more than N nukes in orbit, where N > 0? Your question is equivalent to "what are the chances we have more than 1 nuke in orbit." Is that what you meant?
- tc313 9y ago
  Except now everybody is looking for it...
  - cobookman 9y ago
    Which might have also been there plan.
  - ninkendo 9y ago
    I'm sure even if there was a failure you'd still be able to visibly see the satellite... it's not like the fairing separation would have caused it to suddenly lose enough delta-v to deorbit. The failure, apparently, is that they can't contact the payload, not that it disappeared.
- dullgiulio 9y ago
  Or just a justification for when it's found following a trajectory that is somewhat embarrassing to explain.
sloan_royal 9y ago
I'm sure we'd never do anything like tha... nevermind http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3077830/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/spy-satellites-rise-faked-fall/ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3077830/ns/technology_and_science-...
- westbywest 9y ago
  Today sure was an odd time for that NBC news story to turn into 404. (Cached version still on Google, as of this writing.)
aw1621107 9y ago
We already find/track orbital debris in LEO, so I'd imagine finding a satellite should be doable by interested parties, unless there's some new tech on there that makes detection significantly harder.
- sloan_royal 9y ago
  The X-37B has been known to vanish from being tracked from time to time. We've got some clever stuff.
  - aw1621107 9y ago
    Might that be just because it changed orbit and had to be reacquired? Might take a while since you have no clue what the parameters for the new orbit are or when the burn(s) took place. Some kind of new stealth tech would be pretty cool, though.
- Kelbit 9y ago
  It's been speculated that advanced spy satellites carry thrusters and fuel to conduct frequent orbit changes. I think it's pretty telling that the DoD just did a SBIR competition for software to detect evasive behavior in space junk: https://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/1319195 https://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/1319195
  - aw1621107 9y ago
    > It's been speculated that advanced spy satellites carry thrusters and fuel to conduct frequent orbit changes. That's not really surprising; I'd imagine most long-term satellites carry thrusters and at least some amount of fuel for stationkeeping, especially in geostationary orbit. It'd definitely make it much more difficult to track, unless you keep something pointed at it 24/7 so you notice the change in velocity. And nice find with the SBIR competition! Does seem to point towards satellites being much more difficult to track than I thought if they're constantly moving.
samfriedman 9y ago
And that interpretation is so obvious that you have to wonder if the satellite really is some classified new reentry vehicle, and the decision to publicly announce its loss is designed to make adversaries devote resources to looking for a super-stealth satellite that isn't there.
elif 9y ago
"Unfortunately, we decided to take our spy satellite on a hunting expedition, and it was permanently lost when our canoe tipped over. We looked for hours, but could not find it in that lake"

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Shivetya 9y ago

Northrop was in charge of the payload adapter mounting the satellite so as long as hand over took place I don't see how Space X has an issue other than being tied in search results to the loss

dooglius 9y ago

If true, this sounds like the best possible outcome: SpaceX succeeded and will continue getting closer to Mars, and the NSA or whoever essentially burned money without getting any more powerful.

wang_li 9y ago
>NSA or whoever essentially burned money without getting any more powerful. If you are an American that was your money. It's not good to simply burn it up.
- dooglius 9y ago
  True, but de-funding of the military-industrial complex was not a potential outcome of the launch. My point is that I consider this outcome preferable both to failed launch + failed payload and to successful launch + successful payload.
- elif 9y ago
  When the alternative is investing it in compromising my own security and freedom, bring on the bonfire IMO.
  - wang_li 9y ago
    What if I tell you the alternative is that they'll just get funding to try again. They successfully made the case that building and launching this satellite was necessary. Presumably the same argument will apply.

iooi 9y ago

>The Wall Street Journal and other sources, including our own, had suggested that Zuma failed to separate from the second stage of the Falcon 9 rocket following successful first stage separation, at which point it potentially fell back to Earth and was lost in the ocean. They're really downplaying how bad their coverage was, it really feels like people love to watch Space X fail. For example: WSJ Headline: "U.S. Spy Satellite Believed Lost After SpaceX Mission Fails" TC Headline: "SpaceX apparently lost the classified Zuma payload from latest launch"

ProAm 9y ago
I dont know enough about the Falcon, but who is responsible for creating the separation process or mechanism from the second stage of the rocket? I assumed it would be SpaceX's?
- benmorris 9y ago
  On this launch it was Northrup Grumman that built the mechanism that connected to the 2nd stage.
- JshWright 9y ago
  Generally speaking it is SpaceX. However, due to the very sensitive nature of this payload, the satellite's manufacturer supplied the payload adapter (the bit that handles the detaching) and did the processing themselves (mating the two together, etc). So, in this specific case, if it was a failure of the payload to deploy properly, that would almost certainly be Northrup Grumman's "fault".
  - planteen 9y ago
    > So, in this specific case, if it was a failure of the payload to deploy properly, that would almost certainly be Northrup Grumman's "fault". Many scenarios would point that way, yeah. But there are still things the launch vehicle (LV) could have done wrong. At the end of the day, this is a mechanical and electrical interface. Interfaces must be specified and that always leaves room for misinterpretation or incorrect specifications. There had to have been an electrical harness that signaled when it was time to deploy. A failure there could absolutely be on the LV side.

rsbartram 9y ago

I wonder if the rocket was recycled like previous SpaceX rockets? https://latechnews.org/spacex-launches-bulgariasat-1-recycled-rocket/ https://latechnews.org/spacex-launches-bulgariasat-1-recycle...

foobarbecue 9y ago
No, it wasn't. It was core B1043, which had not been previously launched. It was originally intended for a NASA mission but Zuma swiped it. See https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/wiki/cores#wiki_b1043 https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/wiki/cores#wiki_b1043

reaperducer 9y ago

I don't see anything contradictory here. Media says Zuma didn't make orbit. SpaceX says everything worked the way it should have. I think the flaw is in the second-guessers assuming the mission was to make orbit, and not to test some kind of (laser?) anti-rocket/satellite technology.

james_pm 9y ago
https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/08/spacex-apparently-lost-the-classified-zuma-payload-from-latest-launch/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/08/spacex-apparently-lost-the... TechCrunch specifically called it out as a Space X failure: "SpaceX apparently lost the classified Zuma payload from latest launch" And in the story under that headline: "The satellite was likely worth billions, according to the WSJ, which makes this the second billion-dollar plus payload that SpaceX has lost in just over two years; the last was Facebook’s internet satellite, which was destroyed when the Falcon 9 it was supposed to launch on exploded during preflight preparations in September 2016. This could be a significant setback for SpaceX, since these kinds of contracts can be especially lucrative, and it faces fierce competition from existing launch provider ULA, jointly operated by Boeing and Lockheed Martin."
peeters 9y ago
Media were the ones saying it was SpaceX's failure: > WSJ: U.S. Spy Satellite Believed Lost After SpaceX Mission Fails The SpaceX mission didn't fail if it checked all the boxes it was responsible for.

peeters 9y ago

This was an interesting launch. Launch was delayed a couple times IIRC, at least once due to them wanting to review data from fairing tests. Classified payload, so no video of fairing separation. On the webcast, the host went silent for over a minute when fairing separation should have occurred, before coming back with > sigh alright so we'll address the fairing deployment here in a second once we have more information Indicating something might be up. Later he just says > Quick sidebar, we did get successful confirmation that the fairings did deploy. So seems like they knew something was up with the payload at that point, but that their telemetry indicated their mission was successful. As others have noted, it was Northrop Grumman who was responsible for the payload adaptor attaching it to second stage. So unless fairing deployment or the launch damaged the payload/adaptor somehow, SpaceX would have done their part. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PWu3BRxn60 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PWu3BRxn60

jnsaff2 9y ago
> On the webcast, the host went silent for over a minute when fairing separation should have occurred, before coming back with Or the host was not cleared to view the fairing separation/payload themselves and had to get their information from others.
- Robotbeat 9y ago
  Bingo. Everything even close to the payload would need to be approved before being mentioned by the host. And the penalty for screwing that up is pretty stiff (for the company and employee), so you sure as heck are going to error on the side of caution.
- peeters 9y ago
  Oh no doubt he was waiting for info to be relayed to him, I just felt the combination of his sigh, his language (we'll address the situation), and the fact that there was such a long silence indicated that he didn't anticipate it taking so long to have confirmation of fairing deploy. In typical launches the confirmation comes a few seconds after deployment, not a couple minutes. And if you anticipate 1-2 minutes of nothing to report, usually you'd plan to be saying something in the meantime to avoid dead air. I could obviously be misinterpreting it, but this was my impression when watching it live, before we even knew there was an issue with the payload. When I watched it I thought they had lost it until he came back and said fairing deploy was successful.

caio1982 9y ago

For anyone looking for more technical and "inside" intel on this I suggest https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/7p7ev8/official_rspacex_zuma_postlaunch_discussion_thread/ https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/7p7ev8/official_rsp... My explanation of choice as of today is that NG launched a refueling (dockable) sat to a previously launched spysat.

boardwaalk 9y ago
This blog post suggests that the orbit was much higher than USA 276's: https://sattrackcam.blogspot.nl/2018/01/fuel-dump-of-zumas-falcon-9-upper-stage.html https://sattrackcam.blogspot.nl/2018/01/fuel-dump-of-zumas-f...

onepremise 9y ago

This is stupid. Nothing went wrong during the launch. It's a top-secret satellite they are not commenting on. Move along.

mabbo 9y ago

SpaceX is getting paid for a successful launch, meeting their contractual obligations. The booster landed perfectly. There's no damage to the launchpad delaying other rockets. There's no investigation into "what went wrong?" holding back further launches. No real customer is looking at this and going "Wait, maybe we'd better use ULA instead!" because they know SpaceX launched just fine. This is an absolute win for SpaceX, despite however anyone wants to spin it. Dramatic headlines about the downfall of the successful sell newspapers, but they don't mean anything real.

kogepathic 9y ago
> SpaceX is getting paid for a successful launch, meeting their contractual obligations. I would assume most contracts for space launches involve putting the payload in question into the correct LEO/GEO, or at least an agreed upon point at which the payload maneuvers itself into the intended orbit. > The booster landed perfectly. That benefits SpaceX. The customer isn't likely to care what happens to the rocket after it launches their payload. > There's no damage to the launchpad delaying other rockets. Not the customer's problem even if it did explode on the pad. That would be between the launch company and the launch facility. In the case of a private customer, the payload is almost always insured (though insurance does little to help with schedule delays in manufacturing a new payload). > There's no investigation into "what went wrong?" holding back further launches. There might be for the US military, we don't know. > No real customer is looking at this and going "Wait, maybe we'd better use ULA instead!" because they know SpaceX launched just fine. According to SpaceX's account of the launch. > This is an absolute win for SpaceX, despite however anyone wants to spin it. Wouldn't an "absolute win" be launching the payload into the intended orbit with no anomalies?
- rst 9y ago
  For most launches, it would be SpaceX's job to demate the payload from their stage -- but not for this one. Unusually (per coverage from Ars and others), the hardware that mated the payload to the rocket was supplied by the customer of record, Northrup/Grumman, not SpaceX -- so if it failed, SpaceX can't really be blamed for that. https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/what-we-know-and-what-we-dont-about-the-secretive-zuma-payload/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/what-we-know-and-wha...

benmorris 9y ago

We'll see how long this blame game continues. My guess is that it Spacex will continue launching rockets (as normal) and Northrop will keep getting Satellite contracts. The fuss will likely fade away if the satellite (or whatever it is) functioned as normal. I tend to believe this is just misinformation until someone finds some hard evidence otherwise.

JshWright 9y ago
What blame game? SpaceX says their rocket did its job. Northrup Grumman hasn't said sanything.

gebeeson 9y ago

Or. The Zuma payload is working exactly as intended and will be forgotten in a weeks time once this fades from daily news. Might be a good time to reinforce your tinfoil hats.

exabrial 9y ago

Is there insurance for these things? A billion-dollar satellite costs each person in the USA ~ $3.10.

QuotedForTruth 9y ago
There is space launch insurance. Private companies almost always have it since the risk of a failure and loss of a very expensive satellite is not negligible. However, the government tends not to buy insurance. For an entity as big as the US government, insurance will surely be a net loss when you add up all of the times they would want to buy it. For instance federal employees don't buy any of the insurance offered with rental cars. Obviously with the number of federal rentals, there are lots of accidents that the government must pay for, but this figure is lower than total cost of all the insurance they would have to pay for to avoid it. In general insurance is only advisable if the avoided costs would be too much for the insured to pay out of pocket. And the federal government can essentially pay for anything. That's not even mentioning specific concerns with this highly classified payload. The insurance company would want some knowledge of what they are insuring to assess its value and that's just unnecessary risk to the secrecy.

manicdee 9y ago

There are no credible sources claiming that Zuma failed. All the news we have heard is rumour and conjecture, with no two reports getting anything like a consistent story. F9 S2 deorbited as expected. S2 got to orbit. Thus the payload got to orbit too.