4 ms·

I'm guessing it might be censored for national security reasons. The same mechanism that successfully deploys 60 satellites could probably also successfully dep

I'm guessing it might be censored for national security reasons. The same mechanism that successfully deploys 60 satellites could probably also successfully deploy 60 warheads. Or 60 nefarious spy satellites.

skybrian 7y ago
It's a good question about something that is probably not a coincidence! But immediately moving to speculating about a conspiracy theory seems like hiding a good question with a fake answer. It seems better to keep it unanswered and remain curious.
- gpm 7y ago
  "Conspiracy theory" is an exaggeration. Lots of things rocketry related are covered by ITAR and are not allowed (by law) to be shown to non-green-card holders. SpaceX is pretty careful to comply with ITAR restrictions. It would not surprise me in the slightest if the US government had decided that satellite deployment mechanisms were one of those things covered, or if SpaceX's legal department decided that they weren't sure they weren't covered.
  - DEADBEEFC0FFEE 7y ago
    If that were true, they would simply say as much. What possible advantage would there be to offer a bullshit reason? A far more likely reason is that it's technically hard, and/or not a priority.
    - gpm 7y ago
      I tend to agree, but that doesn't mean keeping quiet about ITAR is "conspiracy theory" level of ridiculousness. Possible advantages could be avoiding looking like they are putting pressure on the US government to change it, avoid getting into debates about whether or not ITAR prohibits it, avoiding looking like they are a workplace that is heavily bogged down by security clearance issues, etc.
    - madamelic 7y ago
      Yeah, I totally have to agree. They have repeatedly cut streams and stated they aren't allowed to show the payload deploying.
- ColanR 7y ago
  I don't think it's intellectually honest to label something as a conspiracy theory and brush it aside without discussion.
  - skybrian 7y ago
    I said "conspiracy theory" when I should have more accurately said "to keep a secret." But it's still just a bit of speculation; we don't know that there is a secret.
  - elif 7y ago
    Does "Unfounded speculation about an organized effort to deliberately mislead the public" do more justice to the subject?
the8472 7y ago
They say it's a simple tension mechanism, nothing fancy. The attachment of the satellite stack is not even within the camera's FoV. I'm guessing it's just a vibration issue.
quotemstr 7y ago
Is a deployment bus really that complicated? It's what, a girder with a couple of solenoids or explosive bolts?
- ben_w 7y ago
  Given the nose cone fairings cost $6 million [0], I don’t think anything in space tech can be non-complicated and useful at the same time. [0] If it were literally any other company in space, I would accuse them of porkbarrelling. SpaceX looks like it is genuinely concerned with cost, so I don’t think that’s happening in this case.
- 101404 7y ago
  If I remember correctly, SpX is one of the few (only) who doesn't use explosives for their fairing separation or sat releases. Just some springs, because "they can be tested before the flight".
  - m4rtink 7y ago
    And even though very reliable, explosive bolts do fail, sometimes spectacularly. Just a few years ago an Indian PSLV fairing separation failed, yet released the sattelite inside the closed fairing, which did reach orbit. As it could not get out, this was a failed launch & IIRC the failed fairing separation mechanism was pyrotechnic.
hoorayimhelping 7y ago
>The same mechanism that successfully deploys 60 satellites could probably also successfully deploy 60 warheads We've had missiles that could do that since 1970. They're called MIRVs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targetable_reentry_vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targeta...
- gpm 7y ago
  MIRVs are almost certainly covered by ITAR, so the fact that they exist doesn't really change anything...
101404 7y ago
Of all the different parts a ICBM is made of, I doubt that the warhead release mechanism is the most difficult.

skybrian 7y ago

It's a good question about something that is probably not a coincidence! But immediately moving to speculating about a conspiracy theory seems like hiding a good question with a fake answer. It seems better to keep it unanswered and remain curious.

gpm 7y ago
"Conspiracy theory" is an exaggeration. Lots of things rocketry related are covered by ITAR and are not allowed (by law) to be shown to non-green-card holders. SpaceX is pretty careful to comply with ITAR restrictions. It would not surprise me in the slightest if the US government had decided that satellite deployment mechanisms were one of those things covered, or if SpaceX's legal department decided that they weren't sure they weren't covered.
- DEADBEEFC0FFEE 7y ago
  If that were true, they would simply say as much. What possible advantage would there be to offer a bullshit reason? A far more likely reason is that it's technically hard, and/or not a priority.
  - gpm 7y ago
    I tend to agree, but that doesn't mean keeping quiet about ITAR is "conspiracy theory" level of ridiculousness. Possible advantages could be avoiding looking like they are putting pressure on the US government to change it, avoid getting into debates about whether or not ITAR prohibits it, avoiding looking like they are a workplace that is heavily bogged down by security clearance issues, etc.
  - madamelic 7y ago
    Yeah, I totally have to agree. They have repeatedly cut streams and stated they aren't allowed to show the payload deploying.
ColanR 7y ago
I don't think it's intellectually honest to label something as a conspiracy theory and brush it aside without discussion.
- skybrian 7y ago
  I said "conspiracy theory" when I should have more accurately said "to keep a secret." But it's still just a bit of speculation; we don't know that there is a secret.
- elif 7y ago
  Does "Unfounded speculation about an organized effort to deliberately mislead the public" do more justice to the subject?

the8472 7y ago

They say it's a simple tension mechanism, nothing fancy. The attachment of the satellite stack is not even within the camera's FoV. I'm guessing it's just a vibration issue.

quotemstr 7y ago

Is a deployment bus really that complicated? It's what, a girder with a couple of solenoids or explosive bolts?

ben_w 7y ago
Given the nose cone fairings cost $6 million [0], I don’t think anything in space tech can be non-complicated and useful at the same time. [0] If it were literally any other company in space, I would accuse them of porkbarrelling. SpaceX looks like it is genuinely concerned with cost, so I don’t think that’s happening in this case.
101404 7y ago
If I remember correctly, SpX is one of the few (only) who doesn't use explosives for their fairing separation or sat releases. Just some springs, because "they can be tested before the flight".
- m4rtink 7y ago
  And even though very reliable, explosive bolts do fail, sometimes spectacularly. Just a few years ago an Indian PSLV fairing separation failed, yet released the sattelite inside the closed fairing, which did reach orbit. As it could not get out, this was a failed launch & IIRC the failed fairing separation mechanism was pyrotechnic.

hoorayimhelping 7y ago

>The same mechanism that successfully deploys 60 satellites could probably also successfully deploy 60 warheads We've had missiles that could do that since 1970. They're called MIRVs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targetable_reentry_vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targeta...

gpm 7y ago
MIRVs are almost certainly covered by ITAR, so the fact that they exist doesn't really change anything...

101404 7y ago

Of all the different parts a ICBM is made of, I doubt that the warhead release mechanism is the most difficult.