MaverickSawyer
Acolyte of the Probe
Dude, that is AMAZING.
Here's my footage of the launch, it was truly spectacular to see and I think the video came out quite well.
Up Close Footage of the SpaceX Launch of Zuma! 1-7-18 - YouTube
The scene of the two rocket plumes firing against each other during the boost-back burn is truly spectacular! Never saw anything like this. It looks like a planetary nebula.
Or that's just what they want you to think.There is some noise floating around about a payload failure
Here's my footage of the launch, it was truly spectacular to see and I think the video came out quite well.
Up Close Footage of the SpaceX Launch of Zuma! 1-7-18 - YouTube
Or that's just what they want you to think.
Which is actually kinda odd - our side would still be able to tell if it's dead or not, so that can only deceive the general population. So if it's true, then that's a bad sign about what sort of a mission this is.
our side would still be able to tell if it's dead or not, so that can only deceive the general population.
A U.S. spy satellite that was launched from Cape Canaveral, Florida, aboard a SpaceX rocket on Sunday failed to reach orbit and is assumed to be a total loss, two U.S. officials briefed on the mission said on Monday.
The classified intelligence satellite, built by Northrop Grumman Corp, failed to separate from the second stage of the Falcon 9 rocket and is assumed to have broken up or plunged into the sea, said the two officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Doesn't click with the visual observations of the F9 upper stage on orbit ~2 hours after launch. SpaceX also reported F9 performed nominally; if the F9 failed to reach orbit, that certainly wouldn't be nominal.
Probably pre-programmed. No LV has active commanding, everything is pre-programmed pre-flight. Active commanding is reserved for spacecraft, not LVs.Would they actually command the second stage to deorbit before confirming separation? That sounds odd.
S/C has its own adapter, which may have been the point of failure.
We're never going to know if so. I think if it were a launch vehicle failure we'll see talks of an investigation, manifest delays, et cetera, even if SpaceX doesn't officially announce it as such.
The Zuma launch appeared nominal on Sunday night, from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida. The Falcon 9 rocket's first stage returned to a land-based landing site on schedule. However, on Monday, as initially reported by Ars and then other publications, there was a problem with the Zuma spacecraft. Our initial, unconfirmed information suggests that Zuma never fully separated from the second stage of the Falcon 9 rocket and that it burned up during the reentry to Earth's atmosphere.
It is, listed under "USA 280," without any pertinent details. However, as noted by satellite expert Jonathan McDowell, this does not necessarily mean the object is still in orbit or that it separated from the upper stage of the Falcon 9 rocket. Rather, the upper stage was intended to make at least one orbit before falling back to Earth as planned. It is possible that Zuma never separated from the upper stage, made 1.5 orbits or so and "earned" a catalog entry, and then fell back to Earth with the second stage.
No, we don't. SpaceX has only said that its rocket performed nominally throughout the launch. Northrop Grumman declined to comment. The US military has offered no substantial information. However according to sources familiar with congressional briefings, the mission did indeed fail. This information may not be fully publicly confirmed until some future congressional hearing.
Perhaps not. "As of right now reviews of the data indicate Falcon 9 performed nominally," a company spokesperson told Ars. It is important to note that the payload adapter, which connected the Zuma payload and its fairing to the rest of the rocket, was supplied by Northrop Grumman, rather than by SpaceX. If there was some kind of separation problem, the fault may not lie with SpaceX, but rather Northrop Grumman.
It seems so. According to a source familiar with discussions on Capitol Hill, both SpaceX and Northrop Grumman are blaming each other for the failure. At this point, the government appears to not have determined who is at fault, but clearly this will be a consequence-filled decision for one or both of these companies in the business of providing the government with launch and satellite services.
For taxpayers, there's the loss of an asset worth a billion dollars or more.
Best launch video yet, your boost-back footage is spectacular!