A highly classified U.S. government satellite appears to have been totally lost after being taken into space by a recent launch from Elon Musk's SpaceX, according to a new report.

Dow Jones reported Monday evening that lawmakers had been briefed about the apparent destruction of the secretive payload — code-named Zuma — citing industry and government officials

The payload was suspected to have burned up in the atmosphere after failing to separate perfectly from the upper part of the SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket, the report said.

According to Dow Jones, the absence of official word on the incident means that there could have been another chain of events.

The missing satellite may have been worth billions of dollars, industry officials estimated to the wire service.

Northrop Grumman, which built the satellite, told Dow Jones through a spokesman: "We cannot comment on classified missions."

A SpaceX spokesman told the news service: "We do not comment on missions of this nature, but as of right now reviews of the data indicate Falcon 9 performed nominally."

The Zuma spacecraft was attached to one of SpaceX's Falcon 9 rockets and launched from the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida. The Falcon 9 successfully landed back to base.

Landing and reusing rockets is the main aim of SpaceX scientists, who argue that it reduces the cost of launches and allows it to perform more missions.

SpaceX did not reveal the purpose of Zuma because it is classified, but the mission marked Elon Musk's company's first in 2018.

Link

Well, shit.

Not the first time the Rocket firing folks said: "Oh Shit".

Back in the 50's, even with the Germans help, we burned up quite a bit of money trying to put stuff into orbit.

“Our spy satellite burned up” sounds like a perfectly sound conspiracy in the making.

It's pointed at North Korea!

quote:

“Our spy satellite burned up” sounds like a perfectly sound conspiracy in the making.

Two conflicting conspiracies!
#1 It was sabotaged by country "x"!
#2 It didn't burn up; it's a stealth satellite that cannot be detected! The "failure" is disinformation!

quote:

Originally posted by whanson_wi:

quote:

“Our spy satellite burned up” sounds like a perfectly sound conspiracy in the making.

Two conflicting conspiracies!
#1 It was sabotaged by country "x"!
#2 It didn't burn up; it's a stealth satellite that cannot be detected! The "failure" is disinformation!

There is a third option. This guy is in control of the satellite and is colluding with every government on the planet to do us all in.

A top secret satellite burned up, eh? Suuuurrrreee.

quote:

Originally posted by whanson_wi:

quote:

“Our spy satellite burned up” sounds like a perfectly sound conspiracy in the making.

Two conflicting conspiracies!
...
#2 It didn't burn up; it's a stealth satellite that cannot be detected! The "failure" is disinformation!

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
A top secret satellite burned up, eh? Suuuurrrreee.

I'm casting a GoldenEye jaundiced eye on the situation.

Probably a failure of the separation mechanism that kicks the satellite loose from the rocket so it can be lifted into final orbit by the PAM or it did successfully separate but Uncle Sam went cheap on the PAM and it failed.

I went to work as a Field Engineer for SBS when I left the Navy in 1979. Satellite Business Systems engineered, installed, and maintained private, satellite-based corporate communications networks for the multi-nationals. We used Hughes communications satellites in geosynchronous orbits at a 22,300 mile altitude with (at that time) 6 degree spacing. Our first two birds were launched via Delta rockets with the last 4 or so via the shuttles. SBS-3 pictured here was NASA's first commercial shuttle payload.



This picture was taken in November of 1982. It was shot from the cabin of the shuttle Columbia looking rearward through the cargo bay. Both cargo bay doors are wide open. Immediately behind SBS-3 you can see the cover - not yet opened - for that day's second launch, the Canadian ANIK-C bird. In this picture, SBS-3 had just been cut loose from the shuttle using the SBS-patented spring-loaded, rotating table with explosive bolts and was leaving the vicinity of Columbia before its PAM firing.

This picture clearly shows the satellite with the Payload Assist Module attached at the bottom. The satellite as shown in the picture is approximately 7 feet in diameter and 11 feet long. When fully deployed and operational, it's length would roughly double.The PAMs used for these launches were made by Morton-Thiokol and were offered in a variety of configurations. One of the options available was a PAM with "pedigree" which meant that a new PAM had been fueled, fired, disassembled and inspected/repaired, and then re-fueled for delivery to the customer. The pedigreed PAMs were significantly more expensive but that additional cost bought additional reliability. We never had a satellite fail to be lifted to orbit. Not one. I mentioned a failed PAM as a possible cause for this failure because if the same general procedure is still in use for today's launches, there's a real possibility that SpaceX and/or the government have become convinced of the infallibility of their respective parts of the mission and may have decided to cut a few corners here and there, especially if it involves saving [quite] a few bucks on a PAM. With the decades of experience we have launching satellites with rockets, I wouldn't think that a simple, reliable separation mechanism to free the satellite from the rocket would have been an issue with this failed launch.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: FRANKT,

LOL

I see what you did.

Link to original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZX1YCmzHEw

quote:

"indicate Falcon 9 performed nominally."

Interesting choice of words.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by HRK:


yeah - time to get Tiger Tanaka on the case.

The Most Powerful Rocket Since Apollo Program Is About To Be Tested

GILLIAN RICH
4:45 PM ET

SpaceX will soon test the engines and startup procedures of its Falcon Heavy — the most powerful rocket since the Apollo program's Saturn V — a key step before its maiden flight later this month.

The space company founded by Telsa (TSLA) CEO Elon Musk had expected a static fire test, which involves igniting the engines while the rocket is strapped to the launchpad, to occur Wednesday afternoon or evening.

But Spaceflightnow.com reported that SpaceX has pushed the first static fire test to no earlier than Thursday, with the test window opening at 1 p.m. ET and closing at 7 p.m.

The massive Falcon Heavy, which has already been staged on a Cape Canaveral launchpad, stands 230 feet tall and consists of three Falcon 9 first-stage cores. The thrust that its 27 engines can produce is equivalent to 18 Boeing (BA) 747s and makes it two times more powerful than any other rocket operating today, according to SpaceX.

If the test is successful, SpaceX can firm up a date for the first launch of the rocket it plans to use for commercial and military missions — and eventually for travel to the moon and Mars.

According to an Instagram post in December, Musk said the first payload will be a red Tesla Roadster playing David Bowie's Space Oddity on a billion-year elliptical Mars orbit.

Musk has also said the first launch, expected by the end of January, will use previously flown rocket outer cores, as SpaceX continues to make the push for reusable rockets to help lower launch costs and keep it competitive against United Launch Alliance, a Boeing-Lockheed Martin (LMT) joint venture.

If the Falcon Heavy's maiden flight is successful, it will launch an Arabsat satellite built by Lockheed sometime early this year and will be used in the U.S. Air Force's Space Test Program-2 mission, which is comprised of military and scientific research satellites, as early as April.

The Heavy's static fire tests come just days after SpaceX said a Falcon 9 rocket apparently failed to put the Zuma spy satellite built by Northrop Grumman (NOC) into orbit.

But SpaceX has maintained that its rocket "did everything correctly" during the launch Sunday and it sees no reason to reschedule any other upcoming Falcon 9 missions nor the Falcon Heavy launch

Boeing shares closed up 0.6% on the stock market today, Lockheed added 0.2%, and Northrop dropped 0.9%.

https://www.investors.com/news...065803%3Anull%3Anull

SpaceX normally supplies the device to separate the payload from the second stage, however Northrup-Grumman provided it for the Zuma payload...

quote:

Originally posted by ulsterman:

quote:

"indicate Falcon 9 performed nominally."

Interesting choice of words.

I need to remember that phrase for when things go crappy at work next. It's a lot more polite than, "Aw, shit!"

quote:

Originally posted by FRANKT:
The PAMs used for these launches were made by Morton-Thiokol and were offered in a variety of configurations.

The "PAM" you posted a picture of is a STAR 48 motor. I spent the better part of this past June crawling around on the inert mass simulator getting it instrumented for a modal test for the upcoming Parker Solar Probe mission. Pretty neat seeing it in a different setting. I know we used one on the LADEE mission a couple years ago as the fifth and final stage, which sent a probe to the Moon.

quote:

Originally posted by HuskySig:

quote:

Originally posted by FRANKT:
The PAMs used for these launches were made by Morton-Thiokol and were offered in a variety of configurations.

The "PAM" you posted a picture of is a STAR 48 motor. I spent the better part of this past June crawling around on the inert mass simulator getting it instrumented for a modal test for the upcoming Parker Solar Probe mission. Pretty neat seeing it in a different setting. I know we used one on the LADEE mission a couple years ago as the fifth and final stage, which sent a probe to the Moon.

They were very reliable motors. We never had one fail, regardless of the launch vehicle.