Talk:Zuma (satellite)

I spy a spy
SpaceX states all went nominal, that includes upper stage separation. Uncle Sam is saying separation failure and total loss. Code-name for playi'n possum? Just saying. Editors' neutrality will be tested in the days to come. BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Is the separation failure an official statement? I hope we get more information in a few days. If the satellite re-entered the atmosphere something else must have gone wrong. --mfb (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Even if it hasn't been in an official statement, it is being widely reported now that Zuma was probably lost 203.217.53.150 (talk) 04:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, playing dead possum is a common tactic: "This wouldn’t be the first time the US government has lied about a spy satellite’s failure to preserve its secret mission.", .  - BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, if the government (via unnamed source) says there was a separation failure and total loss, then shouldn't we just state it so also, possum or not? I mean what do we have to go by to be ascertained otherwise? Showmebeef (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Our job is just to present the information as we know it. There is a report that the payload failed to separate, so we put that on there. If there is a conflicting report or a credible article that presents reasons to doubt this story, we will put that up as well! DrunkBicyclist (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thing is, we are not government stenographers. When the time comes, we will have to mention all 3 parties' statements. Since the launcher was commercial, there will be issues with the alleged reliability and future contracts, which SpaceX will challenge - it is beginning to do so. BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * When we have conflicting reports about an event, the appropriate WP:NPOV and WP:V approach is to mention both statements, and attributing them. The article currently attributes the "lost satellite" statement to an unnamed U.S. official, whereas the "rocket did its job" statement is not clearly attributed to SpaceX -- I think we should add a quote of SpaceX COO Gwynne Shotwell who made a rather strong statement of mission success. We should also mention the manufacturer Northrop Grumman's stance as "no comment". Hopefully the exact story gets clarified from all sides shortly. — JFG talk 09:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Correct. I added both statements. Edit at will. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Another inconsistency we will have to deal with soon, is that the upper stage was imaged by at least 2 people falling over Africa. The unofficial version is that the satellite "crashed" over the Indian Ocean. If the two elements were stuck together, why the rocket reentered where expected but the satellite fell on its own one continent away? . BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A very astute observation! Hopefully some RS will soon ask the same question. We can add the Africa observations, but making the connection ourselves would be WP:SYNTH. Note that the Indian Ocean is not really "one continent away" from Sudan: if you look at the orbit track, a sighting in Sudan is perfectly compatible with a splashdown in the Southern part of the Indian Ocean, East of Madagascar, a few minutes later, as orbital speed would be 400–500 km by minute. — JFG talk 23:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not "a continent away", it's actually a normal decay following its 51º trajectory launch. Check this image.MaeseLeon (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

This is also causing some discussion on the Talk Page for the List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches, ie was the launch a success or a failure? We need clarification from the US government or Northrupp Grumman and we may very well not get it! - Aarggh... Forgot to sign Chris Jefferies (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Notice that according to ABC News, an U.S. official confirmed to them that Zuma has crashed in the Indian Ocean. We have no reason to doubt this information. Furthermore, there is no longer any orbital component from any launch on January 8th, 2018 in the NASA's NSSDCA Master Catalog (COSPAR ID) (just check.) MaeseLeon (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "This wouldn’t be the first time the US government has lied about a spy satellite’s failure to preserve its secret mission." . Amateurs saw that satellite in orbit for many years after it "exploded". That is why amateurs are waiting AGAIN to scan the sky for Zuma. We can't say an anonymous leak is a slam-sunk when dealing with a secret/spy project. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed the mention of NSSDC from the article, as (and I've been repeatedly checking) there was *never* any entry for Zuma there. Further, lack of an entry on NSSDC, while unusual, does not necessarily indicate anything. It is not intended to be a comprehensive database, unlike NORAD's listings. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The NSSDC database is rarely updated that fast. However, the COSPAR and SATCAT numbers were assigned to "USA-280", and they can still be seen on the NORAD tracking reference database. — JFG talk 14:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The plot thickens further
Space news just posted this | article about a recent Pentagon briefing earlier today where DoD officials dodged questions about Zuma. Is any of this information worth putting in the article? DrunkBicyclist (talk) 02:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What I find useful in that article is the reminder that we don't know if the payload was actually a satellite, and that it could have been a tiny spaceplane. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * U.S. Rep. John Garamendi received a briefing and told reporters that one thing he laments "is the loss of the intelligence that would have been available." (Washington Post) So it looks like was a spy satellite. BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, there's a thing that really makes me feel intrigued. It is possible that the satellite is actually working fine in orbit, as in the case of USA-53 and USA-144, which was deployed on March 1, 1990 by the Space Shuttle Atlantis as part of mission STS-36. "It is said to be designated 'Misty', and believed to be the first maneouvering stealth satellite. Barely visible, it was rediscovered by amateur observers in October 1990, with a ground track that repeated every nine days. It maneouvered again in early November 1990, changing its inclination by 1.2 degrees and entering a lower orbit with a three-day repeating ground track. Amateurs again found it in 1996 and 1997 in a 66.2 degree orbit with a 99.4 minute period. The decay date for the active satellite is believed to refer instead to debris; the actually satellite was probably deorbited after 1997, perhaps after USA 144 (Misty 2?) was put into operation." (Also on the | news report, it mentioned C4ISR writing in 2007, "where hobbyist in Scotland and France observed an unknown satellite in a similar inclination as Misty 1 but at a much higher altitude. Molczan’s computations showed that there was a good chance the mystery vehicle was Misty 1, meaning the orbital debris the Russians had tracked may have been decoys or debris purposefully generated to hide the intentions of the true satellite. About a week after news articles announced what the hobbyists had seen, Misty 1 disappeared again, Molczan said. As with Misty 1, shortly after Misty 2’s launch, nine pieces of debris were catalogued by the Air Force at or above the satellite’s initial orbit, Molczan said. Hobbyists tracked various objects, some for several years, but doubted that the primary satellite was among them. “No one has seen what might be the Misty 2 payload,” Molczan said.”" I got the quoted sources from this site: . There are many speculation about the fate of the satellite. I don't know if this worthy to be mentioned on Zuma satellite article. LengthyMer (talk) 08:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Or the case of STS-38's payload believed to have contained a second satellite named Prowler. Both Misty and Prowler are believed to be stealth satellites, Why Zuma could not be a third case. The sighting over Africa 1.5 orbits later, said to be a Falcon 9 second stage venting fuel, certainly add to the mystery. I was about to edit the page but I noticed similar edits were reverted multiple times... Would it be time to add something in the fate section ? It's unclear if the info leaked to the media by an unidentified source is exact, estimates of a possible orbit for Zuma have been computed base on the sighting. 71.19.190.194 (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Nothing to update. At this time, any suggestion that Zuma is in orbit is pure speculation and cannot be confirmed, at least for a couple of weeks when its potential orbit moves into a more observable orientation. Also, not quite sure why you are calling the F9 second stage venting as adding to the mystery, as that is an expected occurrence. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying it "is" in orbit but "might be", it would not be meant as the definitive fate but as a possibility, several specialized news websites take at least a few lines saying it is plausible. Classified payloads have a history of deception and a modern stealth satellite would likely evade observation for a long while. But back to the second stage venting over Africa, it is indeed expected after a deorbit burn performed using the remaining fuel from orbit. It is publicly available that a nominal LEO launch place the second stage on a preliminary orbit and that a deorbit burn is perform after payload deployment to aim for a precise safe re-entry window ending over the Indian ocean. If the second stage performed nominally as stated by SpaceX, the payload+2nd stage would be at the very least on a slowly decaying orbit, probably not the definitive intended orbit, but something stable enough for a few days. There's no doubt the deorbit burn would be affected by an unexpected multi tons payload still attached and the precise reentry window not achieved as the empty weight of the second stage is just under 4 tons while a payload can easily be twice as heavy or more. That is a physical limitation based on publicly available information, hardly speculative. Finally, because the reentry occurred precisely 1.5 orbit later as with a nominal launch, it is no speculation that no attempt to assess the situation, run some test on the hardware for some time before natural decay or even salvage the mission was made. That is unlike almost every failure in the primary mission I know of, there's a long history of making every possible attempt to regain contact/control or to circumvent hardware failure. I'm thinking about Galileo's main antenna problem or STEREO-B loss of contact. All I'm saying is that we just don't know the exact fate, it might have re-enter or it might not, yet the article make no mention of that second possibility, the article has a single POV. It is equally speculative to rely on an unknown/unnamed source relayed by third party or to observe discrepancy between this source's version and the available observation paired with a statement from SpaceX of a nominal flight. I do remember that, at first, 3 different version where relayed by large news organisations, all based on unnamed sources, both second stage failure and payload fairing problems were ruled out and are now believe to be inaccurate. Is it possible that the single POV currently made in the article as for the craft's fate be inaccurate, be by mistake or deception, Zuma might as well be in orbit yet dead as USA-193 was, we don't know and I feel the article should reflect that possibility in the Fate section. It is a worthy explanation that this is a stealth mission, nothing yet prove it is not and it might better explain sighting over Africa. (Sorry English isn't my first language) 71.19.190.194 (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * " it is no speculation that no attempt to assess the situation, run some test on the hardware for some time before natural decay or even salvage the mission was made. That is unlike almost every failure in the primary mission I know of, there's a long history of making every possible attempt to regain contact/control or to circumvent hardware failure." - I agree with you. It makes no sense to deorbit the 2nd stage immediately if the payload was still attached. No attempts to assess the issue?!? No consultations?? No corrective actions?? No delay in deorbiting?!? Hardly believable. So far, I have seen only one article ( in the mass media that noted this aberration. But in this environment (Wikipedia) we can only -and should- add at least one sentence to the effect that there are noted inconsistencies and some people (if not 'experts') suspect the payload is still in orbit and operating covertly. But I would wait a few weeks to see if the networks of civilian trackers report anything. -Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Elvis just confirmed that Zuma was in fact not in orbit any longer. It was sent to greet ʻOumuamua. It hitchhiked a ride on a spiffy red sports car. :P  BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Faked failure?
There is increasing speculation on social media that this payload is still in orbit and due to its secrecy, that the "failure" was put out there due to the classified nature. I feel its worth adding in the article that there is speculation its still in orbit, operating normally. 3.5 billion dollars is alot of money, and i dont see anyone found at fault from the investigations, since this would be damaging. We know SpaceX was cleared, since the adapter was not made by them. There are other examples of classified missions where it was found later that the payload was in orbit many years after being reported otherwise. I dont get how an unnamed source can be verified as official? How does something like this get out with no department being able to verify the source? Nzoomed (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * That speculation is mentioned in the section called "In the media". In Wikipedia we can't feed conspiracy theories, so we can't expand on what is already there. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 01:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

current page seems too definitive
In particular the use of 'was' instead of is in the opening statement and that a deorbit date is noted. Rueberger (talk) 04:15, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * All sources indicate that it deorbited, the rest is just speculation and it is discussed in appropriate length I think. --mfb (talk) 07:15, 8 December 2019 (UTC)