Hacker News Reader

Comment by clarkmoody | Hacker News Reader

I am suspicious whenever I hear of a "failed" deployment of a top-secret payload.

Here are the archives of SeeSat-L, a visual satellite observer's network[1]. This will be the place to look for the latest observations on the mission. Are there any other sources out there?

[1] http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Jan-2018/index.html

View on HN

What would be the motivation though. I presume that nation states with an interest in the mission would have Ways and Means of verifying that it's operational (or not) -- whether by their own space-based observations or other methods.

For everyone else: what's the point of suggesting that there was a failure? It doesn't make anyone look good, least of all their highly visible commercial launch supplier SpaceX (who're unlikely to want to be blamed for any sort of 'fake' failure that they can't disclaim responsibility for either way), or N.G., or the agencies involved.

> I presume that nation states with an interest in the mission would have Ways and Means of verifying that it's operational (or not)

A skilled amateur astronomer can verify a satellite's orbit and if it appears to be maintaining attitude control. If you want to hide what you're satellite is up to, you call it a weather satellite and go on with your day.

Stealth satellites are a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misty_(satellite)

Not sure about actual effectiveness, though.

Well, there are plenty of places on the globe out of sight from any private ground based observation (or, any ground based observation at all, I'd bet). Applying delta while flying over the pacific ocean would do the job.

This would still get picked up by the early warning systems of rival nations (i.e. Russia). You can't hide a launch. You CAN pretend it failed, though.

> there are plenty of places on the globe out of sight from any private ground based observation

I suppose. That also means the bird can't see the ground.

(You can't avoid any ground-based observation, as in from land or sea, unless you hide behind the Moon or at L1, i.e. between the Sun and the Earth. Getting to either would be easily detectable, though.)

Sure you can't avoid any theoretical ground-based observation -- my point is there are plenty of places on Earth that don't actually have them -- or don't have any available to amateurs or organisations without access to exceptional resources.

> For everyone else: what's the point of suggesting that there was a failure? It doesn't make anyone look good...

Making SpaceX look like a failure is entirely the point. It is very possible to profit in the stock market by making people look bad.

SpaceX is a private company

Its competitors are not.

their competitors are not

Normally I’d chuckle, but with this who the hell knows?! I can think of a number of sound reasons to lie, but then again, it’s hardly unheard of to lose a payload. I guess we’ll have to see what happens with SpaceX in relation to the military to get a sense of it.

There is no stealth in space though. If you're in orbit and larger than a paint chip, somebody's tracking you. Consequently, lying about the success of the launch is silly. A million things could have gone wrong though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misty_(satellite)

  Misty is reported to have optical and radar stealth
  characteristics, making it difficult for adversaries to
  detect (and thus predict the times it would fly overhead).
  Almost everything about the program is classified
  information.

It's a spy satellite, they probably painted it in camouflage.

> The sightings of the Falcon 9 upper stage from the Zuma launch venting fuel over East Africa some 2h 15m after launch, suggests that Zuma might be in a higher orbit than in my pre-launch estimate. Rather than ~400 km it might be ~900-1000 km.

...

> If correct, this means Zuma might become observable in the N hemisphere about a week from now.

http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Jan-2018/0068.html

Reply on news.ycombinator.com