11–17 of 17 posts
How exactly does likely loss and destruction of payload translate into "performed nominally"? Is that like "stable genius"?
How exactly does likely loss and destruction of payload translate into "performed nominally"? Is that like "stable genius"?
> the first stage of the rocket behaved nominally enough such that it was able to safely return to Earth and make a land-based landing along the Florida coast.
> According to one source, the payload fell back to Earth along with the spent upper stage of the Falcon 9 rocket.
Satellites tend to be reflective due to their use of solar panels, and amateur astronomers track just about everything people launch. Heavens-above's track data[1] doesn't get filled in it either failed or is very low-observability and using an RTG or similar instead of solar power. It's also possible that the payload is in orbit, but couldn't get to the correct orbit, in which case track data will get filled in but the satellite still will have failed...
[1] http://heavens-above.com/SatInfo.aspx?satid=43098&lat=0&lng=...
> Sources say the secretive Zuma satellite was lost by SpaceX > As of right now reviews of the data indicate Falcon 9 performed nominally Headline is in complete contradiction with the content of the article.
> The Zuma mission was originally supposed to launch in mid-November, but SpaceX stood down for a while to study data from payload-fairing test performed for another customer. (The payload fairing is the protective nose cone that encases a spacecraft during launch.)
https://www.space.com/38826-spacex-launches-secret-zuma-miss...
> Sources say the secretive Zuma satellite was lost by SpaceX > As of right now reviews of the data indicate Falcon 9 performed nominally Headline is in complete contradiction with the content of the article.
The rocket performed nominally… The payload, maybe not.
Maybe saying that the payload was lost, it's part of their plan to keep whatever was launched as secret and confidential as possible.