SpaceX to launch secret Northrop spacecraft

It kills me how these companies specializing in IT solutions and advanced engineering have such horrible websites. It looks like one I would have tossed together back when I was 13.

I've noticed this on several government contractors. It's almost like it's intentional.

~Winter

originally posted by: DrBobH
a reply to: mightmight

www.zumaengineering.com...

Found this in a search and wondered if it might be linked, given the past links to Northrop.

This link mentions they make satellites

www.usaopps.com...

Not much of a classified code name if it links directly back to the name of the company that made it...

a reply to: Zaphod58

Ah well, I figured as much. I guess that asset redundancy does accomplish(intentionally or not) at least one thing...keeping us nosy folks from putting too many of the pieces together.

a reply to: Tajlakz

Yeah, it does make it a bit of a pain in the ass. They really need to stop inconveniencing us like that.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I mean, they could've at least come up with a more interesting mission patch...not even any latin on this one

Possibly a new Comms link for the B-21 Raider, as far a we could know it could have persistent surveillance as part of a multi role bomber and wide scale relay for its own new suite of sensors when kitted out in non bomber role and perform relays for F-35 and RQ-170 type drones/swarm drone weapons.

a reply to: Winterpain

Well, fewer "modern" features and toolkits you use to build the website, the less opportunity for hackers.

Straight HTML & static images are pretty safe by now.

Look at Equifax---breach through unpatched bug in a complicated web framework.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Tajlakz

DIA or USAF probably if not the NRO. It could be one of the agencies no one ever talks about too.

Which ones are those? National Geospatial-Intelligence?

a reply to: mbkennel

With the NGA's mission, it would make sense. Though, I had been under the impression that they get their satellite data from NRO, which actually operates the assets. But, NRO denies it's their bird, so who knows...

I was reading over the weekend that they had been testing comm hand offs for drones..

a reply to: Slys13

www.parabolicarc.com...


Mission lost.

a reply to: anzha

I was talking about it after I heard. I really do wonder if it really was a failure. What better way to hide a satellite than for it to "fail" on orbital insertion. That buys time to change orbits with no one looking for it.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yup. Other sources have been stating this. It won't be hard to find if its really up there.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: anzha

I was talking about it after I heard. I really do wonder if it really was a failure. What better way to hide a satellite than for it to "fail" on orbital insertion. That buys time to change orbits with no one looking for it.

Not impossible but awfully impractical IMO. Smart way to do it would be to leave it in orbit, wait for the public interest to die down and sneak it away quietly a few months from now. With any luck noone would notice its gone for months. Now everyones looking for it.

First reports were claiming that the satellite is still in orbit but dead: twitter.com...

Official story at this point seems to be a failure to separate from the upper stage and burnup on entry. This somewhat contradicts SpaceX statement that everything went well on their end.

originally posted by: anzha
a reply to: Zaphod58

Yup. Other sources have been stating this. It won't be hard to find if its really up there.

True. You can't really hide a satellite. If it's up there, it will be found quickly.

Perhaps someone sabotaged the mission, by doing something to make sure the upper stage didn't separate like it was supposed to.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Zaph, have you heard anything about persistent-stare spectral imaging payloads recently?

I just thought of something. If the payload really was connected to North Korea and an upcoming war, then NK would have incentive to shoot down or sabotage the launch. China or Russia might be willing to help with this. Depending on what the payload was, the US government wouldn't want to invite public scrutiny, so they'd cover it up by claiming it was a malfunction.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Not necessarily. You can't completely hide a satellite, but you can make it damn hard to find and track. They've already launched several low observable satellites that have proven difficult to track. Put one up and say it failed and you can potentially buy months of time before it's found.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Plus once found you can blame it on "orbital debris" from the failed launch.

originally posted by: The one?
a reply to: Zaphod58

Zaph, have you heard anything about persistent-stare spectral imaging payloads recently?

That would be incredibly #ty if we lost a demonstrator of some sort for this. Persistent stare might be the holy grail of space-based imaging. With that being said, EO satellites are usually very large and require bigger rockets to get into orbit. Whatever it was, all signs (or non-signs) indicate it was probably fairly important, and so is probably a huge loss for our national security apparatus. If it was a demonstrator, then there's a chance that some program developing a disruptive technology died along with this satellite.