Let's talk rockets!

17  2018-01-10 by brasiwsu

Did everyone see this posted today?

It's a really cool long exposure photo of the SpaceX Zuma launch. Based on everything caputured in the photo, I would guess its about a 9 minute exposure. Anyway, I realized I was looking at a detailed pohoto of the staging and boostback burns of the falcon 9 lanch! Its actually a much more interesting photo than it seems at first, so I wanted to make a post and talk it and how it relates to the conspiracy of whether this rocket is actually a write off, or whether its safely in orbit as we speak.

First thing is, if you haven't done it, watch the SpaceX launch video of whole thing: http://www.spacex.com/webcast It's really interesting if you're a rocket nerd, but remember always that northrop grumman is the company that makes it possible for your daughters to dream of becomming astronauts.

So here is the source photo

You can actually see the staging of the rocket in the long exposure. If you aren't sure what you're looking at, I added the timestrip from the SpaceX webcast in the same photo (zoomed in on the important part).

Now, in the full image, you can see "A" and "B", but not in the zoomed in cutout. It is showing you maintly the blue part at the top of the arc (but not actually the apoapsis of the rockets trajectory). You can see point "C" the main engine cutoff, where the gap in the light trail is. During this point, you get the lower stage of the Falcon9 rocket beginning a boostback burn (point "D"), where the near-empty fuel tank will eventually veer back around and perform two retrograde burns in it's descent back to launch pad SLC40. Very shortly after the boostback burn is fairing deployment "E".

Now, that big glaring vertical streak in the picture that looks completely out of place is point "F". This is the re-entry burn of stage 1. This occurs about 3 minutes and 50 seconds after it separated from the upper stage and fired the boostback burn.

You can't see it in my zoomed-in version of the picture, but in the source photo you'll see what looks like a tower of light on the ground next to the launch pad. That is the long exposure capturing the landing burn (point "G"). It's called a suicide burn because if it is miscalculated, and you approach too fast....

By comparing the Webcast video with the long exposure photograph, we can corroborate what we hear in the webcast: (again, from http://www.spacex.com/webcast)

17:04 - confirmation of successful MECO (main engine cut off) stage seperation, 2nd engine start, and boostback burn

17:15 - we're not going to show video coverage of it, but we will confrim that the fairings have separated meaning that zuma and 2nd stage are the only vehicles continuing on to their final orbit.

22:22 - another confirmation of successful fairing deployment

So we see what appears to be a successful launch. It does appear that stage 2, pushing an exposed payload into it's intended orbit, did fire and perform "nominally", as it should have. The upper stage is supposed to reach apoapsis, circularize and perform separation, before deorbiting and burning up.

Now here's where shit allegedly hits the fan...

Media seems to be indicating, that the issue is with the stage 2 separation, which didn't work. The satellite failed to separate and was burned up with the upper stage during re-entry.

"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." - CNBC

"The technology website Ars Technica cites one source as saying the "the payload fell back to Earth along with the spent upper stage of the Falcon 9 rocket." - NPR

"A classified satellite code-named Zuma, launched Sunday night atop a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket, apparently suffered a mission-ending failure shortly after the boost to space, falling back to Earth over the Indian Ocean, a knowledgeable source said Tuesday." - CBS

"US news site Washington Post reported that the Zuma payload did not separate as intended from the attached Falcon 9 rocket.""Bloomberg said there was a failure with the upper stage of the Falcon 9 rocket." - express.co.uk

Is there more to this story?

"Following SpaceX’s launch, a new entry was made in the catalogue on Space-Track.org for a US satellite designated USA 280."

Well that's odd... because one of our previous sources says

"Although there was no official confirmation of the satellite's loss, the U.S. Strategic Command, which monitors 23,000 man-made objects in space, told Bloomberg that it was not tracking any new satellites since Sunday's launch."

I checked the catalogue myself... There's one row that's blank.

Here's another source saying that not just the first, but the second stage successfully separated

I wonder what Northrop Grumman's success rate is for billion dollar spy satellites separating from an upper stage.

TL;DR I don't know if this satellite actually made it to orbit, but here's some fun rocket discussion. There's probably more depth to this conspiracy, and I may revisit when I have more time.

36 comments

1  AutoModerator 2018-01-10

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1  Putin_loves_cats 2018-01-10

Good post, I just think we are quarantined from going into space, since the Great Deluge... Shit hits a dome, or plasma, and falls back down into the ocean.

1  silent_erection 2018-01-10

What about the ISS? Or any of the geostationary communications satellites that companies pay billions of dollars to build and launch?

1  Putin_loves_cats 2018-01-10

Low Earth Orbit is not "outer space". You need to know that...

1  silent_erection 2018-01-10

You said "space" not deep space. Either way there are plenty of space craft that have gone to deep space.

1  Putin_loves_cats 2018-01-10

You said "space" not deep space.

Umm, when?

Either way there are plenty of space craft that have gone to deep space.

Umm, source?

1  silent_erection 2018-01-10

Good post, I just think we are quarantined from going into space, since the Great Deluge... Shit hits a dome, or plasma, and falls back down into the ocean.

Spacecraft that have left Earth's sphere of influence - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Solar_System_probes

Do you have any source for this "done, or plasma" that prevents travel into deep space?

1  HelperBot_ 2018-01-10

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Solar_System_probes

HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 136347

1  joe_jaywalker 2018-01-10

Wouldn't it be profitable for a space agency to take billions of dollars from these communications companies, tell them they were launching a satellite, launch a fake rocket like this one instead, and then simply grant them access to cell phone towers?

Anyway, the ISS is complete nonsense. It's sole purpose is duping gullible people into thinking there are people in space and NASA isn't a complete waste of money.

And yes, I have seen whatever it is at night in the sky when they told me to look. I didn't even need binoculars to see it. All the video we see from aboard is still fake. There are hours of videos online fully dissecting everything about it from the wires you can see holding them up to the time they accidentally admitted they were somewhere in California rather than in "space."

1  fifteensunrises 2018-01-10

Except for Voyager, or DSCOVR, or Cassini, or Venera, or Juno, etc. etc.

1  Putin_loves_cats 2018-01-10

Evidence?

1  fifteensunrises 2018-01-10

https://www.space.com/18551-venera-13.html

https://geektimes.ru/post/259620/

http://epizodsspace.airbase.ru/bibl/tm/1982/4/opyat-venera.html

1  UncleSnake3301 2018-01-10

What fucking evidence do you want?

1  Iamamansass 2018-01-10

There’s definitely ways in and out. Even in ancient texts there is a gateway to the gods.

1  Larsgoetia 2018-01-10

Disturbingly enough... They appear to launch right into the gate of god. Research is fun.

1  BillNyeScienceLies 2018-01-10

https://i.imgur.com/4ssHd3y.jpg

1  fifteensunrises 2018-01-10

This is simply a problem with projecting the path on a flat plane.

Here are some helpful diagrams/demonstrations for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-mKLs2b3MM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyfEffMrglI

1  murphy212 2018-01-10

Ok, stupid question: why would the camera vibrate during liftoff? Presumably it is at quite a distance, and fixed to the ground. Does a rocket launch really produce an earthquake? And if so, how so, given it’s merely open-air combustion?

Thanks

1  brasiwsu 2018-01-10

I'm not a rocket scientist but I believe that is just sound vibration from the launch. The sound of a heavy rocket launch can get so intense, it can melt concrete. Acoustic energy reflected off the pad will also damage the rocket. The way they deal with this issue is to flood the pad with hundreds of thousands of gallons of water during liftoff that acts as a sound supressant. So these things are so loud, that the sound will straight up kill you if you were to stand 100 feet away from a launch.

So with this video the person is obviously much further away, but close enough for the sound to vibrate his camera.

The reason the vibration appears so violent is because he's zoomed in. At no zoom if I tap on a camera lightly I may not even notice it. If I am zoomed in very far, the same tap may move the whole frame.

1  murphy212 2018-01-10

I can accept that. Thanks mate!

1  NOcomedy 2018-01-10

Ok Vernon....

1  BillNyeScienceLies 2018-01-10

It was a massive chemtrail dump, just like the other launches around the world recently.

https://i.imgur.com/7T9zyU9.jpg

1  whenipeeithurts 2018-01-10

Rockets don't work in a vacuum therefore could not work to propel anything in space. The entire thing is the biggest hoax of all time.

1  brasiwsu 2018-01-10

Rockets work in a vacuum. They don't need air to push against. The explosion propels the rocket.

A jet engine would not work in space though.

0  whenipeeithurts 2018-01-10

You are just parroting lies you have been taught. Rockets cannot propel anything in a vacuum. The only videos you will be able find are from shills like Mythbusters purposefully using too small of a chamber or Cody's lab who purposefully left water in the bottom which boils in a vacuum thus making it not a vacuum. He failed pretty hard with this "proof" anyway. You can't even ignite things in a vacuum. Outer space is a total hoax.

1  brasiwsu 2018-01-10

Why wouldn't a rocket work in a vacuum?

1  whenipeeithurts 2018-01-10

There is nothing to push off of. Everyone just assumes "every action has an equal but opposite reaction" but that is only true in reality when there is something to work with. Not a make believe outer space and not in a vacuum. Things need water, air, something to push against to move, even rockets.

2  brasiwsu 2018-01-10

Sorry but pushing off of the air is not how rockets work within the atmosphere. They are thrusting liquid fuel out of the engine with over a million pounds of force. You do not lift a several thousand pound rocket by pushing against the air. It's the force of ingnited fuel leaving the engine, and it works in a vacuum, since all liquid fueled rocket engines run on a mix of fuel and oxidizer.

0  whenipeeithurts 2018-01-10

You can't even ignite a self oxidizing fuel in a vacuum. Many rockets are not near as heavy as they claim. Every bit of it is a deception:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs8oG0Mn3L0

1  brasiwsu 2018-01-10

I can't believe I just watched that. So you've gone from a claim that rockets don't work in space because "there is no air to work with", to rockets are just balloons anyway? I guess I'm just too deep into the mind control but I just subscribe to fake rocket, flat earth stuff.

How do you think SpaceX pulls off the controlled landing of their first stage balloons back at the launchpad?

1  whenipeeithurts 2018-01-10

First claim is still true. You were using payload weight which is just told to you by them as evidence which is why I pointed out we don't know anything about the actual weight and plenty do appear to be balloon like.

Those landings are just CGI. The folks pretending to watch it are all actors. Plenty of shills get out there to do their own videos as well. Just watch this and you can tell it's CGI, especially the dust kicking up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ktq1ZHD8w4

but yes, level of indoctrination does apply. They are illusionists. They lie big and lie often.

1  brasiwsu 2018-01-10

I don't agree, but I'll take it as a possibility and respect your theory. I wasn't really out to change hearts and minds with this post, just to talk about the Zuma launch.

1  whenipeeithurts 2018-01-10

Cool man. The fact you don't simply get angry and insulting puts you in a minority right there. All the best with seeking truth!

1  brasiwsu 2018-01-10

Honestly i felt myself starting to going there because i really believe in this stuff, but then I remembered everything I hate about this sub, and people that just insult and shit on conspiracy theories have no place in this sub.

1  fifteensunrises 2018-01-10

So what would happen if you threw a pencil in one direction while you were in a gravity-free vacuum?

1  Amazonistrash 2018-01-10

You either misunderstand basic physics and fluid dynamics or youre trying to make this sub look bad with that horseshit.

1  silent_erection 2018-01-10

What about the ISS? Or any of the geostationary communications satellites that companies pay billions of dollars to build and launch?

1  fifteensunrises 2018-01-10

Except for Voyager, or DSCOVR, or Cassini, or Venera, or Juno, etc. etc.

1  Iamamansass 2018-01-10

There’s definitely ways in and out. Even in ancient texts there is a gateway to the gods.

1  BillNyeScienceLies 2018-01-10

https://i.imgur.com/4ssHd3y.jpg