Did anyone know what the payload was? Doubt that it got destroyed but I do wonder what is up there now. Maybe they can drop nukes from space now with whatever that was. Emp device maybe
It could be anything. I'm skeptical about monitoring nowadays because people are doing a pretty good job of monitoring themselves and then posting it on Facebook, but one of the longest standing treaties of the space age is to not weaponize space. Perhaps it's got something to do with that.
When something like this "happens" I like to ask, who benefits?
Nuclear weapons are complicated and unnecessary. They could drop a steel beam from orbit and cause nuclear-bomb-level devastation without radioactive fallout that would spread to other areas. I'm sure they have some weapons like that up there. Probably other types too. I hope there's not many nuclear bombs though. I hope they would have realized that massive destruction can be achieved from orbit without risking uncontrolled release of weapons-grade radioactive material.
You got some science to go with the idea of a steel beam causing nuclear bomb level devastation? How much steel are you talking about and can we launch that into orbit in a single rocket?
He is exaggerating but due to the possible velocity orbital weapons could easily exceed normal non-nuclear weapons in terms of destructive power. On top of that, there is hardly anything you can do about.
Interesting, well the range of atomic bombs is pretty big. Didn't read the link did they estimate the TNT equivalent? Mind blowing that this would mostly be done with kinetic energy. Looks like sci fi needs to catch up to real war, most sci-fi ideas about orbital bombardment feature nuclear weapons when you can apparently just drop a big enough metal projectile.
I mean the weapon once fired is difficult to counter. Several other delivery systems have some form of "counter". You can shoot down planes and maybe even ICBMs but once an orbital platform has fired there is nothing you can do, due to the velocity the impact happens extremely fast. You can obviously destroy the orbital platform but this would have to be preemptive. Once such platform gets the firing command you can't really stop it. Compare that to a bomb delivered via plane. After the decisions is made to bomb there is plenty of time to intervene.
I maybe didn't make myself clear, I am not arguing you can't destroy weapon platforms in space I argue you can't react to a firing command.
Well, there is no orbital gun platform in use to our knowledge and what they eventually brew up is up to debate. I am no expert but this orbital stuff will hit within minutes with 10k kph. Far faster than ICBMs also harder to shoot down I would imagine. I works just by kinetic energy so it also be less vulnerable to problems. Once the thing is on its way I doubt there is anything to be done about it.
They describe using tungsten, I suppose I was mistaken suggesting steel although I'm not sure steel wouldn't also be effective. They also say that "some systems are quoted as having the yield of a small tactical nuclear bomb." I guess you could argue I was wrong to say "nuclear-bomb-level", but they're still being compared to nuclear bomb there.
The article says that tungsten traveling at terminal velocity will cause the destruction. So how much tungsten are we talking about? I wish I had time to do the math.
ICBMs already function this way, they enter space before re-entry. I highly doubt they have nuclear weapons deployed permanently on a satelite, due to the fact that the russians (and probably chinese) have anti satelite weapons systems. However, I wouldn't say it is impossible -- just seems like bad strategy to me, and a waste of money.
It makes sense to have more weapons to deploy. When it comes to a nuclear war it's all about multiple means of delivery. That's why there's what's known as the trifecta - silo, plane delivered, and submarine based
Yeah but take not that all those delivery means are remarkably defensible, submarines being considered one of the most important and dangerous delivery systems. due to the fact that they are essentially undetectable, and then consider the value of a satellite that everyone knows where it is at all times and could destroy it or even capture it if they saw fit. Not saying its impossible, just seems like a SAT is a platform illsuited to storing nukes in my mind
"Another example is the array of technologies—often referred to collectively as geoengineering—that potentially could help reverse the warming effects of global climate change. One that has gained my personal attention is stratospheric aerosol injection, or SAI, a method of seeding the stratosphere with particles that can help reflect the sun’s heat, in much the same way that volcanic eruptions do."
Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Central Intelligence Agency Director John O. Brennan at the Council on Foreign Relations, Washington, DC
It's problem reaction solution. They create the problem by fooling the population into believing global warming so that they can implement the solution without scrutiny.
I think it’s strange that supposedly it was taking a top secret satellite into orbit and because there was a malfunction they felt the need to announce it through the media. Not sure what the angle is here, but I don’t think standard procedure when there’s a failure or issue during a classified government operation (in this case working with SpaceX) to come out and announce it to the public, unless it’s someone’s idea of a PR move attempting to seem more transparent, if so I’m not buying it.
But if I needed to hide a couple billion dollars in embezzlement, black ops, budget overruns, etc, I would just build a "billion dollar" spy satellite out of spare junk parts and then launch it and make sure it burns up. Then I have an extra billion dollars in my budget with no questions asked.
Actually I was wondering if the military insures it's satellite launches like commercial companies or if they do the "insurance fund".
Because launch a real billion dollar satellite, fake the failure (once it's in orbit it's pure data, and no judge is going to accept tracking of a classified military satellite as evidence in court) and claim the insurance money. That would be how you launch a black budget satellite with no "credible" suspicions.
You mean like how 'communications satellites' were a science fiction fantasy created by Arthur c Clarke, and within a few years were suddenly a 'real thing'?
And of course we all know that satellites are real. We have all seen the crappy CGI images and videos on our telescreens.
What if this is a misdirection. Now other countries might believe there is an errant spy satellite in orbit. Other countries will mobilize to intercept the satellite. There are Chinese satellites that do very odd things, so maybe the US wants to force the hand of other countries and see what they have?
I agree. Also the fact that the info is being pushed out to the public instead of trying to contain & distract from it (like usual) definitely affirms my belief that it was planned, or like someone above said soft disclosure possibly to prime public perception for whatever the next incident is.
That's not what I am saying. I don't think this has anything to do with disclosure or an "incident." I'm saying it could be an espionage game, basically.
This launch was known to have a top secret payload for months, its not like the launch/payload itself was TS and no one knew about it.
We are such a weak minded generation. We have all human knowledge at the click of a search button but most of us are fooled by cheap CGI effects that aren't even good.
Again, How do you slow down a missile weighing over 1 million kg going 21,000 km/hr to a halt on boat vertically from 7km distance?( This is their own telemetry reading on the screen when it lands.)
You should not accept this nonesense! This is a really bad magic trick that depends on the observer to suspend all reason and scientific understanding of how natural physics works.
SpaceX is fake. They will come up with excuses when they get tired of fooling you with no actual accomplishments to show of their fake launches.
If you we follow your logic, I should be able to throw myself off the CN Tower and land by the same way physics I used to jump off. Not possible.
it's basic Newtonian physics. An object of that size with its mass concentrated at its center, cannot land at those speeds on a boat. if you are falling at 21 000km/hr down, turning on boosters at last minute will NOT result in a stop when all your mass is centered! This only happens in animation. It is equivalent to me landing on my feet perfectly after jumping off the CN Tower because I put my boosters on last minute before I touch the ground.
not possible unless you use CGI. Which exactly what they are using in their videos.
The booster is practically empty. An empty rocket booster is not very heavy at all. A fully loaded Falcon 9 rocket is only 500,000kgs, but in the above you are claiming the booster is 1 million. And the booster itself is not travelling at orbital velocity, like you claim. If it was travelling at orbital speed than it wouldn't be able to fall back into the atmosphere to even land (the second stage brings the payload to orbit). Furthermore, the atmosphere itself slows things down and there is something called terminal velocity.
It's basic Newtonian physics. You fire your thruster in the opposite direction of your vector, and this slows you down. That is how they land. Just because you don't believe it's technically feasible is your own prerogative.
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 watched the launch from my front yard about 30-50 miles from the coast and I could see the silhouette of the same plume that was lit up by the sunset in the recent space x launch over nevada/california. It looked like a massive chemtrail dump to me. Went to bed with clear dry and cool weather conditions and woke up to 100% cloud cover blocking the Sun all day.
Went to bed with clear dry and cool weather conditions and woke up to 100% cloud cover blocking the Sun all day.
This can happen literally any day if conditions are right. Did you look up weather predictions? What systems were heading your way beforehand? Any data at all that would tell you what the weather would be like? Why jump to chemtrails?
I look at satellite imagery. They pump moisture into the air using rapid evaporation boats off the coast. The water vapor clings to the nano-metals that are being deposited into the atmosphere by the chemtrails. They can then use high power radio waves to manipulate the cloud cover.
I do. Tracking space objects in orbit like that is really easy, I don't believe they would be able to hide it. Furthermore, its far from surprising spacex set more tax dollars on fire. I dont see what other possibility there is -- the satellite failed to deploy or we would be able to track it.
tracking objects in orbit around the planet is crucial to civilian space operations... things up there are so expensive, and it is not easy at all to coordinate them (compared to something on earth anyway) and you do not want things crashing around up there. Especially if things fall back down on valuable land. Furthermore, the satellites themselves are just difficult to hide from civilian astronomy. Remember, civilian astronomers can detect objects that are incredible far away. even a minute object that is so close to earth it is below moon orbit is easily detectable.
Orbital mechanics are deterministic (well for our purposes) and the people tasked with tracking these objects are following them, often from the moment they leave the ground.
The big problem with things crashing around up there is that they don't fall back down. They stay up there for decades or centuries just thrashing around. That's why this story is so far fetched.. That satellite would not have come down at all after separation unless it was slowed down enough to deorbit, and that takes quite a bit of energy to just happen by mistake.
It happens sometimes especially if some part of the sat is leaking something or depressurizing, or simply if the vehicles trajectory was altered by a collision.
A lot of other countries are doing some weird stuff in space right now, and they all seem to be on the same page about it. I don't think they're hiding anything from each other.. I think they're hiding it from us.
Last I saw, they wouldn't even state what agency the satellite was to be used by... no, I don't believe that the thing they didn't want to tell us about actually blew up.
Considering it was rumored to be carrying a top-secret spy satellite and the "break-up" was first reported by the WSJ, there is zero chance that the report is accurate. It's a misinfo ploy to throw off any foreign agents/agencies who may have had a clue about the satellite.
Actually nothing broke the unit that was used to eject the payload was made by Northrop Grumman instead of SpaceX and that failed to disengage properly and dropped into the ocean. SpaceX performed flawlessly.
"Usually when I heard that a craft of satellite was "lost" after an apparent successful launch I usually found out that the "MISSING" assets had been moved to a "Black Status" and were still in service." -CG
The big problem with things crashing around up there is that they don't fall back down. They stay up there for decades or centuries just thrashing around. That's why this story is so far fetched.. That satellite would not have come down at all after separation unless it was slowed down enough to deorbit, and that takes quite a bit of energy to just happen by mistake.
107 comments
2 Rossism 2018-01-09
Ufo shot it down.
1 cordeezy 2018-01-09
Did anyone know what the payload was? Doubt that it got destroyed but I do wonder what is up there now. Maybe they can drop nukes from space now with whatever that was. Emp device maybe
1 UnopenedParachute 2018-01-09
It could be anything. I'm skeptical about monitoring nowadays because people are doing a pretty good job of monitoring themselves and then posting it on Facebook, but one of the longest standing treaties of the space age is to not weaponize space. Perhaps it's got something to do with that.
When something like this "happens" I like to ask, who benefits?
1 ewwwwwzipties 2018-01-09
What makes you think those things aren't already circling the globe and been doing so since the ~60s?
1 Afrobean 2018-01-09
Nuclear weapons are complicated and unnecessary. They could drop a steel beam from orbit and cause nuclear-bomb-level devastation without radioactive fallout that would spread to other areas. I'm sure they have some weapons like that up there. Probably other types too. I hope there's not many nuclear bombs though. I hope they would have realized that massive destruction can be achieved from orbit without risking uncontrolled release of weapons-grade radioactive material.
1 DrWigglesMcGulicutty 2018-01-09
You got some science to go with the idea of a steel beam causing nuclear bomb level devastation? How much steel are you talking about and can we launch that into orbit in a single rocket?
1 ChristianMunich 2018-01-09
He is exaggerating but due to the possible velocity orbital weapons could easily exceed normal non-nuclear weapons in terms of destructive power. On top of that, there is hardly anything you can do about.
2 throwawaytreez 2018-01-09
Seems like a source in the US govt said they would be on the level of a "small nuclear warhead."
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/may/19/spaceexploration.usnews
2 ChristianMunich 2018-01-09
Interesting, well the range of atomic bombs is pretty big. Didn't read the link did they estimate the TNT equivalent? Mind blowing that this would mostly be done with kinetic energy. Looks like sci fi needs to catch up to real war, most sci-fi ideas about orbital bombardment feature nuclear weapons when you can apparently just drop a big enough metal projectile.
1 WaitTilUSeeMyDick 2018-01-09
I'm pretty sure they use a "Rod From God" weapon in one of the GI Joe movies.
1 DrWigglesMcGulicutty 2018-01-09
Why would these falling objects be unstoppable? The amount of mass we can place in orbit is the key here.
1 ChristianMunich 2018-01-09
I mean the weapon once fired is difficult to counter. Several other delivery systems have some form of "counter". You can shoot down planes and maybe even ICBMs but once an orbital platform has fired there is nothing you can do, due to the velocity the impact happens extremely fast. You can obviously destroy the orbital platform but this would have to be preemptive. Once such platform gets the firing command you can't really stop it. Compare that to a bomb delivered via plane. After the decisions is made to bomb there is plenty of time to intervene.
I maybe didn't make myself clear, I am not arguing you can't destroy weapon platforms in space I argue you can't react to a firing command.
1 DrWigglesMcGulicutty 2018-01-09
What is the velocity of this weapon you're discussing versus that of an ICBM?
1 ChristianMunich 2018-01-09
Well, there is no orbital gun platform in use to our knowledge and what they eventually brew up is up to debate. I am no expert but this orbital stuff will hit within minutes with 10k kph. Far faster than ICBMs also harder to shoot down I would imagine. I works just by kinetic energy so it also be less vulnerable to problems. Once the thing is on its way I doubt there is anything to be done about it.
1 DrWigglesMcGulicutty 2018-01-09
We like to get very creative with ways to destroy. But we can also be just as creative with ways to defend.
1 ChristianMunich 2018-01-09
Yeah, that is certainly true but just in terms of the time frame, I have trouble imagining a defense that is not depended on preemptive actions.
1 sons_of_many_bitches 2018-01-09
Probably similar science to how a rock can cause nuclear bomb level devastation.
1 Afrobean 2018-01-09
Please have a look at this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment
They describe using tungsten, I suppose I was mistaken suggesting steel although I'm not sure steel wouldn't also be effective. They also say that "some systems are quoted as having the yield of a small tactical nuclear bomb." I guess you could argue I was wrong to say "nuclear-bomb-level", but they're still being compared to nuclear bomb there.
1 DrWigglesMcGulicutty 2018-01-09
The article says that tungsten traveling at terminal velocity will cause the destruction. So how much tungsten are we talking about? I wish I had time to do the math.
1 SelfAwareAsian 2018-01-09
I've read before that they would be the size of telephone poles
1 DrWigglesMcGulicutty 2018-01-09
Sounds very likely. That is an extremely heavy load to get into space. I guess it was stupid of me to ask questions.
1 sons_of_many_bitches 2018-01-09
I was reading about space rail guns a few days ago they sound terrifying!
1 MarmadukeHammerhead 2018-01-09
Not steel, but tungsten.
1 RagingSatyr 2018-01-09
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARAUDER
1 hairlice 2018-01-09
How can a lump of metal not burn up in re-entry yet everything else can?
2 Workmask 2018-01-09
If it's big enough, it won't burn up completely. It could also be coated with heat-deflecting material like the space shuttles.
1 Humanity_IsThe_Devil 2018-01-09
ICBMs already function this way, they enter space before re-entry. I highly doubt they have nuclear weapons deployed permanently on a satelite, due to the fact that the russians (and probably chinese) have anti satelite weapons systems. However, I wouldn't say it is impossible -- just seems like bad strategy to me, and a waste of money.
2 Freedom_fam 2018-01-09
China has had them for a decade
US responded soon after with a similar test
1 Humanity_IsThe_Devil 2018-01-09
Why do I get down voted for sharing information about modern space warfare lol ?
1 Unoid 2018-01-09
Reddit is designed to be an echo chamber, those with like minds get upvoted. It's why this website so such toxic garbage.
1 as1productions 2018-01-09
They designed it so people can make comments disappear if they are downvotes. And yet here we are.
1 IAMAExpertInBirdLaw 2018-01-09
It makes sense to have more weapons to deploy. When it comes to a nuclear war it's all about multiple means of delivery. That's why there's what's known as the trifecta - silo, plane delivered, and submarine based
1 Humanity_IsThe_Devil 2018-01-09
Yeah but take not that all those delivery means are remarkably defensible, submarines being considered one of the most important and dangerous delivery systems. due to the fact that they are essentially undetectable, and then consider the value of a satellite that everyone knows where it is at all times and could destroy it or even capture it if they saw fit. Not saying its impossible, just seems like a SAT is a platform illsuited to storing nukes in my mind
1 BillNyeScienceLies 2018-01-09
It was a massive chemtrail dump, just like the other launches around the world recently.
https://i.imgur.com/7T9zyU9.jpg
1 IAMAExpertInBirdLaw 2018-01-09
Lol. Chemtrails don't exist.
1 BillNyeScienceLies 2018-01-09
"Another example is the array of technologies—often referred to collectively as geoengineering—that potentially could help reverse the warming effects of global climate change. One that has gained my personal attention is stratospheric aerosol injection, or SAI, a method of seeding the stratosphere with particles that can help reflect the sun’s heat, in much the same way that volcanic eruptions do."
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
1 Zerophobe 2018-01-09
Why would it be bad if they want to stop global warming?
1 BillNyeScienceLies 2018-01-09
It's problem reaction solution. They create the problem by fooling the population into believing global warming so that they can implement the solution without scrutiny.
1 Zerophobe 2018-01-09
Why would they want to solve something if it didn't exist?
1 theeeggman 2018-01-09
lol, I think you're in the wrong sub.
1 Iamamansass 2018-01-09
The rods of God already exist. Ask China.
1 kingofthemonsters 2018-01-09
And Russia
1 Cobra_Blown 2018-01-09
I think it’s strange that supposedly it was taking a top secret satellite into orbit and because there was a malfunction they felt the need to announce it through the media. Not sure what the angle is here, but I don’t think standard procedure when there’s a failure or issue during a classified government operation (in this case working with SpaceX) to come out and announce it to the public, unless it’s someone’s idea of a PR move attempting to seem more transparent, if so I’m not buying it.
3 Poor_joe 2018-01-09
But if I needed to hide a couple billion dollars in embezzlement, black ops, budget overruns, etc, I would just build a "billion dollar" spy satellite out of spare junk parts and then launch it and make sure it burns up. Then I have an extra billion dollars in my budget with no questions asked.
1 electromagneticpulse 2018-01-09
Actually I was wondering if the military insures it's satellite launches like commercial companies or if they do the "insurance fund".
Because launch a real billion dollar satellite, fake the failure (once it's in orbit it's pure data, and no judge is going to accept tracking of a classified military satellite as evidence in court) and claim the insurance money. That would be how you launch a black budget satellite with no "credible" suspicions.
1 Saalome 2018-01-09
Agreed. Top secret items don’t really scream, “front-page material”. This is either a soft disclosure or some form of controlled narrative.
1 hairlice 2018-01-09
Maybe it's the start of the "screw space x" narrative?
1 Step2TheJep 2018-01-09
You mean like how 'communications satellites' were a science fiction fantasy created by Arthur c Clarke, and within a few years were suddenly a 'real thing'?
And of course we all know that satellites are real. We have all seen the crappy CGI images and videos on our telescreens.
1 throwawaytreez 2018-01-09
What if this is a misdirection. Now other countries might believe there is an errant spy satellite in orbit. Other countries will mobilize to intercept the satellite. There are Chinese satellites that do very odd things, so maybe the US wants to force the hand of other countries and see what they have?
1 Cobra_Blown 2018-01-09
I agree. Also the fact that the info is being pushed out to the public instead of trying to contain & distract from it (like usual) definitely affirms my belief that it was planned, or like someone above said soft disclosure possibly to prime public perception for whatever the next incident is.
2 throwawaytreez 2018-01-09
That's not what I am saying. I don't think this has anything to do with disclosure or an "incident." I'm saying it could be an espionage game, basically.
This launch was known to have a top secret payload for months, its not like the launch/payload itself was TS and no one knew about it.
-7 themeanbeaver 2018-01-09
We are such a weak minded generation. We have all human knowledge at the click of a search button but most of us are fooled by cheap CGI effects that aren't even good.
Again, How do you slow down a missile weighing over 1 million kg going 21,000 km/hr to a halt on boat vertically from 7km distance?( This is their own telemetry reading on the screen when it lands.)
You should not accept this nonesense! This is a really bad magic trick that depends on the observer to suspend all reason and scientific understanding of how natural physics works.
SpaceX is fake. They will come up with excuses when they get tired of fooling you with no actual accomplishments to show of their fake launches.
But deceiving is exhausting, isn't it?
5 throwawaytreez 2018-01-09
The same way they launch them?
-3 themeanbeaver 2018-01-09
If you we follow your logic, I should be able to throw myself off the CN Tower and land by the same way physics I used to jump off. Not possible.
it's basic Newtonian physics. An object of that size with its mass concentrated at its center, cannot land at those speeds on a boat. if you are falling at 21 000km/hr down, turning on boosters at last minute will NOT result in a stop when all your mass is centered! This only happens in animation. It is equivalent to me landing on my feet perfectly after jumping off the CN Tower because I put my boosters on last minute before I touch the ground.
not possible unless you use CGI. Which exactly what they are using in their videos.
5 throwawaytreez 2018-01-09
The booster is practically empty. An empty rocket booster is not very heavy at all. A fully loaded Falcon 9 rocket is only 500,000kgs, but in the above you are claiming the booster is 1 million. And the booster itself is not travelling at orbital velocity, like you claim. If it was travelling at orbital speed than it wouldn't be able to fall back into the atmosphere to even land (the second stage brings the payload to orbit). Furthermore, the atmosphere itself slows things down and there is something called terminal velocity.
It's basic Newtonian physics. You fire your thruster in the opposite direction of your vector, and this slows you down. That is how they land. Just because you don't believe it's technically feasible is your own prerogative.
2 Poor_joe 2018-01-09
If you "throw" yourself off a couple of stairs at a time, you will end up at the bottom perfectly safe.
1 Kompromod 2018-01-09
how does an elevator work?
play kerbal space program. youll figure out how things "land"
1 Scroon 2018-01-09
Here's a video of a Falcon 9 landing and a reddit thread talking numbers.
Of course, people could be lying about the data, and the video could be doctored, but taken at face value the numbers and video do make sense.
1 AutoModerator 2018-01-09
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 SilverbackRibs 2018-01-09
Might want to double-check your understanding of Newtonian physics.
1 rhex1 2018-01-09
There's also grid fins that both slow it down through air braking and provide steering.
1 joe_jaywalker 2018-01-09
If you do enough research, the realization will creep up on you that everything we've been presented with happening in "space" is fake.
1 Humanity_IsThe_Devil 2018-01-09
I disagree with this, given the amount of things we can verify ourselves.
1 joe_jaywalker 2018-01-09
Let me clarify that I'm talking about manned space missions.
1 Humanity_IsThe_Devil 2018-01-09
Ah, gotcha
1 Humanity_IsThe_Devil 2018-01-09
Ah, gotcha
1 Tookmyprawns 2018-01-09
So live feeds from international space station are faked?
1 Zerophobe 2018-01-09
I mean it's not really hard to fake it anymore.
1 joe_jaywalker 2018-01-09
I think so.
1 BillNyeScienceLies 2018-01-09
I watched the launch from my front yard about 30-50 miles from the coast and I could see the silhouette of the same plume that was lit up by the sunset in the recent space x launch over nevada/california. It looked like a massive chemtrail dump to me. Went to bed with clear dry and cool weather conditions and woke up to 100% cloud cover blocking the Sun all day.
1 quetz4 2018-01-09
This can happen literally any day if conditions are right. Did you look up weather predictions? What systems were heading your way beforehand? Any data at all that would tell you what the weather would be like? Why jump to chemtrails?
1 BillNyeScienceLies 2018-01-09
I look at satellite imagery. They pump moisture into the air using rapid evaporation boats off the coast. The water vapor clings to the nano-metals that are being deposited into the atmosphere by the chemtrails. They can then use high power radio waves to manipulate the cloud cover.
1 Spynde 2018-01-09
Sigh
1 Deesnuts77 2018-01-09
I mean, if you don't even think there is something fishy with "Chemtrails" why in the world are you subscribed to r/conspiracy?
1 DoubleDroz 2018-01-09
Because it's funny?
1 Oronoguy 2018-01-09
I hope you get help
1 Humanity_IsThe_Devil 2018-01-09
I do. Tracking space objects in orbit like that is really easy, I don't believe they would be able to hide it. Furthermore, its far from surprising spacex set more tax dollars on fire. I dont see what other possibility there is -- the satellite failed to deploy or we would be able to track it.
1 KingRagnarLothbrok_ 2018-01-09
Why downvoted ? How is it easy to track ?
1 Humanity_IsThe_Devil 2018-01-09
tracking objects in orbit around the planet is crucial to civilian space operations... things up there are so expensive, and it is not easy at all to coordinate them (compared to something on earth anyway) and you do not want things crashing around up there. Especially if things fall back down on valuable land. Furthermore, the satellites themselves are just difficult to hide from civilian astronomy. Remember, civilian astronomers can detect objects that are incredible far away. even a minute object that is so close to earth it is below moon orbit is easily detectable.
1 KingRagnarLothbrok_ 2018-01-09
Yes I understand it's crucial your original comment said "tracking objects in orbit is really easy" how is it easy to track ?
1 Humanity_IsThe_Devil 2018-01-09
Orbital mechanics are deterministic (well for our purposes) and the people tasked with tracking these objects are following them, often from the moment they leave the ground.
1 CloudyMN1979 2018-01-09
The big problem with things crashing around up there is that they don't fall back down. They stay up there for decades or centuries just thrashing around. That's why this story is so far fetched.. That satellite would not have come down at all after separation unless it was slowed down enough to deorbit, and that takes quite a bit of energy to just happen by mistake.
1 Humanity_IsThe_Devil 2018-01-09
It happens sometimes especially if some part of the sat is leaking something or depressurizing, or simply if the vehicles trajectory was altered by a collision.
1 Humanity_IsThe_Devil 2018-01-09
How do you guys propose they are concealing the satelite?
2 CloudyMN1979 2018-01-09
A lot of other countries are doing some weird stuff in space right now, and they all seem to be on the same page about it. I don't think they're hiding anything from each other.. I think they're hiding it from us.
1 Humanity_IsThe_Devil 2018-01-09
Interesting. Im not familiar with how common space launches are, though.
1 Ih8j4ke 2018-01-09
If it was some secret why would they draw any attention to it? You don't need to throw out a red herring for an investigation that doesn't exist
1 Step2TheJep 2018-01-09
How confident are you that man walked on the moon in 1969?
1 sirio2012 2018-01-09
Russians beat y'all with Salyut 5 being armed. /s
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salyut_3#On-board_gun
1 HelperBot_ 2018-01-09
Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salyut_3#On-board_gun
HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 136084
1 GranimalSnake 2018-01-09
Last I saw, they wouldn't even state what agency the satellite was to be used by... no, I don't believe that the thing they didn't want to tell us about actually blew up.
1 VenomousVoice 2018-01-09
Considering it was rumored to be carrying a top-secret spy satellite and the "break-up" was first reported by the WSJ, there is zero chance that the report is accurate. It's a misinfo ploy to throw off any foreign agents/agencies who may have had a clue about the satellite.
WSJ=CIA, so what more do you need?
1 GhostDog999 2018-01-09
Russia says contact with satellite lost after launch
1 IAMAExpertInBirdLaw 2018-01-09
All warfare is deception
1 alvarezg 2018-01-09
Does it make any difference? We'll never know what it was supposed to do.
1 UnopenedParachute 2018-01-09
Why are you in /r/conspiracy?
1 alvarezg 2018-01-09
Why do you question it?
1 Petrus_ 2018-01-09
Ha no
1 lolheadshot 2018-01-09
Supposedly its a project under development, this Zuma thing.
What a better way to hide whatever this Zuma thing is doing than to say it blew up or we lost contact.
1 hoipalloi52 2018-01-09
Actually nothing broke the unit that was used to eject the payload was made by Northrop Grumman instead of SpaceX and that failed to disengage properly and dropped into the ocean. SpaceX performed flawlessly.
1 sinedup4thiscomment 2018-01-09
So a defense contractor was responsible for the error, and I am also going to assume for reporting said error. Hmmm...
Yup there's a spy satellite up there now that can see what I eat for breakfast.
1 UrFavSoundTech 2018-01-09
The falcon 9 rocket did not fail. It landed back in KSC.
1 gonwi42 2018-01-09
i heard it failed to separate from the second stage and fell back to earth
1 sinedup4thiscomment 2018-01-09
I sure as hell don't. You hear me NSA?!
1 potatosurplus 2018-01-09
I mean SpaceX is a Defense contractor for the Gov...so the answer is no.
1 spqrherewecome 2018-01-09
No.
1 rantingsofastarseed 2018-01-09
Not I.
1 rantingsofastarseed 2018-01-09
"Usually when I heard that a craft of satellite was "lost" after an apparent successful launch I usually found out that the "MISSING" assets had been moved to a "Black Status" and were still in service." -CG
1 monamieberry 2018-01-09
Perhaps it was emp'd.
1 Humanity_IsThe_Devil 2018-01-09
Ah, gotcha
1 Humanity_IsThe_Devil 2018-01-09
Ah, gotcha
1 Tookmyprawns 2018-01-09
So live feeds from international space station are faked?
1 Zerophobe 2018-01-09
I mean it's not really hard to fake it anymore.
1 joe_jaywalker 2018-01-09
I think so.
1 KingRagnarLothbrok_ 2018-01-09
Yes I understand it's crucial your original comment said "tracking objects in orbit is really easy" how is it easy to track ?
1 CloudyMN1979 2018-01-09
The big problem with things crashing around up there is that they don't fall back down. They stay up there for decades or centuries just thrashing around. That's why this story is so far fetched.. That satellite would not have come down at all after separation unless it was slowed down enough to deorbit, and that takes quite a bit of energy to just happen by mistake.