Author Topic: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION  (Read 786600 times)

Offline ChrisGebhardt

  • Assistant Managing Editor
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7842
  • ad astra scientia
  • ~1 AU
  • Liked: 7877
  • Likes Given: 853
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #680 on: 01/08/2018 08:17 pm »
:'(
Peter Selding:
 
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/950473623483101186

Zuma satellite from @northropgrumman may be dead in orbit after separation from @SpaceX Falcon 9, sources say. Info blackout renders any conclusion - launcher issue? Satellite-only issue? -- impossible to draw.


Eric Berger:

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/950474284807450625
I have been chasing this story as well. No comment from SpaceX as of yet.


This mission has a lot of weirdness from the start.....
..........


Per Peter's tweet, what I struggle with is how this could be a launcher issue if Zuma separated and is dead in space after separating from F9?

EDIT: Not calling his first report into question - that Zuma might be dead in space per sources. If he's saying this publicly, he's got multiple good sources.  But the second part is what I struggle with - that it could be an F9 issue, when the first part clearly states that the payload separated from the 2nd stage.
« Last Edit: 01/08/2018 08:28 pm by ChrisGebhardt »

Peter B. de Sending on Twitter
@pbdes
Quote
Zuma satellite from @northropgrumman may be dead in orbit after separation from @SpaceX Falcon 9, sources say. Info blackout renders any conclusion - launcher issue? Satellite-only issue? -- impossible to draw.

If you wanted your secret satellite to remain secret, it mightn't be a bad thing to suggest it never woke up on orbit.

Or am I being cynical?

eh, had we seen the usual 'payload healthy and placed in good orbit' tweet we would be forgetting about Zuma and moving into FH hype.
If these maneuvers are intended to lower people's attention to the payload they're not very effective.


« Last Edit: 01/08/2018 08:21 pm by AbuSimbel »
Failure is not only an option, it's the only way to learn.
"Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the custody of fire" - Gustav Mahler

Offline ChrisGebhardt

  • Assistant Managing Editor
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7842
  • ad astra scientia
  • ~1 AU
  • Liked: 7877
  • Likes Given: 853
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #682 on: 01/08/2018 08:22 pm »
Per Peter's tweet, what I struggle is how is could be a launcher issue if Zuma separated and is dead in space after separating from F9?
See Progress M-27M, Commercial Titan 3 (Intelsat 6), etc.

 - Ed Kyle

Progress M-27M - "a malfunction occurred near the end of the upper stage burn shortly before the separation of the Progress spacecraft".

Intelsat 6- "An uninsured $140-million communications satellite apparently failed to separate from its Titan 3 booster rocket."

Peter's tweet says "Zuma satellite from @northropgrumman may be dead in orbit after separation from @SpaceX Falcon 9.

My question stands.
« Last Edit: 01/08/2018 08:24 pm by ChrisGebhardt »

Offline vanoord

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 693
  • Liked: 450
  • Likes Given: 106
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #683 on: 01/08/2018 08:25 pm »
eh, had we seen the usual 'payload healthy and placed in good orbit' tweet we would be forgetting about Zuma and moving into FH hype.
If these maneuvers are intended to lower people's attention to the payload they're not very effective.

The health of the spacecraft was not for SpaceX to report; and they do not do that other than with Dragon - any health update comes from the satellite owner / operator.

SpaceX are virtually certainly contractually-bound not to reveal anything to do with the vehicle (ie their S2, the fairings and the payload) after S1 separation. That would, by definition, include whether or not it reached the correct orbit.

This has been an odd and strangely secretive launch and I doubt we'll ever know for certain what's happened either way.

Offline Rebel44

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 565
  • Liked: 546
  • Likes Given: 2012
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #684 on: 01/08/2018 08:29 pm »
Quote
SpaceX just told me there were no anomalies with the rocket during Sunday night's launch. (But that doesn't mean there weren't with the satellite).

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/950477142386794496

IMO: if there were no anomalies with Falcon 9 payload should be in planned orbit and owner (NG or whatever government agency owned it) is unlikely to give us a satellite health info unless there are signs of trouble that would be visible to people on the ground
« Last Edit: 01/08/2018 08:48 pm by Rebel44 »

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #685 on: 01/08/2018 08:30 pm »
We'll probably have a clue of a stage 2 issue if GovSat-1 is postponed for checks on its launcher. However, there are many other failure points including payload processing and even construction. It wouldn't be the first time that a launcher worked perfectly but the payload was actually dead on encapsulation.
« Last Edit: 01/08/2018 08:31 pm by Ben the Space Brit »
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline yokem55

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 653
  • Oregon (Ore-uh-gun dammit)
  • Liked: 468
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #686 on: 01/08/2018 08:30 pm »
:'(
Peter Selding:
 
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/950473623483101186

Zuma satellite from @northropgrumman may be dead in orbit after separation from @SpaceX Falcon 9, sources say. Info blackout renders any conclusion - launcher issue? Satellite-only issue? -- impossible to draw.


Eric Berger:

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/950474284807450625
I have been chasing this story as well. No comment from SpaceX as of yet.


This mission has a lot of weirdness from the start.....
..........


Per Peter's tweet, what I struggle is how is could be a launcher issue if Zuma separated and is dead in space after separating from F9?
Virbration or G-Loads could have been exceeded? Recontact during faring separation? Electrical malfunction?

eh, had we seen the usual 'payload healthy and placed in good orbit' tweet we would be forgetting about Zuma and moving into FH hype.
If these maneuvers are intended to lower people's attention to the payload they're not very effective.

The health of the spacecraft was not for SpaceX to report; and they do not do that other than with Dragon - any health update comes from the satellite owner / operator.

SpaceX are virtually certainly contractually-bound not to reveal anything to do with the vehicle (ie their S2, the fairings and the payload) after S1 separation. That would, by definition, include whether or not it reached the correct orbit.

This has been an odd and strangely secretive launch and I doubt we'll ever know for certain what's happened either way.
You're right. What I wanted to say is that simulating an anomaly with the payload isn't the best way to lower people's attention on it.
Failure is not only an option, it's the only way to learn.
"Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the custody of fire" - Gustav Mahler

Offline Rebel44

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 565
  • Liked: 546
  • Likes Given: 2012
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #688 on: 01/08/2018 08:36 pm »
:'(
Peter Selding:
 
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/950473623483101186

Zuma satellite from @northropgrumman may be dead in orbit after separation from @SpaceX Falcon 9, sources say. Info blackout renders any conclusion - launcher issue? Satellite-only issue? -- impossible to draw.


Eric Berger:

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/950474284807450625
I have been chasing this story as well. No comment from SpaceX as of yet.


This mission has a lot of weirdness from the start.....
..........


Per Peter's tweet, what I struggle is how is could be a launcher issue if Zuma separated and is dead in space after separating from F9?
Virbration or G-Loads could have been exceeded? Recontact during faring separation? Electrical malfunction?

IMO: excessive vibrations, G-loads or recontact during fairing separation would count as rocket anomalies.

Offline cebri

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 245
  • Spain
  • Liked: 291
  • Likes Given: 181
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #689 on: 01/08/2018 08:43 pm »
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/the-zuma-satellite-launched-by-spacex-may-be-lost-sources-tell-ars/

"According to one source, the payload fell back to Earth along with the spent upper stage of the Falcon 9 rocket."

Could this be possible?
"It's kind of amazing that a window of opportunity is open for life to beyond Earth, and we don't know how long this window is gonna be open" Elon Musk
"If you want to see an endangered species, get up and look in the mirror." John Young

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #690 on: 01/08/2018 08:45 pm »
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/the-zuma-satellite-launched-by-spacex-may-be-lost-sources-tell-ars/

"According to one source, the payload fell back to Earth along with the spent upper stage of the Falcon 9 rocket."

Could this be possible?

Bottom line, yes. Especially if, for whatever reason, the upper stage did not get Zuma into a stable initial parking orbit (by accident or design).
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Semmel

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2178
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2433
  • Likes Given: 11916
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #691 on: 01/08/2018 08:45 pm »
Eric Berger’s write-up:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/the-zuma-satellite-launched-by-spacex-may-be-lost-sources-tell-ars/

Edit to add:

Article includes:

Quote
According to one source, the payload fell back to Earth along with the spent upper stage of the Falcon 9 rocket.

Eric also gives same quote as in Chris G’s post above.


That makes no sense since there was a de-orbit burn of S2.

Offline Freddedonna

  • Member
  • Posts: 19
  • Quebec, Qc, Canada
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 746
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #692 on: 01/08/2018 08:50 pm »
That makes no sense since there was a de-orbit burn of S2.

And the payload was cataloged as mentioned here :

Now catalogued as USA 280, 2018-001A, 43098.  Naturally no orbital data given.

Offline Rebel44

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 565
  • Liked: 546
  • Likes Given: 2012
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #693 on: 01/08/2018 08:51 pm »
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/the-zuma-satellite-launched-by-spacex-may-be-lost-sources-tell-ars/

"According to one source, the payload fell back to Earth along with the spent upper stage of the Falcon 9 rocket."

Could this be possible?

Based on SpaceX quote (no anomaly with F9) payload was delivered to correct orbit and separated from the 2nd stage - so the only thing that would make sense for payload deorbiting is IMO screwup with satellite propulsion (satellites propulsion firing in the wrong direction) that would result in deorbiting it.

I am also not sure if in that case payload would be cataloged.
« Last Edit: 01/08/2018 08:53 pm by Rebel44 »

Offline ChrisGebhardt

  • Assistant Managing Editor
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7842
  • ad astra scientia
  • ~1 AU
  • Liked: 7877
  • Likes Given: 853
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #694 on: 01/08/2018 08:51 pm »
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/the-zuma-satellite-launched-by-spacex-may-be-lost-sources-tell-ars/

"According to one source, the payload fell back to Earth along with the spent upper stage of the Falcon 9 rocket."

Could this be possible?

Bottom line, yes. Especially if, for whatever reason, the upper stage did not get Zuma into a stable initial parking orbit (by accident or design).

Which does not follow SpaceX saying that Falcon 9 functioned without issue.  If the rocket didn't achieve orbital velocity, SpaceX would not publicly be saying the rocket had no issues.  Not achieving orbital velocity for a rocket on a mission to insert a satellite into orbit is a failure.
« Last Edit: 01/08/2018 08:52 pm by ChrisGebhardt »

Offline Michael Baylor

  • NSF Reporter
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 901
  • Liked: 4868
  • Likes Given: 865
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #695 on: 01/08/2018 08:57 pm »
Quote
According to one source, the payload fell back to Earth along with the spent upper stage of the Falcon 9 rocket.

Not sure why this was included in the article. There are no reports that seem to back this up. Most of them are saying "dead in orbit" which means that Zuma is still in orbit. Additionally, SpaceX would almost certainly know if Zuma was put into the wrong orbit. This is not to mention that Zuma has also been catalogued.

That claim does not seem to be backed up with common sense at this point. Most likely scenario based on combining reports is that Zuma had a technical malfunction of some sort and is in orbit but not responding.
« Last Edit: 01/08/2018 09:02 pm by Michael Baylor »

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #696 on: 01/08/2018 08:58 pm »
If I may speculate, I think that we can safely say that something is wrong with Zuma. However, no-one with actual knowledge is talking (as one would expect). I suspect that what Eric and Peter are hearing is second-hand speculation of people who know people in the post-failure investigation team. These people have mentioned parts of some aspects of early working theories about what has happened to the spacecraft (theories constrained and hobbled by the fact that the last anyone saw of it was the Falcon 9 upper stage payload camera showing the vehicle separate and drift clear in some 'black' MCC somewhere in Langley, Virginia or The Pentagon).

Bottom line, yes. Especially if, for whatever reason, the upper stage did not get Zuma into a stable initial parking orbit (by accident or design).

Which does not follow SpaceX saying that Falcon 9 functioned without issue.  If the rocket didn't achieve orbital velocity, SpaceX would not publicly be saying the rocket had no issues.  Not achieving orbital velocity for a rocket on a mission to insert a satellite into orbit is a failure.

That's why I mentioned 'by accident or design', referring to my earlier speculation about a suborbital initial trajectory to conserve dV for a second upper stage burn.

However, the more I think about it, the less I'm buying the 'fell into the ocean with the upper stage' claim. That would require either an under-boost (which seemingly contradicts the planned de-orbit burn) or a separation failure, both of which would definitely be launch vehicle failures.
« Last Edit: 01/08/2018 09:00 pm by Ben the Space Brit »
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Yellowstone10

Marco Langbroek over at satobs.org posted that he checked with the pilot who spotted the potential S2 deorbit burn, and confirmed that the previously reported time of 0218 UTC was indeed in error:

http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Jan-2018/0066.html

This puts S2 over east Africa within minutes of when Mr. Langbroek predicted - suggests no issue with F9.

Offline Brovane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • United States
  • Liked: 828
  • Likes Given: 1797
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #698 on: 01/08/2018 08:59 pm »

Which does not follow SpaceX saying that Falcon 9 functioned without issue.  If the rocket didn't achieve orbital velocity, SpaceX would not publicly be saying the rocket had no issues.  Not achieving orbital velocity for a rocket on a mission to insert a satellite into orbit is a failure.

I agree 100% with this based on the information we have.  The most likely scenario at this point based on the information we know is that the satellite failed in orbit.  SpaceX wouldn't be announcing that the F9 had no anomalies if some type of issue occurred.  Also we can judge by the fact that SpaceX is moving along with the next planned flights.  A failure of some type would have resulted in a stand-down until the failure had been completely investigated. 

"Look at that! If anybody ever said, "you'll be sitting in a spacecraft naked with a 134-pound backpack on your knees charging it", I'd have said "Aw, get serious". - John Young - Apollo-16

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #699 on: 01/08/2018 09:01 pm »
Ooops, posted in updates:

Eric Berger’s write-up:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/the-zuma-satellite-launched-by-spacex-may-be-lost-sources-tell-ars/

Edit to add:

Article includes:

Quote
According to one source, the payload fell back to Earth along with the spent upper stage of the Falcon 9 rocket.

Eric also gives same quote as in Chris G’s post above.

Not to be a skeptic, but how much extra propellant would be needed to de-orbit the upper-stage with the extra mass of a payload still attached? Yet, everything SpaceX has said is nominal vehicle performance.

Wonder, deliberate indirection? Payload was in charge of raising it's own orbit, aka Polyus?

Do we need to wait for Northrup Grumman's financial quarterly statement to come out, I suspect the customer will not pay if this is the case and that should show up as a loss or write-off.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0