Author Topic: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION  (Read 786583 times)

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #800 on: 01/09/2018 04:27 am »
I have seen zero evidence of finger pointing. SpaceX can't even say if there WAS a problem with the payload, as that part is classified. Same for NG!
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4846
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 3429
  • Likes Given: 741
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #801 on: 01/09/2018 04:30 am »
Hmmmm...  I wonder if there is any behind-the-scenes finger pointing going on between SpaceX and NG over this?

I can imagine, just knowing what we do know (or at least have been told), for example, the following set of confidential statements back and forth:

SpaceX:  It was your payload adapter and separation mechanism.  If it failed, we had nothing to do with it.

NG:  You made us un-encapsulate and re-encapsulate the payload when you had to make changes to the payload fairing.  We think you damaged our payload adapter in the process.

It would explain why people at NG might be telling Congress that SpaceX messed up, and SpaceX is going about its business as if every aspect of their systems worked perfectly on this launch.

Also, hey, you never know -- maybe the fairing issue had something to do with some kind of intermittent reception of the separation signal by the PAM from the Falcon S2, and NG insisted it had to have been a problem with the interface wiring harness -- perhaps, they thought, associated with fairing recovery equipment that had been added to the fairing system after the payload and PAM had been designed and developed.

Instead of going into such details, I could see SpaceX just offering to replace the fairing and S2 harness.  Maybe it tested out fine, but, despite NG's confidence, the problem ended up being in their PAM and not in SpaceX's fairing or harness, and it ultimately failed on-orbit.

It could be an amusing and/or entertaining "dialogue" to follow in the Twittersphere on a non-secret payload.  But, if such a thing is happening, I'm pretty confident we'll never be told.

Actually, it may be fairly easy for SpaceX to demonstrate F9 was not at fault. Since NG reportedly supplied the payload adapter/sep system, all SpaceX would be required to do is provide a separation command, which is easily verified by telemetry.

And you can bet your bottom dollar that SpaceX did an end-to-end preflight test showing that they got 12 volts (or whatever) at the separation ordnance connector before it mated to NG's hardware.

So it may be as simple as SpaceX showing their telemetry stream with a good separation command. Anything downstream of that is the payload's responsibility.
« Last Edit: 01/09/2018 04:35 am by Kabloona »

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4846
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 3429
  • Likes Given: 741
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #802 on: 01/09/2018 04:37 am »
So i'm a little confused as to whether or not SpaceX is at fault, and what happened. the WSJ https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-spy-satellite-believed-lost-after-spacex-mission-fails-1515462479 repeat the "zuma failed to detach and fell" line, while others have said that it reach the correct orbit and that S2 worked just fine, but that Zuma was dead/nonresponsive... So much conflicting information... 

Given Andy Pasztor's anti-SpaceX agenda, I look forward to him being proved wrong about the purported failure to separate, which would be SpaceX's fault since payload sep is the responsibility of the LV. Unfortunately, SpaceX is constrained by what they can say publicly, while people like Pasztor can peddle whatever rumors they choose to believe until some definitive truth comes out. Which I expect will vindicate SpaceX.

You might be waiting a while for any admission on his part that he was mistaken. My read of his journalistic integrity is zero. Admitting he's wrong about anything SpaceX? Highly unlikely.

Note that I didn't say I expected him to admit he was wrong. I only expect him to be *proved* wrong.  ;)
« Last Edit: 01/09/2018 04:38 am by Kabloona »

Offline kdhilliard

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1082
  • Kirk
  • Tanstaa, FL
  • Liked: 1572
  • Likes Given: 4080
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #803 on: 01/09/2018 04:38 am »
What do we make of the pretty pictures from Sudan?  (See here and here.)  Is this expected F9 S2 behavior?  Has it been seen before?

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 2231
  • Likes Given: 1584
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #804 on: 01/09/2018 04:40 am »
I've read several pages of this and I'm still wondering where's the evidence that there was a problem with the payload? All seems like rumors to me.

Offline dansoton

  • Member
  • Posts: 12
  • Vancouver, Canada
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 339
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #805 on: 01/09/2018 04:45 am »
I've read several pages of this and I'm still wondering where's the evidence that there was a problem with the payload? All seems like rumors to me.

Triangulating several independent and sourced reports of a failure - here's another one from Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-satellite/u-s-spy-satellite-believed-destroyed-after-failing-to-reach-orbit-officials-idUSKBN1EY087) indicating:

Quote
The classified intelligence satellite, built by Northrop Grumman Corp, failed to separate from the second stage of the Falcon 9 rocket and is assumed to have broken up or plunged into the sea, said the two officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

(emphasis added)

Along with SpaceX stating "As of right now reviews of the data indicate Falcon 9 performed nominally."

Is there currently any other plausable explanation?
« Last Edit: 01/09/2018 04:47 am by dansoton »

Offline the_other_Doug

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3010
  • Minneapolis, MN
  • Liked: 2191
  • Likes Given: 4620
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #806 on: 01/09/2018 04:47 am »
I have seen zero evidence of finger pointing. SpaceX can't even say if there WAS a problem with the payload, as that part is classified. Same for NG!

I get what you're saying.  But there are obviously at least two different versions of the failed-sep story being leaked, one blaming NG's PAM and the other blaming SpaceX's Falcon second stage.  That leads me to believe the story can't be coming from just one source (like NRO or CIA or DoD or whoever was actually supposed to use the thing).

That's what makes me wonder if NG might be, at least initially, trying to put the responsibility onto SpaceX by getting "not-NG's-fault" stories out there into the leaked mess of partial information.  Since nothing will likely ever be officially stated about it, maybe they figure their bluff can't be called publicly...?

I'd love it if SpaceX went ahead and released the telemetry data, just to prove their systems did their part correctly.  After all, that one piece of telemetry would say nothing meaningful about the payload or mission, right?  But would put to rest any public questions about it.  At the very least, I bet everyone with payloads on their manifest would be shown that data, even if we never get to see any confirmation of it.
-Doug  (With my shield, not yet upon it)

Offline RotoSequence

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2208
  • Liked: 2068
  • Likes Given: 1535
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #807 on: 01/09/2018 04:50 am »
I have seen zero evidence of finger pointing. SpaceX can't even say if there WAS a problem with the payload, as that part is classified. Same for NG!

I get what you're saying.  But there are obviously at least two different versions of the failed-sep story being leaked, one blaming NG's PAM and the other blaming SpaceX's Falcon second stage.  That leads me to believe the story can't be coming from just one source (like NRO or CIA or DoD or whoever was actually supposed to use the thing).

That's what makes me wonder if NG might be, at least initially, trying to put the responsibility onto SpaceX by getting "not-NG's-fault" stories out there into the leaked mess of partial information.  Since nothing will likely ever be officially stated about it, maybe they figure their bluff can't be called publicly...?

I'd love it if SpaceX went ahead and released the telemetry data, just to prove their systems did their part correctly.  After all, that one piece of telemetry would say nothing meaningful about the payload or mission, right?  But would put to rest any public questions about it.  At the very least, I bet everyone with payloads on their manifest would be shown that data, even if we never get to see any confirmation of it.

Too likely to spill some of the beans on the mass of the payload.

All told, if the goal was to lead the press and public into thinking this mission has failed, they've pulled it off spectacularly, and even if we call them out on it, we'll probably go the rest of our lives being none the wiser.

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4846
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 3429
  • Likes Given: 741
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #808 on: 01/09/2018 04:52 am »
It could be that SpaceX *insisted* on a Northrop Grumman payload adapter if they wouldn't be able to confirm successful separation due to it being classified.

I don't know what the standard practice is with classified payloads. Seems to me if you're the classified payload, you would want the upper stage to be able to confirm separation (via contact switches at the sep plane) as a pre-condition before doing C/CAM and de-orbit, otherwise you risk splashing the payload prematurely in case of failed separation.

You don't have to release any information publicly about separation, but wouldn't you at least want the upper stage to be able to detect proper separation and not de-orbit prematurely in case separation failed?

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #809 on: 01/09/2018 04:54 am »
I've read several pages of this and I'm still wondering where's the evidence that there was a problem with the payload? All seems like rumors to me.

Triangulating several independent and sourced reports of a failure - here's another one from Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-satellite/u-s-spy-satellite-believed-destroyed-after-failing-to-reach-orbit-officials-idUSKBN1EY087) indicating:

Quote
The classified intelligence satellite, built by Northrop Grumman Corp, failed to separate from the second stage of the Falcon 9 rocket and is assumed to have broken up or plunged into the sea, said the two officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

(emphasis added)

Along with SpaceX stating "As of right now reviews of the data indicate Falcon 9 performed nominally."

Is there currently any other plausable explanation?
What I want to know is what officials would intentionally leak classified information like that and risk jail time. The only plausible explanations I know is that they weren't actually given classified information (and thus are perhaps making a guess) or that they're deliberately being misleading, therefore not leaking classified information.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline dansoton

  • Member
  • Posts: 12
  • Vancouver, Canada
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 339
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #810 on: 01/09/2018 04:56 am »
For those not wanting to read through all the recent comments, and even for those who have, Loren Grush just wrote up what I think is a pretty good summary of current understanding:

https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/9/16866806/spacex-zuma-mission-failure-northrop-grumman-classified-falcon-9-rocket

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #811 on: 01/09/2018 04:59 am »
Completely pointless... carry on.  ::)
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Online darkenfast

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1539
  • Liked: 1829
  • Likes Given: 8746
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #812 on: 01/09/2018 05:00 am »
Remember that there are cameras on SpaceX vehicles taking video that we never get to see.  If this vehicle failed to separate, there is video IN ADDITION TO the telemetry.  Everybody within the classified loop would know very quickly that something had happened.  Meanwhile, we have the C.O. of the 45th Space Wing congratulating SpaceX and his people for a successful launch.  The classified nature of this mission makes it a magnet for those with an agenda.  The people being attacked cannot defend themselves.

Edit: for typo.
« Last Edit: 01/09/2018 05:43 am by darkenfast »
Writer of Book and Lyrics for musicals "SCAR", "Cinderella!", and "Aladdin!". Retired Naval Security Group. "I think SCAR is a winner. Great score, [and] the writing is up there with the very best!"
-- Phil Henderson, Composer of the West End musical "The Far Pavilions".

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4846
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 3429
  • Likes Given: 741
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #813 on: 01/09/2018 05:03 am »
For those not wanting to read through all the recent comments, and even for those who have, Loren Grush just wrote up what I think is a pretty good summary of current understanding:

https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/9/16866806/spacex-zuma-mission-failure-northrop-grumman-classified-falcon-9-rocket

Kudos to Loren Grush for clearly explaining the payload adapter issue, which could explain why SpaceX could claim F9 functioned nominally even if the payload failed to separate:

Quote
Typically, SpaceX uses its own hardware on top of its rocket to send a satellite into orbit, what is known as a payload adapter. It’s an apparatus that physically separates the satellite from the upper part of the rocket and sends it into orbit. However, a previous report from Wired noted that Northrop Grumman provided its own payload adapter for this mission. And if that payload adapter failed, it would have left the satellite still attached to the upper portion of the rocket. That’s certainly a mission failure, but it wouldn’t necessarily be the fault of the Falcon 9.

Quote
a payload adapter failure would explain a lot: it would mean the spacecraft and the rocket’s upper stage made it to orbit still attached, where they were picked up by Strategic Command’s tracking. Then the two somehow de-orbited,
« Last Edit: 01/09/2018 05:05 am by Kabloona »

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #814 on: 01/09/2018 05:08 am »
Classified means no public information. Thus infinite parade of nonsense.


Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #815 on: 01/09/2018 05:08 am »
I'd love it if SpaceX went ahead and released the telemetry data, just to prove their systems did their part correctly.  After all, that one piece of telemetry would say nothing meaningful about the payload or mission, right?  But would put to rest any public questions about it.  At the very least, I bet everyone with payloads on their manifest would be shown that data, even if we never get to see any confirmation of it.

That would be a terrible idea. Say goodbye to any future classified payloads if that happens.

No, whomever ordered this (and is a possible future customer) certainly has a lot more insight and can place the proper blame.

Offline the_other_Doug

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3010
  • Minneapolis, MN
  • Liked: 2191
  • Likes Given: 4620
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #816 on: 01/09/2018 05:09 am »
It could be that SpaceX *insisted* on a Northrop Grumman payload adapter if they wouldn't be able to confirm successful separation due to it being classified.

I don't know what the standard practice is with classified payloads. Seems to me if you're the classified payload, you would want the upper stage to be able to confirm separation (via contact switches at the sep plane) as a pre-condition before doing C/CAM and de-orbit, otherwise you risk splashing the payload prematurely in case of failed separation.

You don't have to release any information publicly about separation, but wouldn't you at least want the upper stage to be able to detect proper separation and not de-orbit prematurely in case separation failed?

Sure.  But since we've been told on many, many occasions that SpaceX does not *ever* send control inputs to the Falcons in-flight, *and* since they (supposedly) had no telemetry from the other side of the PAM for any confirmations of anything, seeing as SpaceX was not allowed to see any of the payload's telemetry (again per a lot of speculation here), then it's at least possible that the S2 literally could not be told to alter its pre-programmed sequence.

And, if all SpaceX could see on their telemetry was that the sep signal had been sent, they may not even have had a clue that the payload had not, in fact, separated.  Especially if they were not allowed to access any payload-viewing cameras -- which, to be honest, since SpaceX didn't build the PAM, there might not even have been one.  Or, if there were, it could have been something that could not communicate in any way back to SpaceX.

One last minor nit -- fairing separation confirmation on the SpaceX webcast came something like three minutes after the fact.  Any possibility that this could have been somehow related to the reported separation failure?  After all, the fairing is electrically connected to S2 through the PAM, right?  So, if the PAM was not relaying signals properly, maybe the fairing sep indicators acting up could be related to the failure of the sep signal to reach the payload?

Or maybe the Black Control Center that took over monitoring S2 after MECO and staging just didn't have good communications lines back to the webcast people... there's just no way to know.
« Last Edit: 01/09/2018 05:10 am by the_other_Doug »
-Doug  (With my shield, not yet upon it)

Offline dansoton

  • Member
  • Posts: 12
  • Vancouver, Canada
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 339
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #817 on: 01/09/2018 05:15 am »
Classified means no public information. Thus infinite parade of nonsense.

It doesn't though. Controlled and intentional leaks - for propaganda or other purposes - or uncontrolled leaks (less likely IMHO) can, and according to multiple sources of different journalists, have, gone into the public domain adding new information.

The only thing that's kept my attention tbh is more and more accredited sources providing information, rather than speculation here.

My curiosity is trying to fit the jigsaw together from credible reports, but I take your point that we've likely reached a dead end for now. But most current analysis lead to the conclusion of a payload separation issue that's not SpaceX's fault - all summarized quite excellently by Loren using different sources. So I think it's been a worthwhile exercise.
« Last Edit: 01/09/2018 05:18 am by dansoton »

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4846
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 3429
  • Likes Given: 741
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #818 on: 01/09/2018 05:15 am »
Quote
One last minor nit -- fairing separation confirmation on the SpaceX webcast came something like three minutes after the fact.  Any possibility that this could have been somehow related to the reported separation failure?  After all, the fairing is electrically connected to S2 through the PAM, right?  So, if the PAM was not relaying signals properly, maybe the fairing sep indicators acting up could be related to the failure of the sep signal to reach the payload?

Fairing sep and payload sep are typically wired independently to prevent any such failure cascade.

More likely is that, as someone else suggested, the webcast report of fairing sep was made well after the fact in order not to give away exact timing cues that would help narrow down potential payload orbits.
« Last Edit: 01/09/2018 05:18 am by Kabloona »

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4846
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 3429
  • Likes Given: 741
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #819 on: 01/09/2018 05:19 am »
What do we make of the pretty pictures from Sudan?  (See here and here.)  Is this expected F9 S2 behavior?  Has it been seen before?
This seems like a key question.  I was surprised to see spinning, but others claimed this was normal.  I'm skeptical.  The only time I recall seeing a second stage spin like this (viewed from the ground) was during the very first Falcon 9 launch, when the second stage lost roll control.

 - Ed kyle

Wouldn't the LOX venting naturally result in spinning?

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1