Quote from: Kabloona on 01/09/2018 05:19 amQuote from: edkyle99 on 01/09/2018 05:16 amQuote from: kdhilliard on 01/09/2018 04:38 amWhat 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 kyleWouldn't the LOX venting naturally result in spinning?No. Typically, venting is done symmetrically to prevent unwanted rolls, yaws, etc. On the other hand, they might purposefully put the stage into a spin for reentries. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 01/09/2018 05:16 amQuote from: kdhilliard on 01/09/2018 04:38 amWhat 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 kyleWouldn't the LOX venting naturally result in spinning?
Quote from: kdhilliard on 01/09/2018 04:38 amWhat 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
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?
Quote from: edkyle99 on 01/09/2018 05:21 amQuote from: Kabloona on 01/09/2018 05:19 amQuote from: edkyle99 on 01/09/2018 05:16 amQuote from: kdhilliard on 01/09/2018 04:38 amWhat 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 kyleWouldn't the LOX venting naturally result in spinning?No. Typically, venting is done symmetrically to prevent unwanted rolls, yaws, etc. On the other hand, they might purposefully put the stage into a spin for reentries. - Ed KyleYes, and this is post re-entry burn, so there is no longer any need for maintaining a proper attitude.
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.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 01/09/2018 04:54 amWhat 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.Leaking classified information is practically a job requirement for "officials". Risking jail time is only for some low-level submariner with some stray photographs they forgot about.
Quote from: Kabloona on 01/09/2018 04:52 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 01/09/2018 04:17 amIt 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.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 01/09/2018 04:17 amIt 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?
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.
The sightings of the Falcon 9 upper stage from the Zuma launch venting fuel over East Africa some 2h 15m after launch, suggests that Zuma might be in a higher orbit than in my pre-launch estimate. Rather than ~400 km it might be ~900-1000 km.<snip>If correct, this means Zuma might become observable in the N hemisphere about a week from now.
On the US Launch Report video, fairing separation is visible
Quote from: IanH84 on 01/09/2018 05:49 amOn the US Launch Report video, fairing separation is visibleAt 3:24?
FWIW here. >To me this is a critical point here. If the failure was separation related it could be the fault of SpaceX. >NBC report: https://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/u-s-spy-satellite-believed-destroyed-after-launch-officials-say-n835976
Quote from: FinalFrontier on 01/09/2018 07:01 amFWIW here. >To me this is a critical point here. If the failure was separation related it could be the fault of SpaceX. >NBC report: https://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/u-s-spy-satellite-believed-destroyed-after-launch-officials-say-n835976Not if the payload adapter failed. It was provided by Northrop-Grumman, not SpaceX.
Quote from: docmordrid on 01/09/2018 07:08 amQuote from: FinalFrontier on 01/09/2018 07:01 amFWIW here. >To me this is a critical point here. If the failure was separation related it could be the fault of SpaceX. >NBC report: https://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/u-s-spy-satellite-believed-destroyed-after-launch-officials-say-n835976Not if the payload adapter failed. It was provided by Northrop-Grumman, not SpaceX.Was just about to post again regarding this. Here's the thing, I had heard prior to launch that SpaceX never even actually processed this spacecraft, they were just sent the vehicle and the payload adapter possibly with the fairing already on. What extent did SpaceX have in processing, and is there any chance a problem with the adapter could be related to attachment to the second stage? From what the most reliable sources have said the only thing we have is "Falcon 9 performed nominally" which would tend to suggest the failure was with the adapter or the spacecraft and SpaceX is not liable. I know they probably won't comment about this but it's really a big deal. If this bird was really as expensive as rumor suggests then liability for the failure is huge because it determines who has to pay for it.
I know they probably won't comment about this but it's really a big deal. If this bird was really as expensive as rumor suggests then liability for the failure is huge because it determines who has to pay for it.
Quote from: FinalFrontier on 01/09/2018 07:19 amQuote from: docmordrid on 01/09/2018 07:08 amQuote from: FinalFrontier on 01/09/2018 07:01 amFWIW here. >To me this is a critical point here. If the failure was separation related it could be the fault of SpaceX. >NBC report: https://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/u-s-spy-satellite-believed-destroyed-after-launch-officials-say-n835976Not if the payload adapter failed. It was provided by Northrop-Grumman, not SpaceX.Was just about to post again regarding this. Here's the thing, I had heard prior to launch that SpaceX never even actually processed this spacecraft, they were just sent the vehicle and the payload adapter possibly with the fairing already on. What extent did SpaceX have in processing, and is there any chance a problem with the adapter could be related to attachment to the second stage? From what the most reliable sources have said the only thing we have is "Falcon 9 performed nominally" which would tend to suggest the failure was with the adapter or the spacecraft and SpaceX is not liable. I know they probably won't comment about this but it's really a big deal. If this bird was really as expensive as rumor suggests then liability for the failure is huge because it determines who has to pay for it.Liability for loss of the payload is strictly the customer's. That is why commercial folks buy insurance policies to cover launch mishaps. The government always self insures thier payloads, and NG, as large as they are, would likely have self insured it as well.