Quote from: jded on 01/13/2018 08:06 amWell IF there is any actual misunderstanding it may just boil down to SpaceX people being the last ones to touch the stuff. NG might just be like "it was working when we handed it to you, you broke it". And I guess this is possible too, all SpaceX says is that "Falcon 9 did its job", this does not preclude some SpaceX guy breaking something not belonging to Falcon.... Another possibility is that the spacecraft was supposed to separate only after passing some healthchecks (to not leave super secret payload dead in orbit, dropping who-knows-where), and if they failed, the separation was cancelled automatically. Then the problem could be anywhere in the spacecraft.No, there is no such logic or interaction between rocket and payload. The rocket releases the payload (or sends the signal for the sep) at the set time after the final upper stage burn no matter what. There is no changing this by logic or RF signal. The spacecraft does not do anything until it sees it has separated by breakwires or micro switches. There is no changing this by logic or RF signal. This has been the process for decades because more problems have arose when the process wasn’t followed.
Well IF there is any actual misunderstanding it may just boil down to SpaceX people being the last ones to touch the stuff. NG might just be like "it was working when we handed it to you, you broke it". And I guess this is possible too, all SpaceX says is that "Falcon 9 did its job", this does not preclude some SpaceX guy breaking something not belonging to Falcon.... Another possibility is that the spacecraft was supposed to separate only after passing some healthchecks (to not leave super secret payload dead in orbit, dropping who-knows-where), and if they failed, the separation was cancelled automatically. Then the problem could be anywhere in the spacecraft.
The second stage goes on with its mission. There is no logic for no sep case. It doesn't matter.
Quote from: Jim on 01/13/2018 04:33 pmThe second stage goes on with its mission. There is no logic for no sep case. It doesn't matter.So you are saying there was no possibility of intervention from the ground when/if they realized the sc didn't separate? I guess not.
Quote from: mn on 01/09/2018 06:10 pmI suspect this 'event' will have a very real impact on who gets selected to launch future high value missions, it will be very easy to say 'we don't know who is really to blame, why take the risk' and you can argue till you are blue in the face that it is not true, it won't help anyone.Of course they probably know what happened. We don't and probably never will. If it was SX's fault, SX will fix it. If it's NG's fault, NG will fix it. If it's NG's fault why would they avoid flying on SX?SX says the rocket performed nominally and seem to be moving on to FH and other missions
I suspect this 'event' will have a very real impact on who gets selected to launch future high value missions, it will be very easy to say 'we don't know who is really to blame, why take the risk' and you can argue till you are blue in the face that it is not true, it won't help anyone.
Quote from: JonathanD on 01/09/2018 06:00 pmQuote from: IntoTheVoid on 01/09/2018 05:55 pmThis is not conspiracy. I have not seen any well founded declaration of failure, and definitely not with attribution. All I have seen is conjecture of failure run wild. If I have missed some attibuted declaration of failure, please re-point me in that direction.Things like this don't happen if everything has gone to plan: https://twitter.com/SpaceBrendan/status/950802453213130754Everyone keeps assuming Zuma is a spy satellite, but what if it was some sort of science experiment that's highly classified? It could be as simple as it got to orbit and was able to run it's tests in a few hours and then was deliberately deorbited before prying eyes could get a look at it.
Quote from: IntoTheVoid on 01/09/2018 05:55 pmThis is not conspiracy. I have not seen any well founded declaration of failure, and definitely not with attribution. All I have seen is conjecture of failure run wild. If I have missed some attibuted declaration of failure, please re-point me in that direction.Things like this don't happen if everything has gone to plan: https://twitter.com/SpaceBrendan/status/950802453213130754
This is not conspiracy. I have not seen any well founded declaration of failure, and definitely not with attribution. All I have seen is conjecture of failure run wild. If I have missed some attibuted declaration of failure, please re-point me in that direction.
Quote from: mme on 01/09/2018 06:29 pmQuote from: mn on 01/09/2018 06:10 pmI suspect this 'event' will have a very real impact on who gets selected to launch future high value missions, it will be very easy to say 'we don't know who is really to blame, why take the risk' and you can argue till you are blue in the face that it is not true, it won't help anyone.Of course they probably know what happened. We don't and probably never will. If it was SX's fault, SX will fix it. If it's NG's fault, NG will fix it. If it's NG's fault why would they avoid flying on SX?SX says the rocket performed nominally and seem to be moving on to FH and other missionsNG's adapter would have been built to specs provided by SpaceX.F9 could have operated nominally, but there be some discrepancy/error with the specs provided to NG. (Unlikely/conspiracy theory, but it's a corner case.) However, ISTM that the adapter could easily detect a period of sustained acceleration (with S2 sep) followed by free fall, then separate after a delay of EG 10 mins if no separation commanded by S2. This mission wasn't complicated by anything like a follow-on GTO burn.Any reason that couldn't be built in as a fallback?Cheers, Martin Sent from my GT-N5120 using Tapatalk
Quote from: pb2000 on 01/09/2018 06:31 pmQuote from: JonathanD on 01/09/2018 06:00 pmQuote from: IntoTheVoid on 01/09/2018 05:55 pmThis is not conspiracy. I have not seen any well founded declaration of failure, and definitely not with attribution. All I have seen is conjecture of failure run wild. If I have missed some attibuted declaration of failure, please re-point me in that direction.Things like this don't happen if everything has gone to plan: https://twitter.com/SpaceBrendan/status/950802453213130754Everyone keeps assuming Zuma is a spy satellite, but what if it was some sort of science experiment that's highly classified? It could be as simple as it got to orbit and was able to run it's tests in a few hours and then was deliberately deorbited before prying eyes could get a look at it.I was wondering the same.
Quote from: MP99 on 01/13/2018 06:27 pmQuote from: pb2000 on 01/09/2018 06:31 pmQuote from: JonathanD on 01/09/2018 06:00 pmQuote from: IntoTheVoid on 01/09/2018 05:55 pmThis is not conspiracy. I have not seen any well founded declaration of failure, and definitely not with attribution. All I have seen is conjecture of failure run wild. If I have missed some attibuted declaration of failure, please re-point me in that direction.Things like this don't happen if everything has gone to plan: https://twitter.com/SpaceBrendan/status/950802453213130754Everyone keeps assuming Zuma is a spy satellite, but what if it was some sort of science experiment that's highly classified? It could be as simple as it got to orbit and was able to run it's tests in a few hours and then was deliberately deorbited before prying eyes could get a look at it.I was wondering the same.Well, if so, then why the misinformation campaign with *falsified* briefings to Congress, which per the leaks all seem to be spun in a way to then slander SpaceX? That would be proof that one of the aims of Zuma was to find some way to discredit SpaceX in some fashion.If that was even remotely what has happened, we need a Congressional inquiry into that. Or else we open the door to "unnamed government sources" making accusations against people and corporations that amount to guilt in the public eye determined without any kind of trial or option for any kind of defense.That's not the America I was raised to believe in.
Quote from: pb2000 on 01/09/2018 06:31 pmQuote from: JonathanD on 01/09/2018 06:00 pmQuote from: IntoTheVoid on 01/09/2018 05:55 pmThis is not conspiracy. I have not seen any well founded declaration of failure, and definitely not with attribution. All I have seen is conjecture of failure run wild. If I have missed some attibuted declaration of failure, please re-point me in that direction.Things like this don't happen if everything has gone to plan: https://twitter.com/SpaceBrendan/status/950802453213130754Everyone keeps assuming Zuma is a spy satellite, but what if it was some sort of science experiment that's highly classified? It could be as simple as it got to orbit and was able to run it's tests in a few hours and then was deliberately deorbited before prying eyes could get a look at it.A few hours is not enough for a test. It takes much longer just to wake up a spacecraft.
Quote from: Jim on 01/13/2018 08:31 pmQuote from: pb2000 on 01/09/2018 06:31 pmQuote from: JonathanD on 01/09/2018 06:00 pmQuote from: IntoTheVoid on 01/09/2018 05:55 pmThis is not conspiracy. I have not seen any well founded declaration of failure, and definitely not with attribution. All I have seen is conjecture of failure run wild. If I have missed some attibuted declaration of failure, please re-point me in that direction.Things like this don't happen if everything has gone to plan: https://twitter.com/SpaceBrendan/status/950802453213130754Everyone keeps assuming Zuma is a spy satellite, but what if it was some sort of science experiment that's highly classified? It could be as simple as it got to orbit and was able to run it's tests in a few hours and then was deliberately deorbited before prying eyes could get a look at it.A few hours is not enough for a test. It takes much longer just to wake up a spacecraft.Who said anything about a spacecraft?
Bottom line -- the people who briefed the Congressional leadership seem to have portrayed this to them as a SpaceX failure, even as SpaceX was stating extremely emphatically that it is *not* their failure.
Bottom line -- the people who briefed the Congressional leadership seem to have portrayed this to them as a SpaceX failure, even as SpaceX was stating extremely emphatically that it is *not* their failure.Someone is lying. Pure and simple. Place your own bets as to which, but it seems to me SpaceX has more to lose by lying about it than the mysterious and unnamed "them" who, based on the commonalities of the leaked reports, briefed the leadership with the "SpaceX failed" story. Note that *none of the leaks seems to blame anyone except SpaceX.Is there such a thing as a law against the intelligence community lying during classified briefings to the leadership? How can they be held accountable if they feel major decisions were made the wrong way by Congress, so they will just provide whatever information they feel is required to get such decisions changed, whether that information is true or not?Or is it possible that NG, as the prime contractor, was tasked with the briefings, and they just spun them to put themselves in the clear?Whatever happened, whoever did those briefings, assuming SpaceX is telling the truth, are the liars. Zuma may have been classified; is the identity of the briefers? Personally, IMHO, it's easier to believe lawyers and politicians are liars than engineers. But they are all humans, and thus fallible...
Quote from: the_other_Doug on 01/13/2018 10:49 pmBottom line -- the people who briefed the Congressional leadership seem to have portrayed this to them as a SpaceX failure, even as SpaceX was stating extremely emphatically that it is *not* their failure.Someone is lying. Pure and simple. Place your own bets as to which, but it seems to me SpaceX has more to lose by lying about it than the mysterious and unnamed "them" who, based on the commonalities of the leaked reports, briefed the leadership with the "SpaceX failed" story. Note that *none of the leaks seems to blame anyone except SpaceX.Is there such a thing as a law against the intelligence community lying during classified briefings to the leadership? How can they be held accountable if they feel major decisions were made the wrong way by Congress, so they will just provide whatever information they feel is required to get such decisions changed, whether that information is true or not?Or is it possible that NG, as the prime contractor, was tasked with the briefings, and they just spun them to put themselves in the clear?Whatever happened, whoever did those briefings, assuming SpaceX is telling the truth, are the liars. Zuma may have been classified; is the identity of the briefers? Personally, IMHO, it's easier to believe lawyers and politicians are liars than engineers. But they are all humans, and thus fallible...You need to chill out.