Most other stories referenced Andy Pasztor's WSJ/Dow Jones story, so I'd give them a lower demerit count.
Here's confirmation from Wired, November 2017https://www.wired.com/story/spacexs-top-secret-zuma-mission-launches-today/QuoteVeteran aerospace manufacturer Northrop Grumman built the payload, according to a document obtained by WIRED and later confirmed by the company. The company says it built Zuma for the US government, and its also providing an adapter to mate Zuma with SpaceXs Falcon 9 rocket. But thats where information starts tapering off.
Veteran aerospace manufacturer Northrop Grumman built the payload, according to a document obtained by WIRED and later confirmed by the company. The company says it built Zuma for the US government, and its also providing an adapter to mate Zuma with SpaceXs Falcon 9 rocket. But thats where information starts tapering off.
So, just throwing this out there: What if the speculation about a hypersonic re-entry test vehicle is true? If so, then the 'LEO target orbit' was misinformation and everything went as planned.
The WSJ/Dow Jones story was by Andy Pasztor, and CNBC seems to have run with it. Pardon me while I go buy 5 lbs of salt.
Here are screen grabs of the fairing separation....
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: IanH84 on 01/09/2018 05:49 amOn the US Launch Report video, fairing separation is visibleAt 3:24?
On the US Launch Report video, fairing separation is visible
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 01/09/2018 06:43 amSo, just throwing this out there: What if the speculation about a hypersonic re-entry test vehicle is true? If so, then the 'LEO target orbit' was misinformation and everything went as planned. While it would be tempting to speculate that, it wouldn't explain why congresspeople are being told Zuma failed. I think this explains the multitude of confused and conflicting reports from sources that appear to not really know what they are talking about regarding a highly secret mission.
Marco Langbroek notes in New Zuma orbit estimatesQuoteThe 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.
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.
That's something I've been thinking about. The Congresspersons aren't saying it failed, their staffers are. They heard part of a conversation about Zuma coincidentally reaching interface at the same time as the Falcon 9 upper stage did at a different location and, assuming without knowledge that Zuma was a satellite, they concluded that this meant the mission had failed. In the fine tradition of Washington DC, this partial information has become accepted fact and has been repeated to Mr Pasztor from multiple persons all based on this initial single incorrectly-overheard conversation. As it is in DARPA and the DoD's best interests to have as much disinformation and uncertainty as possible in the air about the project, no-one is interested in correcting this beyond quiet assurances that Falcon-9 performed properly.
As it is in DARPA and the DoD's best interests to have as much disinformation and uncertainty as possible in the air about the project, no-one is interested in correcting this beyond quiet assurances that Falcon-9 performed properly.
This is basically the summary of everything we need to know, to be honest. SpaceX did their job as contracted and at the end of the day, that is all the other customers care about. We aren't going to find out anything about that payload.
I'm curious why there wasn't mention of a failed solar panel deployment. "Dead on orbit" is an indicator. Maybe I'm too old and forgot that some engineer invented the impossible to fail solar panel?
Just a thought. If I wanted to "lose" an important orbital payload, i would supply the payload sep adaptor so that there could be no blame on the launch contractor, and then I could claim mission failure although it actually successfully made it to orbit. And then I do some burns on the satellite to another orbit, and nobody finds my it...the press speculation is payload is gone, splashed. And the launch contractor is not at fault.Speculation, but I wonder how likely that scenario is?