Author Topic: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION  (Read 786509 times)

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #840 on: 01/09/2018 07:42 am »
Most other stories referenced Andy Pasztor's WSJ/Dow Jones story, so I'd give them a lower demerit count.
Yea same here. The other thing here was that we know it made at least one orbit and the 45th Space Wing congratulated SpaceX on nominal performance uphill, so its clearly BS. WSJ is the source of the version of the story where it's SpaceX's fault, and its amazing to see how many other media outlits are parroting this line "SpaceX lost classified US Gov Payload".
From everything we have it really looks like the bird itself or the northrup adapter failed. Made one maybe two orbits and burned up with S2. Not SpaceX's fault.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39215
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32735
  • Likes Given: 8178
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #841 on: 01/09/2018 07:43 am »
Here's confirmation from Wired, November 2017

https://www.wired.com/story/spacexs-top-secret-zuma-mission-launches-today/

Quote
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.

A separately provided payload attach fitting (PAF) might explain why the fairing issue did not effect the Iridium launch in December. The fairing is attached to the PAF, which is then bolted to the second stage. An issue with a custom PAF and the fairing thus should not affect Iridium. Photo below showing SpaceX PAF and fairing.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline Surfdaddy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 335
  • Liked: 616
  • Likes Given: 4248
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #842 on: 01/09/2018 07:44 am »
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?

Online saliva_sweet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 614
  • Liked: 476
  • Likes Given: 1826
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #843 on: 01/09/2018 07:46 am »
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.

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.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18198
  • Likes Given: 12162
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #844 on: 01/09/2018 07:48 am »
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.

Ah, Andy Pasztor. Better known as the worst space journalist ever.

Five lbs of salt won't be enough when dealing with one of his "stories". Five metric tons of salt would be more fitting.

Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2691
  • Liked: 981
  • Likes Given: 347
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #845 on: 01/09/2018 07:58 am »
Here are screen grabs of the fairing separation....

Thanks for doing that, I interpreted it the same way. Incase anyone wants to go through the video in youtube, pause it and you can move through frame by frame using , and .

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #846 on: 01/09/2018 08:01 am »
Any failure (if this were the case) would have to be reported to the Congressional Oversight Committee and due to the classified nature of the mission would be done behind closed doors...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18198
  • Likes Given: 12162
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #847 on: 01/09/2018 08:06 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?
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

Having you stage reenter while rotating will improve the chance of the stage falling apart early and thus result in a more complete burn-up of the stage. Less pieces will reach the surface and those pieces will be smaller.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18198
  • Likes Given: 12162
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #848 on: 01/09/2018 08:16 am »
On the US Launch Report video, fairing separation is visible

At 3:24?

Yes, and it is right on time.

Press kit says "Fairing Deployment" at 3:08 mission elapsed time.
Launch occurs at 0:15 into the video.
Add 3:08 to that and you get 3:23 mission elapsed time.

At 3:24 (only a second later) we see the fairing fall past the S2. So, looks like fairing separation was right on time.
« Last Edit: 01/09/2018 08:17 am by woods170 »

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 #849 on: 01/09/2018 08:20 am »
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.

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.

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.
"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 DJPledger

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 807
  • Liked: 506
  • Likes Given: 33568
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #850 on: 01/09/2018 08:28 am »
Please stop speculating about Zuma. No one is going to say anything about it. If SpaceX's upcoming launches are not put on hold then we will know it was not SpaceX's fault.

Online Semmel

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2178
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2433
  • Likes Given: 11916
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #851 on: 01/09/2018 08:51 am »
Marco Langbroek notes in New Zuma orbit estimates
Quote
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.

Amateur sat trackers are the only viable source of information beyond the launch and the confirmation by SpaceX that F9 performed nominally. There is no other independent source of information. Lets wait a week and see what we see.
« Last Edit: 01/09/2018 09:03 pm by Semmel »

Offline vanoord

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 693
  • Liked: 450
  • Likes Given: 106
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #852 on: 01/09/2018 08:57 am »
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.

Quite possible for staffers to be purposefully misleading if their motivation is to improve the chances of SpaceX's competitors gaining future launch contracts.

And arguably more likely than deliberately leaking classified information, something that could result in severe sanctions.

Either way, given the nature of the mission, the full details are unlikely to be known - so the SpaceX statement that the rocket's performance was nominal is the most we're ever likely to have.

Unless, of course, the satellite gets observed.

Offline Jet Black

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.
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled. -- Richard Feynman

Offline vanoord

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 693
  • Liked: 450
  • Likes Given: 106
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #854 on: 01/09/2018 09:47 am »
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.

Unless it's observed - or unless we see another fairing with a Northrop Grumman logo on it in 12 months' time or so, in which case we can probably go through this all over again ;)

Offline Katana

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 378
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #855 on: 01/09/2018 09:57 am »
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?
ZUMA is too confidental to have any insiders mention about details.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13997
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220

Offline Katana

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 378
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #857 on: 01/09/2018 10:33 am »
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?
How / why could the story of adaptor be disclassified immediately, while the mission is too confidental to be confirmed as success/ failure?

The source of information itself may be a big clue.

Offline jaredgalen

  • Member
  • Posts: 56
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #858 on: 01/09/2018 11:01 am »
If the payload adapter did fail, and LEO was achieved, is there a procedure for delaying a deorbit burn to troubleshoot?
With payloads, you would think that failure to separate would be worth waiting and looking at.
Perhaps there are orbital dynamics that make this nonsense, I don't know enough to speculate further.

Offline jgoldader

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 760
  • Liked: 322
  • Likes Given: 171
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #859 on: 01/09/2018 11:26 am »
To preface, we could all be speculating needlessly due to a successful maskirovka.  And, I expect the details of a particular payload separation system could be mostly ITARred.  But, wouldn't you want 2-string redundancy for what seems to be a "one chance to get it right" mission critical event?  So, two wiring harnesses with separate commands sent through each, something like that?  I might've missed discussion on this upthread; if so, apologies.
Recovering astronomer

Tags:
 

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