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.
I have a question for those with industry experience that I haven't seen asked, and I would like to speculate on.Let's assume that the ONLY thing that went wrong, was separation failure. Immediately after that, we have two functioning pre-programmed spacecraft that cannot communicate with each other, that think they are flying separately, but are still connected.Zuma would begin firing thrusters to finalize its orbit. Meanwhile S2 would fire its thrusters to target the de-orbit burn. Two independent propulsion/guidance systems targeting two different orbits, connected together.Who wins/looses that tug of war? Does that explain any of the observations we have, such as the "spiral"?
Quote from: Kabloona on 01/09/2018 04:08 amQuote from: Jim on 01/09/2018 04:01 amQuote from: rockets4life97 on 01/09/2018 03:59 amHow would stage separation fail? What are the common methods for separating payloads? Which might NG have used?Miswired, bad ordnance, bad command, etcUnfortunately, it's common that failures happen at the physical/electrical interface of two components supplied by different contractors...in this case (potentially) the payload adapter supplied by NG and (presumably) the separation command electrical harness by Space X. When one contractor supplies, say, the ordnance on the payload adapter, and the other contractor supplies the electrical connector that interfaces with it, a design error on one side won't necessarily be caught on the ground.Such a case happened on TOS/ACTS mission on the Shuttle, where Lockheed Martin miswired the electrical connectors to the separation system supplied by a subcontractor, with the result that the sep system fired incorrectly in space, despite numerous preflight fit checks, tests, etc, on the ground.Which makes it all the more possible that the issue was precisely that- we know that SpaceX conducted multiple wet dress rehearsals, plus the full static fire back in November... That being said, the wet dress rehearsals were all done without the payload/fairing attached, so that separation couldn't have been tested then... Makes me truly think that NG is at fault here... I just hope we get a little more clarification in the coming hours and days- tho my hopes of SpaceX not getting dragged through the mud in the media is a fools errand at best. Hopefully SpaceX is at least allowed to explain in some way to their actual customers that they're not at fault and that they did the job they were paid to do... I truly wonder however if this will hurt or even destroy SpaceX's chances for future missions of this nature... especially when politics could possibly muck things up even furtherOn the Tech Crunch thing- they're owned by AOL... so it's probably down to quick lazy journalism...
Quote from: Jim on 01/09/2018 04:01 amQuote from: rockets4life97 on 01/09/2018 03:59 amHow would stage separation fail? What are the common methods for separating payloads? Which might NG have used?Miswired, bad ordnance, bad command, etcUnfortunately, it's common that failures happen at the physical/electrical interface of two components supplied by different contractors...in this case (potentially) the payload adapter supplied by NG and (presumably) the separation command electrical harness by Space X. When one contractor supplies, say, the ordnance on the payload adapter, and the other contractor supplies the electrical connector that interfaces with it, a design error on one side won't necessarily be caught on the ground.Such a case happened on TOS/ACTS mission on the Shuttle, where Lockheed Martin miswired the electrical connectors to the separation system supplied by a subcontractor, with the result that the sep system fired incorrectly in space, despite numerous preflight fit checks, tests, etc, on the ground.
Quote from: rockets4life97 on 01/09/2018 03:59 amHow would stage separation fail? What are the common methods for separating payloads? Which might NG have used?Miswired, bad ordnance, bad command, etc
How would stage separation fail? What are the common methods for separating payloads? Which might NG have used?
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.
Lots of speculation that zuma was a satellite that failed and reentered around the same time as S2.I'll add to the noise in a different direction by speculating that Zuma was a hypersonic vehicle, and that it functioned as planned.Northrup Grumman has been in the hypersonic vehicle business for a long time, and indeed, they are hiring for hypersonic vehicle design engineers in Melbourne right now (check their HR site).Just last spring, I saw one of their hypersonic cruise missile program trailers parked at a Busy Bee gas station on the way to the Cape with several security vehicle escorts. When I saw it, I giggled to myself that their super secret program had its damn logo emblazoned all over the side of the trailer.So, unless Zuma was really a satellite, everything else- including why no agency will own up to the launch- fits nicely with it being a vehicle test for NG.
Quote from: docmordrid on 01/09/2018 03:13 amHere'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. 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.
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.
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.
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?
All of this talk saying how the payload failed to separate really makes me think of how BFR could've saved the day by simply bringing Zuma back to Earth for repairs
Quote from: nacnud on 01/09/2018 06:16 amQuote from: IanH84 on 01/09/2018 05:49 amOn the US Launch Report video, fairing separation is visibleAt 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.
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: DJPledger on 01/09/2018 08:28 amPlease 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.Just for the sake of argument, could there be scenarios where SpaceX is at fault but can still pressing on with upcoming launches? For example what if the thing failed is unique to the Zuma mission, for example a special payload adapter just for Zuma (Yes I know there is a report saying NG provided the adapter, but given all the secrecy and confusion over this mission, it not inconceivable that that single report is in error), in which case all the missions not using this adapter can still go on?
Quote from: Inoeth on 01/09/2018 04:21 amwe know that SpaceX conducted multiple wet dress rehearsals, plus the full static fire back in November... That being said, the wet dress rehearsals were all done without the payload/fairing attached, so that separation couldn't have been tested then... Makes me truly think that NG is at fault here... Actual separation is never tested. The signals to separate can be tested during WDR if there is something to record it.
we know that SpaceX conducted multiple wet dress rehearsals, plus the full static fire back in November... That being said, the wet dress rehearsals were all done without the payload/fairing attached, so that separation couldn't have been tested then... Makes me truly think that NG is at fault here...
What would be SpaceX's disclosure rights in terms of communicating with other prospective customers about the results of this mission? Would they be allowed to confirm to justifiably worried clients that this was a successful mission as far as SpaceX's role was concerned?