...which would be SpaceX's fault since payload sep is the responsibility of the LV.
Quote from: Kabloona on 01/09/2018 02:40 am...which would be SpaceX's fault since payload sep is the responsibility of the LV.It wouldn’t actually, since NG provided the payload adapter.
My personal hunch is that these failure rumors are incredibly convenient if the sat is some sort of recon or SIGINT bird.
Quote from: old_sellsword on 01/09/2018 02:51 amQuote from: Kabloona on 01/09/2018 02:40 am...which would be SpaceX's fault since payload sep is the responsibility of the LV.It wouldn’t actually, since NG provided the payload adapter.Thanks, did not know that. Usually the launch vehicle provides the PLA. If NG provided it, then SpaceX would only be responsible for issuing the sep command.
>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. >
The fact that S2 deorbited seems to indicate that separation was achieved.
"didn't separate and burned up with S2" doesn't quite compute for me. S2 should be in a stable orbit before the separation attempt. If the payload didn't separate, wouldn't they leave the S2 in orbit, at least until they had a chance to debug, diagnose, and attempt a fix?The fact that S2 deorbited seems to indicate that separation was achieved.Something about this doesn't add up.
If the mass of the payload were still attached SpaceX would have noted the inertial and CoG difference when the upper stage manoeuvred to de-orbit burn attitude.
Quote from: cscott on 01/09/2018 02:52 amThe fact that S2 deorbited seems to indicate that separation was achieved.Isn't that pre-programmed?
A U.S. official and two congressional aides, all familiar with the launch, said on condition of anonymity that the second-stage of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 booster rocket failed. The satellite was lost, one of the congressional aides said, and the other said both the satellite and the second-stage satellite fell into the ocean after the failure.
QuoteA U.S. official and two congressional aides, all familiar with the launch, said on condition of anonymity that the second-stage of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 booster rocket failed. The satellite was lost, one of the congressional aides said, and the other said both the satellite and the second-stage satellite fell into the ocean after the failure.Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-09/spacex-launched-satellite-isn-t-seen-in-orbit-pentagon-saysI thought this was worth posting, even though I agree with speculating in an echo chamber, because this new article is quite specific about the sources the article's author has for this. For the articles posted at least it doesn't appear to be one article repeating claims from another.Now as to the highlighted part, I tend to think this is ambiguous wording and as if there was a failure of payload separation for example, it's highly likely a fault with the payload adapter (which SpaceX did not provide, or likely mount??) as I can't recall a similar payload separation failure for SpaceX.If that was the case SpaceX wouldn't be at fault which lines up with SpaceX's statement. That's the only failure I can think of that lines up with that quote, SpaceX's statement and other reports of sightings in its intended location.
If it was a separation failure, a congressional aide isn't going to know that the payload adapter in this case was NG's responsibility, not SpaceX's. So I'd still believe SpaceX's statement that F9 performed nominally. In that case, SpaceX is only responsible for providing the separation signal. If the payload adapter failed to separate properly after receiving the sep command, that's on NG.
The Bloomberg article also has a named source from Space Command stating that they in fact don't have another satellite to track. If that is the case, what is USA 280 mentioned upthread?
>The Bloomberg article also has a named source from Space Command stating that they in fact don't have another satellite to track. If that is the case, what is USA 280 mentioned upthread?
I don't know who started the rumor but it may have been started as a method to "disappear" the Zuma spacecraft. Even if so, and true or false, I doubt the rumor will ever be officially confirmed.