NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

SpaceX Vehicles and Missions => SpaceX Falcon Missions Section => Topic started by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/14/2017 01:07 pm

Title: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/14/2017 01:07 pm
Discussion Thread for unknown Northrop Grumman payload Codename Zuma mission.


NSF Threads for Codename Zuma : Discussion (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43976.0) / Updates (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44175.0) / L2 Coverage November-December (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44111.0) January-February (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44312.0) / ASDS (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=66.0) / Party (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40089.msg1520968#msg1520968)

NSF Articles for Codename Zuma :
   [Oct. 16, 2017] SpaceX adds mystery “Zuma” mission, Iridium-4 aims for Vandenberg landing (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/10/spacex-zuma-iridium-4-aims-vandenberg-landing/)
   [Nov. 11, 2017] SpaceX static fires Zuma Falcon 9; engine test anomaly no issue for manifest (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/11/spacex-static-fire-zuma-falcon-9-engine-no-issue-manifest/)
   [Jan. 7, 2018] SpaceX launches clandestine Zuma satellite – questions over spacecraft’s health (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/01/spacex-falcon-9-launch-clandestine-zuma-satellite/)

Launched Jan. 7, 2018 at 2000 EST (0100 UTC on the 8th) on new booster 1043.  Successful RTLS landing at CCAFS.  Falcon 9 performance said to be nominal.  Classified payload rumored to be lost, circumstances unclear.



Getting this started per this FCC launch license from yesterday


There are approved FCC licences for an RTLS launch 1390 from 39A on November 10th.

1446-EX-ST-2017:
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=80568&RequestTimeout=1000 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=80568&RequestTimeout=1000)

1318-EX-ST-2017:
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=80217&RequestTimeout=1000 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=80217&RequestTimeout=1000)

Licenses call for this to go from LC-39A on 10 November 2017 and RTLS to LZ-1.

Currently targeting launch 12 days after Koreasat (which is NET 30 October).



Other SpaceX resources on NASASpaceflight:
   SpaceX News Articles (Recent) (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/spacex/)
   SpaceX News Articles from 2006 (Including numerous exclusive Elon interviews) (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21862.0)
   SpaceX Dragon Articles (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/dragon/)
   SpaceX Missions Section (with Launch Manifest and info on past and future missions) (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=55.0)

   L2 SpaceX Section (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=60.0)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: SmallKing on 10/14/2017 01:28 pm
Even launchphotography.com and SFN didn't have any information about this launch, it's more like a military payload I thought
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: wannamoonbase on 10/14/2017 01:40 pm
Interesting.  Something they kept this quiet, I wonder if there will even be a webcast
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 10/14/2017 01:42 pm
I'm thinking if there are any light geostationary comsats (say 2 to 3.5 tonnes) around that had never had a launch contract announced, or even without their identities known, that might be launching by now.

For example, there was that 3 Boeing 702SP order from the US government in 2013 (https://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1403/12boeing702sp/) that cannot be pinned down to any known satellite and was once floated around as a candidate for NROL-76 earlier this year. So far none of them seemed to have been launched yet, and if they are launched on F9 one at a time the 1st stage would have easily made an RTLS.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: vapour_nudge on 10/14/2017 02:02 pm
Perhaps it's another PAN or CLIO type launch similar to what was launched on Atlas V. The agency responsible for those sats wasn't even named. Assuming, of course, this is military.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ZachS09 on 10/14/2017 02:20 pm
Maybe this mission will use B1043.

Just a total assumption; nothing to do with L2 info.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ZachS09 on 10/14/2017 02:22 pm
Interesting.  Something they kept this quiet, I wonder if there will even be a webcast

If SpaceX does not stream this launch, the only evidence of a successful launch/landing will be from spectators and photographers at the press sites.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: su27k on 10/14/2017 02:32 pm
Does SpaceX need to file papers with FCC if it's a government payload? I thought the filing is only for commercial launches. Kind of defeat the purpose of a secret payload if you have to get public license from FCC.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Thorny on 10/14/2017 02:37 pm
Dragonlab?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: rockets4life97 on 10/14/2017 02:38 pm
Dragonlab?

Unlikely, SpaceX would be talking it up to recruit future customers.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: jfallen on 10/14/2017 02:58 pm
Since it seems speculation is permitted, I'm going to go with a Starlink launch.  Keep it quiet to not tip the hand?

Or there is simply a commercial customer that doesn't want it announced.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: yokem55 on 10/14/2017 03:10 pm
Since it seems speculation is permitted, I'm going to go with a Starlink launch.  Keep it quiet to not tip the hand?

Or there is simply a commercial customer that doesn't want it announced.
Unless this is a used booster, I don't see SpaceX launching their own payload on a new one.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Oberon_Command on 10/14/2017 03:14 pm
SpaceFlightNow lists a Falcon 9 launch with "Hispasat 30W-6" in 4th quarter 2017 before two other November launches, but no specific date. Could this be that launch?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gth871r on 10/14/2017 03:18 pm
Any possibility this is SpaceIL or some other Lunar X-Prize entrant?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: old_sellsword on 10/14/2017 03:18 pm
Since it seems speculation is permitted, I'm going to go with a Starlink launch.  Keep it quiet to not tip the hand?

Or there is simply a commercial customer that doesn't want it announced.

Starlink sats (Microsats 2a, -b) are launching as secondary payloads with Paz next year.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/14/2017 03:36 pm
SpaceFlightNow lists a Falcon 9 launch with "Hispasat 30W-6" in 4th quarter 2017 before two other November launches, but no specific date. Could this be that launch?

No.  Hispasat is GTO and way too heavy for RTLS.

This is an as yet publicly unannounced mission.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: input~2 on 10/14/2017 03:46 pm
In these FCC licenses, the "operation start date" of the"requested period of operation" (here November 10) is not necessarily the planned launch date..
For example the requested period of operation for the last Iridium Next launch from Vandenberg (SpaceX Mission 1339)[/font] started on September 30, and the launch took place on October 9
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Bubbinski on 10/14/2017 03:49 pm
Will this be a new core, or a flight-proven core?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/14/2017 03:49 pm
In these FCC licenses, the "operation start date" of the"requested period of operation" (here November 10) is not necessarily the planned launch date..
For example the requested period of operation for the last Iridium Next launch from Vandenberg (SpaceX Mission 1339)[/font] started on September 30, and the launch took place on October 9

When they filed the launch license for Iridium 3, 30 September was the target launch date.  It then slipped to 4 Oct and then 9 Oct.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: saliva_sweet on 10/14/2017 03:54 pm
In these FCC licenses, the "operation start date" of the"requested period of operation" (here November 10) is not necessarily the planned launch date..

Yes, but they are usually the expected NET dates at the time of requesting the license. CRS-13 license has a start date of Nov. 28 for example. This one was also previously assigned to pad 40 and only recently moved to 39A
previous lilcense:
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=80178&RequestTimeout=1000

This suggest that they want to fly it before pad 40 is ready.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 10/14/2017 04:03 pm
How about the Boeing Satellite Constellation (this launch being a prototype)? Had some strong rumors that Apple was funding it, the launch would fit for a LZ-1 landing, and would make sense for a "stealth" appearance.

http://www.idownloadblog.com/2017/04/21/boing-apple-satellite-service/
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: yokem55 on 10/14/2017 04:07 pm
Will this be a new core, or a flight-proven core?
There is L2 info regarding this.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 10/14/2017 04:14 pm
How about the Boeing Satellite Constellation (this launch being a prototype)? Had some strong rumors that Apple was funding it, the launch would fit for a LZ-1 landing, and would make sense for a "stealth" appearance.

http://www.idownloadblog.com/2017/04/21/boing-apple-satellite-service/

Had this originates from Vandenberg I would have bet something like this (prototype satellites for any of the aspiring constellations). However they would need higher inclination orbits for simulating actual operations (probably eliminating any target orbit of below 60 degrees inclination) In the case that a huge dog-leg movement can be used, I fail to see why they would launch from the busier Cape instead of from the West Coast.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Barrie on 10/14/2017 04:21 pm
... I fail to see why they would launch from the busier Cape instead of from the West Coast.

Maybe at the time it was planned they didn't have clearance for RTLS at VAFB, so an east-coast launch allowed cheaper operations?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kryten on 10/14/2017 04:22 pm
Does SpaceX need to file papers with FCC if it's a government payload? I thought the filing is only for commercial launches. Kind of defeat the purpose of a secret payload if you have to get public license from FCC.
The PAN and CLIO launches were also procured commercially.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 10/14/2017 04:30 pm
How about the Boeing Satellite Constellation (this launch being a prototype)? Had some strong rumors that Apple was funding it, the launch would fit for a LZ-1 landing, and would make sense for a "stealth" appearance.

http://www.idownloadblog.com/2017/04/21/boing-apple-satellite-service/

Had this originates from Vandenberg I would have bet something like this (prototype satellites for any of the aspiring constellations). However they would need higher inclination orbits for simulating actual operations (probably eliminating any target orbit of below 60 degrees inclination) In the case that a huge dog-leg movement can be used, I fail to see why they would launch from the busier Cape instead of from the West Coast.

Speculating a justification, but most likely not one of the Boeing internet constellation satellites:

-Since this would be a test satellite, it wouldnt need to launch on the better coverage route of polar, so a launch from the East coast will allow SpaceX to launch the satellite and recover the booster on land vs barge, saving money.
-Secondly, since the East coast flight would be closer to the equator, it would allow more passes near existing GEO satellite downlink stations for the test satellite, helping Boeing to quickly check out the system without needing to build dedicated ground infrastructure.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: zack on 10/14/2017 04:41 pm
The Audi lunar rover?

But more likely another NRO Club thingy...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/14/2017 04:44 pm
... I fail to see why they would launch from the busier Cape instead of from the West Coast.

Maybe at the time it was planned they didn't have clearance for RTLS at VAFB, so an east-coast launch allowed cheaper operations?

Busy-ness of the Cape launch schedule has no bearing on which coast a mission launches from.  Vandenberg is primarily for polar orbits with very high inclinations.  Cape handles GTO and LEO launches for lower inclinations.  Therefore, it follows that this mission - whatever it is - requires a launch trajectory that is only achievable from the Cape.

Furthermore, an inability to RTLS at Vandenberg at present has not stopped RTLS-capable missions (the Iridium flights and Formosat) from launching from there and landing on Just Read The Instructions.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 10/14/2017 04:48 pm
Boeing and SpaceX do not have permission to launch their satellites yet.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Barrie on 10/14/2017 04:54 pm
...
Furthermore, an inability to RTLS at Vandenberg at present has not stopped RTLS-capable missions (the Iridium flights and Formosat) from launching from there and landing on Just Read The Instructions.

But they had to launch from VAFB because of their orbit requirements.  If a payload could make use of almost any orbital inclination, these other factors might come into play.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/14/2017 05:08 pm
...
Furthermore, an inability to RTLS at Vandenberg at present has not stopped RTLS-capable missions (the Iridium flights and Formosat) from launching from there and landing on Just Read The Instructions.

But they had to launch from VAFB because of their orbit requirements.  If a payload could make use of almost any orbital inclination, these other factors might come into play.

No.  It wouldn't.  SpaceX does not charge a customer more because SpaceX chooses to land the booster after it does its mission-specific job.  The cost-savings adjustment is made after the booster is back, refurbished, and sold to another customer.

Payloads/Missions have specific orbital inclination needs.  If this mission needed a polar orbit, it would be going from Vandy regardless of RTLS ability (like the Iridium flights and Formosat).  This mission clearly doesn't need a polar orbit.  It needs an orbit only serviceable from the Cape; hence why it's launching from the Cape.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 10/14/2017 05:27 pm
Payloads/Missions have specific orbital inclination needs.  If this mission needed a polar orbit, it would be going from Vandy regardless of RTLS ability (like the Iridium flights and Formosat).  This mission clearly doesn't need a polar orbit.  It needs an orbit only serviceable from the Cape; hence why it's launching from the Cape.

Except the Mars InSight mission did have flexibility in selecting a launch site based on factors other than inclination needs:

Quote
All of NASA's probes to other planets have launched from Cape Canaveral, Fla., but the specifics of the InSight spacecraft gave officials flexibility in choosing the launch site, according to mission managers.

https://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1312/19insight/#.UrR4J2eA0bI

So basing a test satellite launch site on other factors isnt unimaginable.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/14/2017 05:33 pm
Payloads/Missions have specific orbital inclination needs.  If this mission needed a polar orbit, it would be going from Vandy regardless of RTLS ability (like the Iridium flights and Formosat).  This mission clearly doesn't need a polar orbit.  It needs an orbit only serviceable from the Cape; hence why it's launching from the Cape.

Except the Mars InSight mission did have flexibility in selecting a launch site based on factors other than inclination needs:

Quote
All of NASA's probes to other planets have launched from Cape Canaveral, Fla., but the specifics of the InSight spacecraft gave officials flexibility in choosing the launch site, according to mission managers.

https://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1312/19insight/#.UrR4J2eA0bI

So basing a test satellite launch site on other factors isnt unimaginable.

Right, and InSight's mission-specific needs allowed for a choice.

What I'm saying is that THIS mission's needs require a Cape launch - hence it's launching from the Cape.  SpaceX RTLS-ing a booster for themselves AFTER a customer's paid-for mission is accomplished isn't a mission requirement.  It's a bonus.  And since Vandy boosters can land on the ASDS, there is no SpaceX-imposed mission requirement to RTLS boosters.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: robert_d on 10/14/2017 05:35 pm
Fully recoverable payload fairing test flight? Maybe they have enough changes to the fairing that they are hesitant to try all the new changes on a paying customer's flight? Could also test a full block 5 vehicle?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: old_sellsword on 10/14/2017 05:37 pm
Could also test a full block 5 vehicle?

It's not a Block 5 first stage, but I'm not sure about the second stage.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: russianhalo117 on 10/14/2017 05:41 pm
FYI: If it does launch on the 10th that currently sees 3 US launches on the same day from 3 different US facilities.

The other scheduled US launches on November 10th (All times are UTC) are:

Quote
2017:
November 10 - JPSS-1 (NOAA-20), MiRaTA, Buccaneer RMM, EagleSat, CP 7, Fox 1B (RadFxSat), MakerSat 0 - Delta II 7920-10C - Vandenberg SLC-2W - 09:47:03-09:48:05
November 10 - Cygnus OA-8 (CRS-8) - Antares-230 - MARS LP-0A - 12:03-12:08

If they launch in between the two launches above the Public will be overwhelmed by the Public Affairs coverage of the 2 NASA launches which by the way will be almost back to back coverage.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: russianhalo117 on 10/14/2017 05:59 pm
I'm thinking if there are any light geostationary comsats (say 2 to 3.5 tonnes) around that had never had a launch contract announced, or even without their identities known, that might be launching by now.

For example, there was that 3 Boeing 702SP order from the US government in 2013 (https://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1403/12boeing702sp/) that cannot be pinned down to any known satellite and was once floated around as a candidate for NROL-76 earlier this year. So far none of them seemed to have been launched yet, and if they are launched on F9 one at a time the 1st stage would have easily made an RTLS.
It has been previously stated in a Boeing IR meeting last year that their are several 702 spacecraft (702SP?) in storage for to-remain-unidentified US government customer(s).
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ketivab on 10/14/2017 06:06 pm
Recond stage recovery tests (+ fairing reuse)?
+Major changes to the stage, so they didn't find any customer who could agree to launch their payload with this modified stage
+If Elon really wants to recover it on the maiden FH flight, they might need some practise before that and this could even be a low-energetic (sub-)orbit (better for first tests?)

-Not sure, but I thing, that Gwynne said during some interview, that they will attempt S2 recovery NET 2018
-This mission could endanger FH launch this year: they will still need some time to modify 39A for FH

I still think it is more likely to be some kind of a NRO mission, but it's fun to speculate.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: saliva_sweet on 10/14/2017 06:11 pm
It is still possible, perhaps even the most parsimonious explanation, that there is no mystery launch. It could be second license for CRS-13 in case there are major hiccups with pad 40. The licenses could have ended up like that due to how the paperwork and ISS scheduling worked out. November 10th is notably an ISS launch date.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: russianhalo117 on 10/14/2017 06:16 pm
It is still possible, perhaps even the most parsimonious explanation, that there is no mystery launch. It could be second license for CRS-13 in case there are major hiccups with pad 40. The licenses could have ended up like that due to how the paperwork and ISS scheduling worked out. November 10th is notably an ISS launch date.
It is very unlikely as the most recent updated FCC Launch License shifted the launch back to SLC-40:

November 28th per https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/ Sept 30 change.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=8184.1440 says SLC-40 dating back to a change on 9th August but I cannot see source for that. sfn and launchphotography are not yet showing pad.

Is SLC-40 confirmed somewhere?

Yes. According official FCC application (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=80640&RequestTimeout=1000) issued last week (3th Oct) SpaceX plans launch CRS-13 mission from Complex 40.

Then we should be seeing some roll out and testing in the next 2-4 weeks.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: saliva_sweet on 10/14/2017 06:35 pm
Quote from: reddit user ASTRALsunder
My sources tell me the flight is named ZUMA. The flight is extremely critical because a successful one would mean lots of potential future revenue. Launch date is slated for November 15th due to slight slip in testing.

Fact? Right?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: rockets4life97 on 10/14/2017 06:41 pm
Quote from: reddit user ASTRALsunder
My sources tell me the flight is named ZUMA. The flight is extremely critical because a successful one would mean lots of potential future revenue. Launch date is slated for November 15th due to slight slip in testing.

Fact? Right?

Lots of potential revenue for who? SpaceX? The satellite constellation operator (e.g. Boeing as was speculated up thread)?

ZUMA looks and sounds like an acronym.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/14/2017 07:05 pm
I don't know what this satellite is, but I have seen it called Zuma (not capitals - but could easily be ZUMA as in Z.U.M.A - honestly do not know). So it is a mystery payload, but for the purpose of this thread we can call it codename Zuma.

It is supposed to be riding on a new booster.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: docmordrid on 10/14/2017 07:14 pm
Quote from: reddit user ASTRALsunder
My sources tell me the flight is named ZUMA. The flight is extremely critical because a successful one would mean lots of potential future revenue. Launch date is slated for November 15th due to slight slip in testing.

Fact? Right?

Lots of potential revenue for who? SpaceX? The satellite constellation operator (e.g. Boeing as was speculated up thread)?

ZUMA looks and sounds like an acronym.

ZUMA is a photojournalism news service. Unlikely, but there it is.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: schaban on 10/14/2017 07:33 pm
Quote from: reddit user ASTRALsunder
My sources tell me the flight is named ZUMA. The flight is extremely critical because a successful one would mean lots of potential future revenue. Launch date is slated for November 15th due to slight slip in testing.

Fact? Right?

Lots of potential revenue for who? SpaceX? The satellite constellation operator (e.g. Boeing as was speculated up thread)?

ZUMA looks and sounds like an acronym.

ZUMA is a photojournalism news service. Unlikely, but there it is.

it is also primitive "shooter in space" game. for what it worth...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: rockets4life97 on 10/14/2017 08:02 pm
Zuma isn't in the m-w dictionary. Zuma Press (the photojournalism company) says that Zuma is Mayan for new day, new solution, new vision. Z

The reddit user ASTRALsunder had another comment where they suggested it might not be a satellite.

Possibly some commercial or stunt like the Toshiba Space Chair advertisement where a weather balloon took a chair up near space?

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Barrie on 10/14/2017 08:17 pm
Zuma isn't in the m-w dictionary. Zuma Press (the photojournalism company) says that Zuma is Mayan for new day, new solution, new vision. Z

The reddit user ASTRALsunder had another comment where they suggested it might not be a satellite.

Possibly some commercial or stunt like the Toshiba Space Chair advertisement where a weather balloon took a chair up near space?

I believe the Toshiba Space Chair was done by JP Aerospace.

Zuma might be a jokey distortion of 'zoomer', which could be something to do with either propulsion or imaging.  HTH  ::)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Skyrocket on 10/14/2017 09:23 pm
Quote from: reddit user ASTRALsunder
My sources tell me the flight is named ZUMA. The flight is extremely critical because a successful one would mean lots of potential future revenue. Launch date is slated for November 15th due to slight slip in testing.

Fact? Right?

Lots of potential revenue for who? SpaceX? The satellite constellation operator (e.g. Boeing as was speculated up thread)?

ZUMA looks and sounds like an acronym.

Perhaps something like the ominous PAN and CLIO (non)acronyms, which turned out as NEMESIS SIGINT sats.

http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/nemesis-1.htm
 
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Nibb31 on 10/14/2017 09:31 pm
Given the weird codename, it makes sense that this could be Nemesis 3.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: russianhalo117 on 10/14/2017 09:47 pm
Quote from: reddit user ASTRALsunder
My sources tell me the flight is named ZUMA. The flight is extremely critical because a successful one would mean lots of potential future revenue. Launch date is slated for November 15th due to slight slip in testing.

Fact? Right?

Lots of potential revenue for who? SpaceX? The satellite constellation operator (e.g. Boeing as was speculated up thread)?

ZUMA looks and sounds like an acronym.

Perhaps something like the ominous PAN and CLIO (non)acronyms, which turned out as NEMESIS SIGINT sats.

http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/nemesis-1.htm
 
Did those ever have a 4 number mission designation because some other government payloads did until a public name surfaced.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gosnold on 10/14/2017 09:48 pm
Quote from: reddit user ASTRALsunder
My sources tell me the flight is named ZUMA. The flight is extremely critical because a successful one would mean lots of potential future revenue. Launch date is slated for November 15th due to slight slip in testing.

If that's true, we can exclude a classified payload. Their names don't leak like that. It could be an unclassified US military payload, or a commercial payload for a secretive customer (foreign government or commercial).
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 10/14/2017 09:56 pm
Wild guess: Launch of some kind of destination spacecraft test vehicle for LEO space tourism not involving the ISS.

Any unusual activity at Bigelow recently? Closed hangers and 'none of your business' replies about any projects?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 10/14/2017 09:58 pm
My hypothesis is a "Nemesis 3":
Quote from: reddit user ASTRALsunder
My sources tell me the flight is named ZUMA. The flight is extremely critical because a successful one would mean lots of potential future revenue. Launch date is slated for November 15th due to slight slip in testing.
Fact? Right?
Perhaps something like the ominous PAN and CLIO (non)acronyms, which turned out as NEMESIS SIGINT sats.

http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/nemesis-1.htm

Using a Boeing 702SP bus, instead of the Lockheed-Martin A2100A:
I'm thinking if there are any light geostationary comsats (say 2 to 3.5 tonnes) around that had never had a launch contract announced, or even without their identities known, that might be launching by now.

For example, there was that 3 Boeing 702SP order from the US government in 2013 (https://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1403/12boeing702sp/) that cannot be pinned down to any known satellite and was once floated around as a candidate for NROL-76 earlier this year. So far none of them seemed to have been launched yet, and if they are launched on F9 one at a time the 1st stage would have easily made an RTLS.

Four of the five 702SP's thus far launched have done so on a Falcon 9.


EDIT 10/16: Hmm...I'm 0 for 2 on this hypothesis.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Skyrocket on 10/14/2017 10:03 pm
My hypothesis is a "Nemesis 3":
Quote from: reddit user ASTRALsunder
My sources tell me the flight is named ZUMA. The flight is extremely critical because a successful one would mean lots of potential future revenue. Launch date is slated for November 15th due to slight slip in testing.
Fact? Right?
Perhaps something like the ominous PAN and CLIO (non)acronyms, which turned out as NEMESIS SIGINT sats.

http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/nemesis-1.htm

Using a Boeing 702SP bus, instead of the Lockheed-Martin A2100A:
I'm thinking if there are any light geostationary comsats (say 2 to 3.5 tonnes) around that had never had a launch contract announced, or even without their identities known, that might be launching by now.

For example, there was that 3 Boeing 702SP order from the US government in 2013 (https://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1403/12boeing702sp/) that cannot be pinned down to any known satellite and was once floated around as a candidate for NROL-76 earlier this year. So far none of them seemed to have been launched yet, and if they are launched on F9 one at a time the 1st stage would have easily made an RTLS.

Four of the five 702SP's thus far launched have done so on a Falcon 9.


The Boeing 702SP busses are IMHO good candidates for further NEMESIS type satellites, as the original NEMESISes were also closely based on commercial busses.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: russianhalo117 on 10/14/2017 10:04 pm
My hypothesis is a "Nemesis 3":
Quote from: reddit user ASTRALsunder
My sources tell me the flight is named ZUMA. The flight is extremely critical because a successful one would mean lots of potential future revenue. Launch date is slated for November 15th due to slight slip in testing.
Fact? Right?
Perhaps something like the ominous PAN and CLIO (non)acronyms, which turned out as NEMESIS SIGINT sats.

http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/nemesis-1.htm

Using a Boeing 702SP bus, instead of the Lockheed-Martin A2100A:
I'm thinking if there are any light geostationary comsats (say 2 to 3.5 tonnes) around that had never had a launch contract announced, or even without their identities known, that might be launching by now.

For example, there was that 3 Boeing 702SP order from the US government in 2013 (https://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1403/12boeing702sp/) that cannot be pinned down to any known satellite and was once floated around as a candidate for NROL-76 earlier this year. So far none of them seemed to have been launched yet, and if they are launched on F9 one at a time the 1st stage would have easily made an RTLS.

Four of the five 702SP's thus far launched have done so on a Falcon 9.

LM A2100A and all other A2100 versions are currently being phased out in favor of a single common and standardized large LM-2100 bus for both Commercial, Civil and Military missions with mission add on kits to add features that were previously a specific A2100 version.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Craig_VG on 10/14/2017 10:05 pm
My hypothesis is a "Nemesis 3":

It being a US Gov sat seems to contradict the statement by /u/ASTRALsunder saying that the operator has revenue targets to hit and shareholders to please:

"Yup, critical for the operator in this case. They have revenue targets to hit and shareholders to keep happy."
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/76c3gw/spacex_has_an_approved_license_for_10_nov_launch/doda2gm/
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: catdlr on 10/14/2017 10:20 pm
Nov 10th going to be a busy space coverage day with JPSS-1 at VAFB, Cygnus Spacecraft OA-8 on Wallops on the same date.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: russianhalo117 on 10/14/2017 10:21 pm
My hypothesis is a "Nemesis 3":

Saying it's a US Gov sat seems to contradict the statement by /u/ASTRALsunder saying that the operator has revenue targets to hit and shareholders to please:

"Yup, critical for the operator in this case. They have revenue targets to hit and shareholders to keep happy."
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/76c3gw/spacex_has_an_approved_license_for_10_nov_launch/doda2gm/
That is why we are hypothesizing. Nemesis payloads acted like Commercial Sats and for all we know it could be a hosted payload. Trusting what a single openly talking person says when others are very tight lipped then that makes me suspicious of what they are saying. Posters in L2 say that we will know more in the future so I'm going to stick with the trusted information from the posters in L2 until further notice rather than trusting a very random person on reddit.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 10/14/2017 10:24 pm
Nov 10th going to be a busy space coverage day with JPSS-1 at VAFB, Cygnus Spacecraft OA-8 on Wallops on the same date.

The guy on Reddit said this one is currently targeting the 15th.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 10/14/2017 10:26 pm
Quote from: reddit user ASTRALsunder
My sources tell me the flight is named ZUMA. The flight is extremely critical because a successful one would mean lots of potential future revenue. Launch date is slated for November 15th due to slight slip in testing.

If that's true, we can exclude a classified payload. Their names don't leak like that. It could be an unclassified US military payload, or a commercial payload for a secretive customer (foreign government or commercial).

The name PAN leaked, or was released, a few months before launch.  The earliest reference I found is the SFN article  Secret PAN satellite leads Cape milspace launch surge (https://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0905/26milspace/), dated May 26, 2009, by Craig Covault.  The launch was then scheduled for July 17, 2009.

(Launched on September 8, 2009)

NSF launch thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16909.0

If there are meant to be a series of such satellites, including the 3 Government-bought Boeing 702SPs, that could be the source of "future revenue."


EDIT 10/16: I did a little better on this comparison...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: saliva_sweet on 10/14/2017 10:27 pm
Saying it's a US Gov sat seems to contradict the statement by /u/ASTRALsunder saying that the operator has revenue targets to hit and shareholders to please:

"Yup, critical for the operator in this case. They have revenue targets to hit and shareholders to keep happy."
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/76c3gw/spacex_has_an_approved_license_for_10_nov_launch/doda2gm/

Yes, but this story strains credulity. There appears to be a commercial customer that has pulled a satellite out of a hat. The launch is also so critical to their revenue that SpaceX employees need to worry about their bookkeeping. This is not something that should concern them at all. Perhaps the employees aren't told the whole story here? I'm suspecting something military. But aren't the nemesis sats in GEO? F9 would have to put Zuma to GTO and RTLS.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: russianhalo117 on 10/14/2017 10:31 pm
Saying it's a US Gov sat seems to contradict the statement by /u/ASTRALsunder saying that the operator has revenue targets to hit and shareholders to please:

"Yup, critical for the operator in this case. They have revenue targets to hit and shareholders to keep happy."
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/76c3gw/spacex_has_an_approved_license_for_10_nov_launch/doda2gm/

Yes, but this story strains credulity. There appears to be a commercial customer that has pulled a satellite out of a hat. The launch is also so critical to their revenue that SpaceX employees need to worry about their bookkeeping. This is not something that should concern them at all. Perhaps the employees aren't told the whole story here? I'm suspecting something military. But aren't the nemesis sats in GEO? F9 would have to put Zuma to GTO and RTLS.
there are predecessor constellations to nemesis that had some of there satellites in other Non GEO orbits. Other factors are delivery methods. It is very rare for payloads to ship to the Cape by Sea but it has been done before as well as rail, air and road. People will need to keep their eye out for special convoys. Unless the payload arrived ages ago.

there are some payloads in the unclear and probably cancelled sections of the USA Launch Schedule that could fit in for a Non Nemesis payload.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 10/14/2017 10:38 pm
Perhaps it's another PAN or CLIO type launch similar to what was launched on Atlas V. The agency responsible for those sats wasn't even named. Assuming, of course, this is military.

Guess you don’t read all of this forum. I direct your attention towards the Signals Intelligence thread on here.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: AncientU on 10/14/2017 10:50 pm
Anything military or bought from someone else... or flown for someone else is a stretch.  The only customer SpaceX needs/wants to protect for strategic reasons is SpaceX.

IMO, this is the SpaceX 'Sputnik Moment'... where they do something completely outside of the established norms -- something 'private' spaceflight has never done* before because spaceflight has always been quasi-government masquerading as 'commercial'.  As to the 'future income' opportunity, many things would qualify... landing a Dragon capsule, winning the Lunar X-Prize, laser comms demo of their own satellites... radio silent until FCC approval, whatever... you know, Zuma.

Just plan on Zuma appearing on the front page as a result...


* no one has ever had more rockets laying around than they know where to store...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 10/14/2017 10:56 pm
We've been told this is a new booster, and some of the payloads from their paying customers have been moved to 2018 because SpaceX doesn't have the capacity to launch them this year.  It doesn't seem like a great time to be pulling a publicity stunt.  I would guess this is not an internal payload.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: vapour_nudge on 10/14/2017 10:59 pm
I don't know what this satellite is, but I have seen it called Zuma (not capitals - but could easily be ZUMA as in Z.U.M.A - honestly do not know). So it is a mystery payload, but for the purpose of this thread we can call it codename Zuma.

It is supposed to be riding on a new booster.
From left of field: in reference to Elon Musk's South African roots, the very wealthy president of South Africa is Joseph Zuma. Just throwing it out there. I have no idea why someone would name a mission after him of course
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: jpo234 on 10/14/2017 11:01 pm
I guess somebody was willing to pay a lot more than $62 million.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: russianhalo117 on 10/14/2017 11:08 pm
I don't know what this satellite is, but I have seen it called Zuma (not capitals - but could easily be ZUMA as in Z.U.M.A - honestly do not know). So it is a mystery payload, but for the purpose of this thread we can call it codename Zuma.

It is supposed to be riding on a new booster.
From left of field: in reference to Elon Musk's South African roots, the very wealthy president of South Africa is Joseph Zuma. Just throwing it out there. I have no idea why someone would name a mission after him of course
Unless it is named after a geological rock formation/geographic location like Zuma Rock, which was a prominent defensive point against the Roman Empire, outside the present day Nigerian capital of Abuja in Niger State, Nigeria (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=9.125556,7.228889&q=9.125556,7.228889&hl=en&t=h&z=12).
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 10/14/2017 11:37 pm
FYI
Zuma is an alternate name for a defunct Indian tribe that hunted and gathered in the mid-Rio Grande River valley and northern Chihuahua (Mexico) state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suma_people

EDIT: Could there be a reference to Boca Chica, near the mouth of the Rio Grande?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 10/14/2017 11:39 pm
I think that's enough random meanings for the word Zuma.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: su27k on 10/15/2017 04:26 am
Does SpaceX need to file papers with FCC if it's a government payload? I thought the filing is only for commercial launches. Kind of defeat the purpose of a secret payload if you have to get public license from FCC.
The PAN and CLIO launches were also procured commercially.

I believe by "procured commercially" it just meant they didn't go through Air Force's EELV procurement, but the customer is still a US government agency, should be similar to launches for NASA LSP.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: octavo on 10/15/2017 05:38 am
I don't know what this satellite is, but I have seen it called Zuma (not capitals - but could easily be ZUMA as in Z.U.M.A - honestly do not know). So it is a mystery payload, but for the purpose of this thread we can call it codename Zuma.

It is supposed to be riding on a new booster.
From left of field: in reference to Elon Musk's South African roots, the very wealthy president of South Africa is Joseph Zuma. Just throwing it out there. I have no idea why someone would name a mission after him of course

It's Jacob Zuma. The most notable thing about him is how he and his friends, the Gupta family, have managed to capture state owned enterprises and line their pockets with lucrative kick-back contracts. Zuma and Gupta are bywords for corruption and cronyism in local culture.

Make of that what you will :)

Edit: link to all the gory details of looting and corruption for those interested in SA politics.
http://www.gupta-leaks.com/
http://www.gupta-leaks.com/information/jacob-zuma-bio/
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: CapitalistOppressor on 10/15/2017 06:07 am
FYI
Zuma is an alternate name for a defunct Indian tribe that hunted and gathered in the mid-Rio Grande River valley and northern Chihuahua (Mexico) state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suma_people

EDIT: Could there be a reference to Boca Chica, near the mouth of the Rio Grande?

Or just Zuma Beach in Malibu, an area Elon is known to hang out.  Great spot for surfing
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: vaporcobra on 10/15/2017 06:25 am
pls, no more nonsensical name games :'( Gongora already asked nicely, just a handful of posts above.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Skyrocket on 10/15/2017 06:41 am
Quote from: reddit user ASTRALsunder
My sources tell me the flight is named ZUMA. The flight is extremely critical because a successful one would mean lots of potential future revenue. Launch date is slated for November 15th due to slight slip in testing.

Fact? Right?

Lots of potential revenue for who? SpaceX? The satellite constellation operator (e.g. Boeing as was speculated up thread)?

The PAN and CLIO satellites were launched via commercial procured launches with Lockheed Martin being the launch customer. This might be similar for ZUMA, with perhaps the manufacturer (Boeing ?) being the customer.  And this could mean potential more launches of this series in the future.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Flying Beaver on 10/15/2017 07:01 am
"Yup, critical for the operator in this case. They have revenue targets to hit and shareholders to keep happy."
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/76c3gw/spacex_has_an_approved_license_for_10_nov_launch/doda2gm/

Small stop-gap GEO sat for SES after their recent on-orbit failures...?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: vaporcobra on 10/15/2017 07:07 am
"Yup, critical for the operator in this case. They have revenue targets to hit and shareholders to keep happy."
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/76c3gw/spacex_has_an_approved_license_for_10_nov_launch/doda2gm/

Small stop-gap GEO sat for SES after their recent on-orbit failures...?

I sincerely doubt that such a thing would be possible, at least in response to failures less than a year old. It takes years on average for a satellite to go from paper to launch readiness.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Flying Beaver on 10/15/2017 07:12 am
"Yup, critical for the operator in this case. They have revenue targets to hit and shareholders to keep happy."
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/76c3gw/spacex_has_an_approved_license_for_10_nov_launch/doda2gm/

Small stop-gap GEO sat for SES after their recent on-orbit failures...?

I sincerely doubt that such a thing would be possible, at least in response to failures less than a year old. It takes years on average for a satellite to go from paper to launch readiness.

It just hit me cuz they were talking very much at the time about the implications of such failures to their investor base. But aslo they've already moved a couple launches around (SpaceX/Arainespace flip) to mitigate any follow-on effects.

From AMC-9 it was somewhere around 70mil $ in total losses. Does that justify another launch/sat (upwards of 100-200mil) with possible added capabilities?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 10/15/2017 07:47 am
Speaking of failures, Orbcomm has a few of their next-generation satellites fail recently. Could it be a urgently-procured launch for replacements?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: vaporcobra on 10/15/2017 07:53 am
Speaking of failures, Orbcomm has a few of their next-generation satellites fail recently. Could it be a urgently-procured launch for replacements?

The intense level of secrecy around ZUMA suggests otherwise. Any logical payload from the usual suspects would have no reason whatsoever for secrecy like this.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 10/15/2017 10:14 am
Ok, an interesting comment from the reddit user ASTRALSunder

Quote
No, nothing my friends told me gave me the feeling that the customer was established. One friend did mention that the customer was pretty open and up front with SpaceX about their financial situation to give them an idea on how extremely crucial this flight was for them. I guess it was enough for SpaceX to squeeze them in risking the ire of their backlogged customers.


So sounds like a new upstart company, assuming ASTRALSunder is correct (and from what he has posted, it seems consistent to me)

Edit to my Edit: Going to remove the speculation
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Skyrocket on 10/15/2017 10:46 am
BTW,
Northrop Grumman has also one flight from the Cape on SpaceX manifest. And NG has seven Eagle-3 based spacecraft on production according to the Eagle-3 datasheet.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Skyrocket on 10/15/2017 10:54 am
Ok, an interesting comment from the reddit user ASTRALSunder

Quote
No, nothing my friends told me gave me the feeling that the customer was established. One friend did mention that the customer was pretty open and up front with SpaceX about their financial situation to give them an idea on how extremely crucial this flight was for them. I guess it was enough for SpaceX to squeeze them in risking the ire of their backlogged customers.


So sounds like a new upstart company, assuming ASTRALSunder is correct (and from what he has posted, it seems consistent to me)

Edit: Going to try to find some startups without announced launches that might meet this window

1. Capella Space

Quote
Capella has not yet revealed the launch vehicle for its first satellite, but Banazadeh said by email the launch will occur in six months.  Eventually, Capella plans offer customers access to global one-meter resolution SAR imagery, updated hourly

http://spacenews.com/with-cash-infusion-capella-prepares-its-first-sar-cubesat/

Capella Space is IMHO very unlikely.
First, they have not yet launched their pathfinder satellite, so they unlikely will launch their full constellation of 30 sats without test. Also the Capella satellites are tiny - 12U Cubesat size. Even a full constellation would fill only a small fraction of the F9 payload capabilities. And an earth observation constellation will likely use a polar orbit for global coverage. Furthermore, Capella announced the start of launching their constellation for 2019, so unlikely they can move up more than a year.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 10/15/2017 10:56 am
Ok, an interesting comment from the reddit user ASTRALSunder

Quote
No, nothing my friends told me gave me the feeling that the customer was established. One friend did mention that the customer was pretty open and up front with SpaceX about their financial situation to give them an idea on how extremely crucial this flight was for them. I guess it was enough for SpaceX to squeeze them in risking the ire of their backlogged customers.


So sounds like a new upstart company, assuming ASTRALSunder is correct (and from what he has posted, it seems consistent to me)

Edit: Going to try to find some startups without announced launches that might meet this window

1. Capella Space

Quote
Capella has not yet revealed the launch vehicle for its first satellite, but Banazadeh said by email the launch will occur in six months.  Eventually, Capella plans offer customers access to global one-meter resolution SAR imagery, updated hourly

http://spacenews.com/with-cash-infusion-capella-prepares-its-first-sar-cubesat/

Hmm......after reading the comments on Reddit I still can't get off the impression that the payload is a black one.

- If the satellite is a geostationary comsat or additional satellites for LEO/MEO comsats, the operator would have few incentives to keep this that secret given the need to lure customers.

- If the satellite(s?) is (are) prototypes for new LEO/MEO comsat constellations, we would have known that who's ready to launch via fillings at regulatory organizations like the ITU.

- If the satellite is for any kind of Earth observation, then it would most likely fly from the West Coast instead. There are still chances that the payload will focus on observing low latitude places only (e.g. most Planet Lab cubesats, or RazakSat as an extreme case) but I think the chances are negligible.

- Other possibilities are there (Bigelow made a new inflatable module in secret and is ready to get people on board? Some mining company built an asteroid surveyor in secrecy and have a planetary launch window to chase to get it to the target asteroid? etc.) but none of them sounds credible to me.

I think I'll stick to my PAN/CLIO follow-on (or "satellite inspector in GEO for some organization which-must-not-be-named") theory with the possibility that the satellite is built by a new(-ish?) start-up.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: saliva_sweet on 10/15/2017 11:15 am
Yeah, as much as I'd like to believe a startup has found a killer app for space and will surprise everyone by starting to rake in money and buying lots of launches I have to say the much more mundane option: that the DOD had bought three super light comsats from boeing and will launch one of them to read through the spam I'm getting in my inbox sounds more believable.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 10/15/2017 11:34 am
Yeah, as much as I'd like to believe a startup has found a killer app for space and will surprise everyone by starting to rake in money and buying lots of launches I have to say the much more mundane option: that the DOD had bought three super light comsats from boeing and will launch one of them to read through the spam I'm getting in my inbox sounds more believable.

It’s more likely they are quick reaction satellites to be used because of certain global hotspots.

After all I am sure a year or two bank someone posted on here that three of these Boeing built satellites had been purchased by an unnamed government customer.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 10/15/2017 11:37 am
Well I don't think any of the comments we have seen so far suggest government, so just going to keep on guessing commercial upstarts.

ConnectX seems interesting, and made a bunch of noise back in 2015 about building a constellation of satellites for secure server storage. Haven't heard anything recently, but maybe that is the point (too busy building, went quiet once they got funding)

 http://fortune.com/2015/01/29/connectx-space-data/
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 10/15/2017 11:39 am
Well I don't think any of the comments we have seen so far suggest government, so just going to keep on guessing commercial upstarts.

ConnectX seems interesting, and made a bunch of noise back in 2015 about building a constellation of satellites for secure server storage. Haven't heard anything recently, but maybe that is the point (too busy building, went quiet once they got funding)

 http://fortune.com/2015/01/29/connectx-space-data/

I really don’t why you think this is going to be a commercial satellite when it has a strong smell of a classified government launch.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 10/15/2017 11:52 am
I really don’t why you think this is going to be a commercial satellite when it has a strong smell of a classified government launch.

Because your "smell of a classified launch" is lack of information and a customer rapidly emerging wanting secrecy. The reddit user ( which Chris verified at least part of his story) has repeatedly mentioned that the customer is doing this for revenue, a government-associated flight would already have most of its costs paid for upfront.

Also, why do I have to think what everyone else does, especially in a story bereft of concrete details?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Nibb31 on 10/15/2017 12:25 pm
When has a commercial launch ever been secret? Commercial space operations come with a lot of paperwork (FCC, ITU...) that we haven't seen. Secrecy comes with a cost. You would need a pretty solid business case to justify it.

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 10/15/2017 12:59 pm
When has a commercial launch ever been secret? Commercial space operations come with a lot of paperwork (FCC, ITU...) that we haven't seen. Secrecy comes with a cost. You would need a pretty solid business case to justify it.




But in most cases, we don't know what to look for on those sites without some sort of keyword search (ie operator, builder, or satellite name). I tried to search the FCC site for any combination of SpaceX and SES-11 and didnt get any results. So the information could very well be out there, we just don't know what to look for.

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: robert_d on 10/15/2017 01:14 pm
Blue Origin Heat Shield test? Maybe B.O. is closer to having an orbital capsule than they have made public.
And yes, I know about the history of Bezos vs Musk.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 10/15/2017 01:31 pm
Sounds like it’s poll time. Is it even possible for a Block 4 (or 5) F9 to loft a Lunar XPrize to the moon? If so that’s my bet...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Craig_VG on 10/15/2017 01:50 pm
Sounds like it’s poll time. Is it even possible for a Block 4 (or 5) F9 to loft a Lunar XPrize to the moon? If so that’s my bet...

Moon Express is set to launch on Electron, so I think Falcon 9 can handle it.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kryten on 10/15/2017 01:56 pm
Sounds like it’s poll time. Is it even possible for a Block 4 (or 5) F9 to loft a Lunar XPrize to the moon? If so that’s my bet...
Unless some mysterious benefactor has swooped in, none of the xprize competitors seem to have enough money to do this. That's the main mystery of this launch, if you assume it isn't government; what kind of company is low-profile enough to do all this quietly, while having put together enough cash?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gth871r on 10/15/2017 02:06 pm
Sounds like it’s poll time. Is it even possible for a Block 4 (or 5) F9 to loft a Lunar XPrize to the moon? If so that’s my bet...

This was my first thought too.  One of the lunar x prize entrants is going to sneak in and win the grand prize.  They are being secretive because if the launch date was announced say, six months ago it's just possible that Moon Express and Rocket Lab would have done a Hail Mary and sent the second Electron test rocket to the moon and beaten them.  As far as I know, Moon Express is the only company with FAA licencing to land on the moon.  However, SpaceIL isn't an American company.  Thus, under the Outer Space Treaty, they would be subject to regulation by their parent country, Isreal.  It's possible that the Israeli government has signed off, or soon will sign off, secretly, in order to protect their company's chance of winning. 

The only problem with this plan is that it would take a pile of money that none of the competitors has.  However, there have been substantial grants to the competitors before.  They could also be getting a discount if SpaceX is getting something out of it, like using this launch to test out new technologies for Block 4 or 5 rockets or testing out their ability to track and control a second stage in deep space.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/15/2017 02:42 pm
- If the satellite is for any kind of Earth observation, then it would most likely fly from the West Coast instead. There are still chances that the payload will focus on observing low latitude places only (e.g. most Planet Lab cubesats, or RazakSat as an extreme case) but I think the chances are negligible.

Other than two NOSS launches, two LACROSSE, and the rumor'd first MISTY launch occurred on the East Coast. With the exception of Northern Russia, almost all of the global hot spots are below 50 degrees and low inclination can give you multiple passes a day, though that will drift.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: su27k on 10/15/2017 02:45 pm
I haven't noticed this before but https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=80568&RequestTimeout=1000 states

Quote
This application uses information from previous grant, 1302-EX-ST-2017. This STA is necessary to authorize launch vehicle communications for SpaceX Mission 1390, from Complex 39a, Kennedy Space Center. Includes sub-orbital first stage, and orbital second stage. Trajectory data will be provided directly to NTIA, USAF, and NASA. All downrange Earth stations are receive-only. Launch licensing authority is FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation.

I think this pretty much rules out any secret government payload, since they definitely do not need a launch license from FAA, you can browse the FAA licensed launches here: https://www.faa.gov/data_research/commercial_space_data/launches/?type=Licensed, where you can find ULA's commercial payloads such as Morelos-3, but you won't find PAN or CLIO there.

As for how the company can be low-profile while having enough cash, first this may not be a low-profile startup at all, it may be a big player switching payload at the last minute. Second we don't track commercial satellites as closely as launch vehicles at this site, there may well be well funded startup out there that are quite open, it's just we're not aware of them.

Also the reddit user in question has a long history, if you check his past comments, there's no doubt he is a former SpaceX employee who is in the know.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 10/15/2017 02:51 pm
I haven't noticed this before but https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=80568&RequestTimeout=1000 states

Quote
This application uses information from previous grant, 1302-EX-ST-2017. This STA is necessary to authorize launch vehicle communications for SpaceX Mission 1390, from Complex 39a, Kennedy Space Center. Includes sub-orbital first stage, and orbital second stage. Trajectory data will be provided directly to NTIA, USAF, and NASA. All downrange Earth stations are receive-only. Launch licensing authority is FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation.

I think this pretty much rules out any secret government payload, since they definitely do not need a launch license from FAA, you can browse the FAA licensed launches here: https://www.faa.gov/data_research/commercial_space_data/launches/?type=Licensed, where you can find ULA's commercial payloads such as Morelos-3, but you won't find PAN or CLIO there.

As for how the company can be low-profile while having enough cash, first this may not be a low-profile startup at all, it may be a big player switching payload at the last minute. Second we don't track commercial satellites as closely as launch vehicles at this site, there may well be well funded startup out there that are quite open, it's just we're not aware of them.

Also the reddit user in question has a long history, if you check his past comments, there's no doubt he is a former SpaceX employee who is in the know.

Note that however Orion EFT-1 and the U.S. Air Force Operationally Responsive Space Office's ORS-3 and ORS-5 are on the list.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 10/15/2017 03:03 pm
Note that however Orion EFT-1 and the U.S. Air Force Operationally Responsive Space Office's ORS-3 and ORS-5 are on the list.

Along with NROL-76.  The OTV-5 launch also has the same wording on the FCC form.

I hope this completely random guessing doesn't continue for the next month, most of the guesses don't even make any sense
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: AncientU on 10/15/2017 03:15 pm
Sounds like it’s poll time. Is it even possible for a Block 4 (or 5) F9 to loft a Lunar XPrize to the moon? If so that’s my bet...
Unless some mysterious benefactor has swooped in, none of the xprize competitors seem to have enough money to do this. That's the main mystery of this launch, if you assume it isn't government; what kind of company is low-profile enough to do all this quietly, while having put together enough cash?

SpaceX.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 10/15/2017 03:25 pm
Sounds like it’s poll time. Is it even possible for a Block 4 (or 5) F9 to loft a Lunar XPrize to the moon? If so that’s my bet...
Unless some mysterious benefactor has swooped in, none of the xprize competitors seem to have enough money to do this. That's the main mystery of this launch, if you assume it isn't government; what kind of company is low-profile enough to do all this quietly, while having put together enough cash?

SpaceX.

And what would SpaceX gain by doing such a thing while further delaying the flights of their other customers?  Splitting the X-Prize money with the payload team wouldn't get them enough to pay for the expendable parts of the launch vehicle.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lar on 10/15/2017 03:30 pm
We may need to carve off a thread for the speculation posts. Unless you have a concrete theory with some analysis behind it, maybe just wait and see?  "it feels like X" posts may not be that helpful. Several mods have now said to curb the speculation... Please?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: input~2 on 10/15/2017 04:14 pm
Attached is the FCC license grant.

This extract seems to imply a commercial launch
Quote
SpaceX shall be aware that future non-federal launches will be considered on a case-by-case basis, especially for requests in the band 2200-2290 MHz, and SpaceX shall have no expectations that future launches will be approved.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 10/15/2017 04:17 pm
Attached is the FCC license grant.

This extract seems to imply a commercial launch
Quote
SpaceX shall be aware that future non-federal launches will be considered on a case-by-case basis, especially for requests in the band 2200-2290 MHz, and SpaceX shall have no expectations that future launches will be approved.

They had the same wording on the NROL-76 and OTV-5 grants.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/15/2017 04:31 pm
I really don’t why you think this is going to be a commercial satellite when it has a strong smell of a classified government launch.

Because your "smell of a classified launch" is lack of information and a customer rapidly emerging wanting secrecy. The reddit user ( which Chris verified at least part of his story) has repeatedly mentioned that the customer is doing this for revenue, a government-associated flight would already have most of its costs paid for upfront.

Also, why do I have to think what everyone else does, especially in a story bereft of concrete details?

You’re putting far, far too much credence in one particular Reddit poster.
Isn't that user one if the few sources that even told us Zuma exists?

I agree that "new booster" and "priority" could spell government, but this is very far from certain.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: AJW on 10/15/2017 05:46 pm
https://www.geekwire.com/2017/spacex-satellite-broadband-network/

"Cooper said this year’s first launch of a prototype satellite would be followed early next year with a second prototype launch, followed by a demonstration period before the start of the operational launch campaign in 2019."

I thought I read that a number of the satellite HW engineers had been brought over from the MSFT 'Zune' team...   Not to imply any similarity in the name since that would be speculation and might get this post booted.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 10/15/2017 05:51 pm
https://www.geekwire.com/2017/spacex-satellite-broadband-network/

"Cooper said this year’s first launch of a prototype satellite would be followed early next year with a second prototype launch, followed by a demonstration period before the start of the operational launch campaign in 2019."

I thought I read that a number of the satellite HW engineers had been brought over from the MSFT 'Zune' team...   Not to imply any similarity in the name since that would be speculation and might get this post booted.

SpaceX does not have their FCC permits for either the experimental or operational satellites.  Their constellation is being registered in the U.S. so they need those to launch.  They also wouldn't waste an entire F9 flight on a single 500kg internal test satellite.  Please, start thinking whether something is remotely reasonable before posting.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/15/2017 06:21 pm
We may need to carve off a thread for the speculation posts. Unless you have a concrete theory with some analysis behind it, maybe just wait and see?  "it feels like X" posts may not be that helpful. Several mods have now said to curb the speculation... Please?

Yeah, we can use this thread for pre-confirmation and then when confirmed we can have the started Discussion and Update threads.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 10/15/2017 07:51 pm
Quote
Jeff Foust @jeff_foust
Replying to @Cosmic_Penguin
ZUMA is more likely to be a codename, not an acronym. But I’m sure you can come up with some creative retronyms…

https://mobile.twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/919594402439417856
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: JHarris85 on 10/15/2017 09:24 pm
Is it a Max-Q Abort test for Dragon 2?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: nacnud on 10/15/2017 09:26 pm
I'm sure they would use a used booster for that.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: vapour_nudge on 10/15/2017 09:54 pm
Nice to see Spaceflightnow give a shout out to this forum
https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/10/14/regulatory-filings-suggest-spacex-plans-november-launch-with-mystery-payload/
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Barrie on 10/15/2017 10:47 pm
It may be worth noting that a competently-chosen codename is completely arbitrary, and not a cryptic clue.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Craftyatom on 10/15/2017 11:19 pm
Is it a Max-Q Abort test for Dragon 2?

The Dragon 2 Abort Test will not be happening until after the first (uncrewed) Dragon 2 orbital flight, and will use the capsule from that flight in order to create high-fidelity data.

So no, this will not be the abort test.  Personally, I think we'll have to wait for a while to find out, otherwise there wouldn't be much point in trying to keep it secret.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 10/16/2017 11:25 am
My feeling (as unlikely as many have said it seems) is that it is an LEO technology test-bed for some new commercial space application. Given the cloak-and-dagger, there is probably a significant issue of patented technologies and possibly even stock market issues that would render pre-launch publicity on the nature of the demonstration potentially stock manipulation.

GLXP would be screaming from the rooftops if the 11/10 launch was one of their competitors and I couldn't see Bigelow being quiet on a 'Genesis-III' mission.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 10/16/2017 11:31 am
More from the Reddit conversation (https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/76c3gw/spacex_has_an_approved_license_for_10_nov_launch/doeufn5/):
Quote
[–]old_sellsword 1 point 15 hours ago
Was this contract something that happened recently, or has it been confirmed for a while but the public just didn’t know about it?

[–]ASTRALsunder 1 point 2 hours ago
That I do not know, my friend. I did not press my sources for more details. The extent of my knowledge is the flight is named ZUMA/Zuma and the NET is November 15th. Customer contract details and what kind of satellite I do not know. They just emphasized the on-time part of the launch, it would be out of 39A, and on a new booster.
My friends did say CRS-13's new NET is December 4th out of LC-40. SpaceX pitched the idea of a flown booster for CRS-13 to NASA and they will give them an answer in early November.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Craig_VG on 10/16/2017 06:47 pm
This is truly a random person on reddit, but nonetheless here's what he had to say:

Quote
The Zuma mission involves Northrop Grumman in some capacity. I know this for a fact. They are likely the payload integration service.

teku45 on reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/76s6n2/nsf_spacex_adds_mystery_zuma_mission_iridium4/dogd07g/?utm_content=permalink&utm_medium=front&utm_source=reddit&utm_name=spacex)

EDIT: link in the quote instead of text
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Eagandale4114 on 10/16/2017 06:49 pm
From reddit user /u/teku45. He claims that he was/is (https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/6fsneu/spacex_landing/dilymnu/?st=j8uj94tb&sh=3d3babb5) an intern at SpaceX.

Quote
The Zuma mission involves Northrop Grumman in some capacity. I know this for a fact. They are likely the payload integration service.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kryten on 10/16/2017 06:55 pm
 Millennium Space System's website has said for some time that a sat using their Aquila M8 bus of around three tons is 'scheduled to fly in 2016 as a GEO platform'; as far as I know this has not yet happened. This would seem like a good candidate as bus for this launch. If we do assume the launch is ultimately for the US government, a delivery-on-orbit contract through Aquila could still jive with the statements about a commercial customer.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: abaddon on 10/16/2017 07:13 pm
REMINDER

We may need to carve off a thread for the speculation posts. Unless you have a concrete theory with some analysis behind it, maybe just wait and see?  "it feels like X" posts may not be that helpful. Several mods have now said to curb the speculation... Please?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 10/16/2017 07:14 pm
Millennium Space System's website has said for some time that a sat using their Aquila M8 bus of around three tons is 'scheduled to fly in 2016 as a GEO platform'; as far as I know this has not yet happened. This would seem like a good candidate as bus for this launch. If we do assume the launch is ultimately for the US government, a delivery-on-orbit contract through Aquila could still jive with the statements about a commercial customer.

If you are referring to the USAF WFOV satellite, a SpaceflightNow article (https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/06/30/air-force-selects-atlas-5-to-launch-multipurpose-satellite-to-high-orbit/) listed it as part of the AFSPC-12 payload, which is part of a current RFP.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Skyrocket on 10/16/2017 07:32 pm
Millennium Space System's website has said for some time that a sat using their Aquila M8 bus of around three tons is 'scheduled to fly in 2016 as a GEO platform'; as far as I know this has not yet happened. This would seem like a good candidate as bus for this launch. If we do assume the launch is ultimately for the US government, a delivery-on-orbit contract through Aquila could still jive with the statements about a commercial customer.

If you are referring to the USAF WFOV satellite, a SpaceflightNow article (https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/06/30/air-force-selects-atlas-5-to-launch-multipurpose-satellite-to-high-orbit/) listed it as part of the AFSPC-12 payload, which is part of a current RFP.

Yes, this satellite from the Millennium Space System website is WFOV. Therefore it is no candidate for Zuma.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: JonathanD on 10/16/2017 07:48 pm
From reddit user /u/teku45. He claims that he was/is (https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/6fsneu/spacex_landing/dilymnu/?st=j8uj94tb&sh=3d3babb5) an intern at SpaceX.

Quote
The Zuma mission involves Northrop Grumman in some capacity. I know this for a fact. They are likely the payload integration service.

Smells fishy.  If he is an intern, he probably won't be one for long.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Barrie on 10/16/2017 07:56 pm
Suppose this is a commercial payload.  Are the unusual circumstances - the secrecy, the shoe-horning it into a tight schedule - easier to understand if it is not for a simple fee-paying customer, but part of a joint venture?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Salo on 10/16/2017 08:35 pm
More from the Reddit conversation (https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/76c3gw/spacex_has_an_approved_license_for_10_nov_launch/doeufn5/)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/16/2017 09:01 pm
Article on site updated to reflect the following:

NASASpaceflight.com has confirmed that Northrop Grumman is the payload provider for Zuma through a commercial launch contract with SpaceX for a LEO satellite with a mission type labeled as "government" and a needed launch date range of 1-30 November 2017.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 10/16/2017 09:06 pm
Article on site updated to reflect the following:

NASASpaceflight.com has confirmed that Northrop Grumman is the payload provider for Zuma through a commercial launch contract with SpaceX for a LEO satellite with a mission type labeled as "government" and a needed launch date range of 1-30 November 2017.

Nice, now I can get rid of that unknown Northrop Grumman entry from the bottom of the manifest.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Craig_VG on 10/16/2017 09:13 pm

Nice, now I can get rid of that unknown Northrop Grumman entry from the bottom of the manifest.

Yeah, this mission seems to have been on the books for a few years and isn't a rushed RapidLaunch-esque contract
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 10/16/2017 09:17 pm

Nice, now I can get rid of that unknown Northrop Grumman entry from the bottom of the manifest.

Yeah, this mission seems to have been on the books for a few years and isn't a rushed RapidLaunch-esque contract

Some of the early contracts were just for unspecified future payloads (like the one that ended up becoming the PSN-6 mission) so we really can't know when they actually set up this launch.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Skyrocket on 10/16/2017 09:55 pm
Article on site updated to reflect the following:

NASASpaceflight.com has confirmed that Northrop Grumman is the payload provider for Zuma through a commercial launch contract with SpaceX for a LEO satellite with a mission type labeled as "government" and a needed launch date range of 1-30 November 2017.

Appears to be a similar handling as with the Nemesis (PAN & CLIO) satellites, which were also handles as unspecified government payloads via a commercial launch contract by the manufacturer.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: jcm on 10/16/2017 09:57 pm
Article on site updated to reflect the following:

NASASpaceflight.com has confirmed that Northrop Grumman is the payload provider for Zuma through a commercial launch contract with SpaceX for a LEO satellite with a mission type labeled as "government" and a needed launch date range of 1-30 November 2017.

So this is analogous to the NEMESIS missions PAN and CLIO which were Lockheed Martin flights, apparently
contractor-operated satellites with NRO-operated sensor payloads as far as I can tell. But NEMESIS were GEO sigint
missions and this one is by NGST and in LEO so the analogy is just to the contracting method, not the payload.
This puts it in the general (but probably heterogeneous) category of 'mystery NRO LEO testbeds' with USA 193 and
USA 276.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: rockets4life97 on 10/16/2017 10:02 pm
SpaceX seemed to have been amenable to Northrop Grumman's need to launch in November. I wonder if this was due to being on the manifest for so long or because of it being a commercially contracted government payload. We've already seen SpaceX prioritize government payloads, so this could be another case.

But I'm curious if other companies who are holding spots on the manifest (Eutelsat, Inmarsat, Bigelow to name a few we know) will receive some priority in the manifest if/when they name a payload.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 10/16/2017 10:22 pm
Some of this goes to the AF statement about SpaceX launches when ready. It was discussed some about how much more nimble SpaceX seems to be in stepping up the launches without having to wait around to buy long lead items. Such that SpaceX is maxing out it's build and launching as fast as there are payloads. They seem to not assign cores to a flight until it is moving from McGregor to the pad. This is a different policy vs the build only on order that most other LV providers perform. But ULA has indicated that upper level management has been looking at changing their policy on this as well, since they got a taste of doing a quick contract response launch for Cygnus in from contract to launch was done in 1 year. They realized that being able to do quick response could pick up payloads that jump ship from another LV provider that has encountered sever delays for some reason.

But some of the data though gives that this is something that SpaceX has known about for a while  just like for the OTV-5 launch. And they had some juggling of schedules which they could do but was complicated with the SLC-40 reactivation delay.

Then the final item to mention since this is a LEO it is likely to be an RTLS. From other information the sat sounds like it is fairly light. The date of 15 Oct would fit with a almost minimum 17 day turnaround after Koreast. It also give a few days to handle any scrubs to be able to still launch on the 15th.

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: vapour_nudge on 10/16/2017 10:54 pm
Great points oldAtlas_Eguy. A light payload also fits with my PAN or CLIO type launch suggestion from page 1. The Atlas vehicles for both of those were 401 variants and those payloads could have been well under the Atlas V's capability for a 401. We'll know very soon anyway.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Craig_VG on 10/16/2017 11:22 pm
We can now confidently say that much of what u/ASTRALsunder (https://www.reddit.com/user/ASTRALsunder) had to say has been confirmed by L2 info (codename, spx-13 reuse being confirmed in early Nov, and timing for Zuma is tight).

Since that has been independently confirmed, it's likely the rest is true as well.

Since NGLS is managing the integration and it is their payload adapter being used the first thought is they are also the Sat operator (like CLIO / PAN), however that would contradict the reddit information. Specifically, this part:

Quote
"One friend did mention that the customer was pretty open and up front with SpaceX about their financial situation to give them an idea on how extremely crucial this flight was for them"

Why would the US Government or Northrop-Grumman (a company buying Orbital ATK for $9.2 Billion) need one particular launch so badly to stay afloat?


*Indeed, I think the current data points to a smaller commercial company operating this satellite.*

 I can also confirm that this November date has been set for about 6 months now and held.


Edit: (or I'm totally wrong which I think is likely at this point, we'll see soon)

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: psionedge on 10/16/2017 11:26 pm
Why does this thread title say KSC while the general speculation one says Vandenberg?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 10/16/2017 11:27 pm
Weren't there some previous instance where similar spacecraft by organizations like DARPA and/or the Missile Defense Agency popped out in similar faction with its identity only revealed very late?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 10/17/2017 03:07 am

Nice, now I can get rid of that unknown Northrop Grumman entry from the bottom of the manifest.

Yeah, this mission seems to have been on the books for a few years and isn't a rushed RapidLaunch-esque contract

When did the Northrop Grumman launch contract got added to SpaceX's official manifest?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/17/2017 03:09 am
Why does this thread title say KSC while the general speculation one says Vandenberg?

It doesn’t. If you’re referring to the general discussion SpaceX thread about the entire article on site, that article covers Zuma from KSC as well as Iridium NEXT-4 out of Vandenberg.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: cscott on 10/17/2017 01:58 pm
It could be that the "customer is cash strapped, flight means lots of future revenue" bit is just the official cover story justifying the hurry-up for this launch. As such, everyone at SpaceX would have heard the same things.

The truth might be some sort of military objective behind the tight schedule and high importance, but that would be kept very quiet.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: FinalFrontier on 10/17/2017 02:10 pm
It could be that the "customer is cash strapped, flight means less of future revenue" bit is just the official cover story justifying the hurry-up for this launch. As such, everyone at SpaceX would have heard the same things.

The truth might be some sort of military objective behind the tight schedule and high importance, but that would be kept very quiet.
It is probably this.

Payload could have intelligence significance related to current global posture/current events in the east or elsewhere hence the time sensitivity.

Likewise, it could be something to do with the payload itself that makes it time sensitive. It is very interesting either way.

Quote
has there ever been a case like this in the past where a provider popped up suddenly in similar fashion
I would be interested to know the answer to this too.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/17/2017 02:42 pm
Just a point of order on the revenue side of things. I believe, Northrup Grumman fiscal year runs January 1st to December 31st ( http://www.northropgrumman.com/AboutUs/AnnualReports/Pages/default.aspx ). Since this is being run as a commercial contract, it might be very desirable for Northrup Grumman to recognize the revenue before December 31st.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Craig_VG on 10/17/2017 03:20 pm
Crossposting Gary NASA's post in the other thread:

Quote
Payloads have three levels of restrictions for movement and processing. This one will be top of the scale.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43988.msg1738627#msg1738627

Looks more and more to be non-commercial

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/17/2017 09:21 pm
Sounds like media accreditation emails have gone out?

Quote
SpaceX has invited reporters to the mysterious Zuma launch. Intriguing!

https://twitter.com/timfernholz/status/920394298121773057 (https://twitter.com/timfernholz/status/920394298121773057)

Quote
39A!

https://twitter.com/timfernholz/status/920394298121773057 (https://twitter.com/timfernholz/status/920394298121773057)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Craig_VG on 10/17/2017 09:28 pm
Quote
Media accreditation is now open for SpaceX's Zuma mission from Launch Complex 39A (LC-39A) at Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The launch is targeted for no earlier than November.

More details on pre-launch media activities will be made available closer to launch.

Indeed, above are the interesting bits (note no date given yet). Accreditation is due on Oct 25

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/18/2017 04:37 pm
Quote
Northrop confirms mystery #Zuma #SpaceX payload is US gov customer. http://awin.aviationweek.com/ArticlesStory.aspx?id=785fe9ad-a15e-477d-8c7d-06f1cdc140d2

https://twitter.com/free_space/status/920678861037297664 (https://twitter.com/free_space/status/920678861037297664)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 10/18/2017 04:40 pm
Nov. 16 is current target date according to article in Florida Today (http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2017/10/18/spacex-targeting-november-mystery-zuma-launch-falcon-9-kennedy-space-center-ksc-florida/775284001/?hootPostID=a0eed3369fbd44121783ee9f4308f609)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: .Scott on 10/18/2017 05:24 pm
Quote
Northrop Grumman confirmed to FLORIDA TODAY that it selected Falcon 9 for Zuma, which was described as a "government mission."
“The U.S. government assigned Northrop Grumman the responsibility of acquiring launch services for this mission," said Lon Rains, communications director at Northrop Grumman's Space Systems Division and Space Park Design Center of Excellence. "We have procured the Falcon 9 launch service from SpaceX."
http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2017/10/18/spacex-targeting-november-mystery-zuma-launch-falcon-9-kennedy-space-center-ksc-florida/775284001/ (http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2017/10/18/spacex-targeting-november-mystery-zuma-launch-falcon-9-kennedy-space-center-ksc-florida/775284001/)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Journeyman on 10/18/2017 06:38 pm
The statement “The U.S. government assigned Northrop Grumman the responsibility of acquiring launch services for this mission,"

Makes me wonder... OK so Northrop Grumman have the responsibility to acquire launch services. Fine! But that is not the same as Northrop Grumman built the satellite!

I think its more interesting to know which company built the satellite. Even if they don't want to disclose what kind of satellite it is.

Or am I misunderstanding something? Is it common that the company that acquires the launch service is also the same company that build the satellite when it comes to government DOD satellites?




Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 10/18/2017 07:06 pm
The statement “The U.S. government assigned Northrop Grumman the responsibility of acquiring launch services for this mission,"

Makes me wonder... OK so Northrop Grumman have the responsibility to acquire launch services. Fine! But that is not the same as Northrop Grumman built the satellite!

I think its more interesting to know which company built the satellite. Even if they don't want to disclose what kind of satellite it is.

Or am I misunderstanding something? Is it common that the company that acquires the launch service is also the same company that build the satellite when it comes to government DOD satellites?
There are no real standards in DOD contracting about this.

There could be easily 4 contractors involved. The sat builder, the launch integrator (which sometimes handles the contract for the LV but not always), the launch provider, and the sat operator.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ZachF on 10/18/2017 07:49 pm
so DOD maybe chose SpaceX for a last-minute 'we need it now' mission launch?

That has to be a black eye for ULA... Isn't that supposedly the reason we pay them $800 million/year extra?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: old_sellsword on 10/18/2017 07:57 pm
so DOD maybe chose SpaceX for a last-minute 'we need it now' mission launch?

...

We don’t know that this is a “last-minute ‘we need it now’” mission launch, it could’ve been contracted to SpaceX years ago.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: psionedge on 10/18/2017 08:04 pm
The recent NROL-76(?) on SpaceX was a SpaceX launch procured by the vehicle provider, Ball. I would assume this is a similar scenario. As the govt tries to bring costs down the procurement approach for satellites now makes the contractor also procure the launch service, forcing them to decide between ULA or SpaceX. The government also likes this because if it blows up, then the prime has to bear the responsibility for it, not the govt.


I'd bet money this was not a last minute contract. It was likely included in whatever contract the govt agency signed with NG for the satellite. Satellites don't get built last minute.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ZachF on 10/18/2017 08:55 pm
so DOD maybe chose SpaceX for a last-minute 'we need it now' mission launch?

...

We don’t know that this is a “last-minute ‘we need it now’” mission launch, it could’ve been contracted to SpaceX years ago.

true
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: cppetrie on 10/18/2017 08:59 pm
We don’t even know that it’s a DOD mission. We’ve only been told government client. While DOD may even be likely, it could be another arm of the government. Ideas for what other gov’t client it could be besides DOD?

Edit: removed question about being US gov’t after reviewing posts above. It’s definitely US gov’t.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 10/18/2017 09:04 pm
We don’t even know that it’s a DOD mission. We’ve only been told government client. While DOD may even be likely, it could be another arm of the government. Ideas for what other gov’t client it could be besides DOD?

Edit: removed question about being US gov’t after reviewing posts above. It’s definitely US gov’t.

It's either military or intelligence agency, otherwise it wouldn't be a secret.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: psionedge on 10/18/2017 09:09 pm
We don’t even know that it’s a DOD mission. We’ve only been told government client. While DOD may even be likely, it could be another arm of the government. Ideas for what other gov’t client it could be besides DOD?

Edit: removed question about being US gov’t after reviewing posts above. It’s definitely US gov’t.

It's either military or intelligence agency, otherwise it wouldn't be a secret.
Hey, there's only 17 or so US intelligence agencies, so should be easy to narrow down.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: tleski on 10/18/2017 09:48 pm
Isn't NRO (which is a part of DoD) procuring and operating satellites for all US intelligence agencies? Or, is possible that one of the agencies orders and operates satellites independently?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: cscott on 10/18/2017 10:07 pm
We don’t even know that it’s a DOD mission. We’ve only been told government client. While DOD may even be likely, it could be another arm of the government. Ideas for what other gov’t client it could be besides DOD?

Edit: removed question about being US gov’t after reviewing posts above. It’s definitely US gov’t.

It's either military or intelligence agency, otherwise it wouldn't be a secret.
Hey, there's only 17 or so US intelligence agencies, so should be easy to narrow down.
...and four branches of the military...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: vaporcobra on 10/18/2017 10:32 pm
We don’t even know that it’s a DOD mission. We’ve only been told government client. While DOD may even be likely, it could be another arm of the government. Ideas for what other gov’t client it could be besides DOD?

Edit: removed question about being US gov’t after reviewing posts above. It’s definitely US gov’t.

It's either military or intelligence agency, otherwise it wouldn't be a secret.
Hey, there's only 17 or so US intelligence agencies, so should be easy to narrow down.
...and four branches of the military...

Don't forget the tens of billions of dollars black budget that isn't publicly available :) The US security community has decades of expertise in shady obfuscation through shell companies and indiscriminately wielding the whole "secret bcuz natl security" stick.

Keeping a satellite vaguely secret and avoiding paper trails are child's play in this context.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: shuttle_buff on 10/19/2017 01:38 am
Let's not forget North Korea and the tensions there! Could be something related to that threat?

Air Force loves SpaceX (now), serious problem for ULA going forward over the next few years. Think
Air Force is getting frustrated with ULA's costs. All these missions popping up for SpaceX proves it.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-16/u-s-air-force-general-endorses-elon-musk-s-reusable-rockets

According to Jim Cantrell, Elon needs reusable rockets to increase his launch rate, no other reason at this time...
Appears it's working :-). Jim was involved in SpaceX in the early days, going to Russia and all with Elon, looking for ICBMs. So was Mike Griffin BTW, before he was NASA Administrator.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: hartspace on 10/19/2017 03:03 am
The recent NROL-76(?) on SpaceX was a SpaceX launch procured by the vehicle provider, Ball. I would assume this is a similar scenario. As the govt tries to bring costs down the procurement approach for satellites now makes the contractor also procure the launch service, forcing them to decide between ULA or SpaceX. The government also likes this because if it blows up, then the prime has to bear the responsibility for it, not the govt.
Since this isn't using the normal DOD or NRO launch procurement process, it is likely that the customer is having NG do the launch service procurement to provide additional separation between SpaceX and the govt customer.  The customer probably made the final selection which LV to use.  Likewise, the liability if the LV fails would still be the government's.  While it is possible that this is a Delivery-In-Orbit contract, those have seldom been used in the recent years for government contracts.

Quote
I'd bet money this was not a last minute contract. It was likely included in whatever contract the govt agency signed with NG for the satellite. Satellites don't get built last minute.
Agreed.  Even the best commercial satellite turnaround from contract to launch is a year or more, with the payload typically being the driver.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/19/2017 03:32 am
so DOD maybe chose SpaceX for a last-minute 'we need it now' mission launch?

...

We don’t know that this is a “last-minute ‘we need it now’” mission launch, it could’ve been contracted to SpaceX years ago.


There is info about this on L2.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 10/19/2017 08:23 am
Isn't NRO (which is a part of DoD) procuring and operating satellites for all US intelligence agencies? Or, is possible that one of the agencies orders and operates satellites independently?

PAN was not a NRO payload.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Skyrocket on 10/19/2017 09:54 am
Isn't NRO (which is a part of DoD) procuring and operating satellites for all US intelligence agencies? Or, is possible that one of the agencies orders and operates satellites independently?

PAN was not a NRO payload.

PAN (aka NEMESIS-1) appears to be a NRO payload (as confirmed by leaked information like the NRO budget and the Menwith Hill information published by The Intercept, but was not procured and launched the usual way.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 10/19/2017 09:56 am
Isn't NRO (which is a part of DoD) procuring and operating satellites for all US intelligence agencies? Or, is possible that one of the agencies orders and operates satellites independently?

PAN was not a NRO payload.

PAN (aka NEMESIS-1) appears to be a NRO payload (as confirmed by leaked information like the NRO budget and the Menwith Hill information published by The Intercept, but was not procured and launched the usual way.

I thought it was more of a shared program between several agencies rather than being a standard NRO launch.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: foragefarmer on 10/19/2017 10:54 am
Possible Payload?

http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/EagleSpacecraft/Pages/default.aspx (http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/EagleSpacecraft/Pages/default.aspx)


Eagle Spacecraft
One family to efficiently satisfy a range of missions
Northrop Grumman’s Eagle spacecraft product line is designed to meet the growing market demand for affordable and reliable spacecraft capable of supporting a variety of mission applications.

With a rich legacy of building space platforms that range from small low Earth orbit spacecraft to large observatories and deep space probes, Northrop Grumman has combined elements of these proven products into a family of Eagle spacecraft to readily serve the mission needs of customers at an affordable price.

The Eagle spacecraft product line consists of four basic configurations, each suited for a particular class of missions. Design and product commonality across the Eagle configurations enable low cost and rapid delivery, while maintaining Northrop Grumman’s commitment to reliability and mission success.

The Eagle spacecraft employ a flexible design that allows performance to be cost-efficiently tailored with existing, flight-proven component options to meet unique mission requirements, including solutions that may go beyond the standard Eagle configurations.

Whether it’s a one-way journey to the moon, a study of Earth’s environment, or a critical operational data acquisition mission, the Eagle spacecraft line provides an affordable, rapid and reliable platform to accomplish your mission.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: .Scott on 10/19/2017 11:28 am
Isn't NRO (which is a part of DoD) procuring and operating satellites for all US intelligence agencies? Or, is possible that one of the agencies orders and operates satellites independently?
From the NRO web site:
Quote
When the United States needs eyes and ears in critical places where no human can reach – be it over the most rugged terrain or through the most hostile territory – it turns to the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO). The NRO is the U.S. Government agency in charge of designing, building, launching, and maintaining America’s intelligence satellites. Whether creating the latest innovations in satellite technology, contracting with the most cost-efficient industrial supplier, conducting rigorous launch schedules, or providing the highest-quality products to our customers, we never lose focus on who we are working to protect: our Nation and its citizens.

DoD use of space could be weapon, intelligence gathering, or some other.  "Intelligence" would be covered by the NRO. Most strategic space weaponization is against treaties, and other weaponization wouldn't seem to be worth it.  "Other" is possible.  The internet and GPS were both DoD initiatives.

Taking everything into consideration, it seems very doubtful to me that DoD or the US intelligence community would launch without tapping the NRO.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: darkenfast on 10/19/2017 04:22 pm
Could this launch be a replacement for an NRO satellite that has failed or is failing?  That might explain some of the question marks around the whole process.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 10/19/2017 04:23 pm
...and we're back to a bunch of random guesses again.

There are precedents for launches like this.  They have been mentioned multiple times already in this thread.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: vaporcobra on 10/19/2017 04:39 pm
FWIW, Eric Berger mentioned last night that [[[Zuma]]] is an NRO mission.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Marslauncher on 10/19/2017 04:44 pm
Would the investor conference call have any general information pertinent to this launch? -

Q3 2017 Northrop Grumman Earnings Conference Call
Wednesday, October 25, 2017 12:00 p.m. ET
http://investor.northropgrumman.com/phoenix.zhtml?p=irol-eventDetails&c=112386&eventID=5264181
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 10/19/2017 04:54 pm
If they don't want to tell us what the satellite is for, then they won't (at least in the next few decades).  After we get some idea of where it ends up in orbit then some speculation on uses might be more useful.  We still don't really know what the payloads from the NROL-76 or OTV-5 flights are doing now either.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/19/2017 06:50 pm
It might be as simple as contract financial incentives that they will lose if the satellite is not in orbit by some arbitrary date (Q4 ends Dec 31st for Northrup). Never underestimate the power of a manager at risk of not getting his bonus.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: psionedge on 10/19/2017 09:01 pm
FWIW, Eric Berger mentioned last night that [[[Zuma]]] is an NRO mission.
Then why doesn't it carry an NROL designation?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 10/19/2017 10:12 pm
FWIW, Eric Berger mentioned last night that [[[Zuma]]] is an NRO mission.
Then why doesn't it carry an NROL designation?

Because not all NRO missions do.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Skyrocket on 10/19/2017 11:20 pm
FWIW, Eric Berger mentioned last night that [[[Zuma]]] is an NRO mission.
Then why doesn't it carry an NROL designation?

Because the launch is not contracted via NRO, but via the manufacturer (similar as with the NEMESIS satellites PAN and CLIO)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: psionedge on 10/20/2017 03:33 am
FWIW, Eric Berger mentioned last night that [[[Zuma]]] is an NRO mission.
Then why doesn't it carry an NROL designation?

Because the launch is not contracted via NRO, but via the manufacturer (similar as with the NEMESIS satellites PAN and CLIO)
NROL-76 was procured via the contractor, Ball.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: russianhalo117 on 10/20/2017 03:58 am
FWIW, Eric Berger mentioned last night that [[[Zuma]]] is an NRO mission.
Then why doesn't it carry an NROL designation?

Because the launch is not contracted via NRO, but via the manufacturer (similar as with the NEMESIS satellites PAN and CLIO)
NROL-76 was procured via the contractor, Ball.
Not all NRO payloads have received NRO L numbers
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 10/20/2017 06:37 am
FWIW, Eric Berger mentioned last night that [[[Zuma]]] is an NRO mission.
Then why doesn't it carry an NROL designation?

Because the launch is not contracted via NRO, but via the manufacturer (similar as with the NEMESIS satellites PAN and CLIO)
NROL-76 was procured via the contractor, Ball.
Not all NRO payloads have received NRO L numbers

I’ve already told the OP that.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: psionedge on 10/20/2017 05:16 pm
I'm just asking for some evidence to back up the claims and the best I'm getting in return is some hand-wavy "it's an exception to the rule" type stuff.

I think it's fair that I can reasonably say I'm unconvinced.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 10/20/2017 05:24 pm
I'm just asking for some evidence to back up the claims and the best I'm getting in return is some hand-wavy "it's an exception to the rule" type stuff.

I think it's fair that I can reasonably say I'm unconvinced.

You're unlikely to get the evidence you want.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 10/20/2017 05:59 pm
I'm just asking for some evidence to back up the claims and the best I'm getting in return is some hand-wavy "it's an exception to the rule" type stuff.

I think it's fair that I can reasonably say I'm unconvinced.

You're unlikely to get the evidence you want.

They can always try and spend the rest of their life in a federal prison.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Graham on 10/20/2017 06:02 pm
I'm just asking for some evidence to back up the claims and the best I'm getting in return is some hand-wavy "it's an exception to the rule" type stuff.

I think it's fair that I can reasonably say I'm unconvinced.

The only reason we know what PAN and CLIO are for sure is because of Edward Snowden. We will never know for sure what this launch is, but we do know that PAN and CLIO so far have a lot of similarities in their pre launch build ups, so Occam's Razor then suggests this is some type of government mission along the same lines.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/20/2017 06:08 pm
FWIW the current administration is on a push to displace parts of the NSS side, just like efforts by Peter Thiel to push Palantir to commercialize intelligence gathering/analysis (he's being considered as a WH intelligence advisor).

So why not the same for potential "black commercial space"? 
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 10/20/2017 06:49 pm
FWIW the current administration is on a push to displace parts of the NSS side, just like efforts by Peter Thiel to push Palantir to commercialize intelligence gathering/analysis (he's being considered as a WH intelligence advisor).

So why not the same for potential "black commercial space"?

Reconnaissance will always have an element of public ownership of the means of data collection.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: psionedge on 10/20/2017 08:11 pm
FWIW the current administration is on a push to displace parts of the NSS side, just like efforts by Peter Thiel to push Palantir to commercialize intelligence gathering/analysis (he's being considered as a WH intelligence advisor).

So why not the same for potential "black commercial space"?

Reconnaissance will always have an element of public ownership of the means of data collection.
Not sure what you mean by this. There are a number of commercial space imagery companies with contracts to sell their products to the government. Where's the public ownership (taxpayer/gov ownership)of DigitalGlobe?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 10/20/2017 08:38 pm
I'm just asking for some evidence to back up the claims and the best I'm getting in return is some hand-wavy "it's an exception to the rule" type stuff.

I think it's fair that I can reasonably say I'm unconvinced.

You're unlikely to get the evidence you want.

They can always try and spend the rest of their life in a federal prison.

(A suggestion offered in good faith, but with a little ;D )

File FOIA release requests for the information.  You'll eventually get a rejection.

File again once a year, every year following.

After (n)th filing, receive fully declassified answer in 20XX.

Celebrate with a victory lap in your Tesla Jetson-mobile!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2Z8kPpLg1g
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 10/21/2017 05:39 pm
From SpaceFlight Now Launch Schedule (https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/):
Quote
Launch window: 0100-0300 GMT on 16th (8:00-10:00 p.m. EST on 15th)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Brovane on 10/23/2017 03:02 pm
My apologies if this has already been shared.

This is a nice article from last year about PAN/NEMESIS.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3095/1 (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3095/1)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: .Scott on 10/25/2017 11:18 am
NRO says that Zuma is not NRO.

http://aviationweek.com/awinspace/nro-spacex-zuma-payload-not-its-bird (http://aviationweek.com/awinspace/nro-spacex-zuma-payload-not-its-bird)

Per Aviation Week:
Quote
CAPE CANAVERAL—The U.S. National Reconnaissance Office says a mystery payload known as Zuma, which is slated to fly on a SpaceX Falcon 9 next month, does not belong to the ..

Sorry, but I don't subscribe to Aviation Week - so all I have is this teaser.

So, it would appear that Zuma is "US Government" but not military reconnaissance.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: jebbo on 10/25/2017 11:24 am
So, is it even a national security launch?

--- Tony
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: .Scott on 10/25/2017 11:48 am
So, is it even a national security launch?
It's really hard to imagine a non-military agency of the US government keeping a secret satellite.
I mean REALLY hard.  Would anyone really believe that the FBI, DEA, or ICE would ever get past the planning stage before this would be public?

So that leave some sort of military support that is not reconnaissance.  Perhaps communications?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 10/25/2017 12:11 pm
So that leave some sort of military support that is not reconnaissance.  Perhaps communications?

Launch from the East Range suggests me me either:

* Recon asset over fixed target (SIGINT, especially);
* Military communications (Unlikely: These tend to have program names).

[edit]
FWIW, though, this has the feel to me of an experimental payload, not for operational purposes but for assessment/testing.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jet Black on 10/25/2017 12:32 pm
So, is it even a national security launch?

--- Tony

We can't tell you, because releasing that information would be a breach of national security ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: wannamoonbase on 10/25/2017 01:12 pm
So that leave some sort of military support that is not reconnaissance.  Perhaps communications?

Launch from the East Range suggests me me either:

* Recon asset over fixed target (SIGINT, especially);
* Military communications (Unlikely: These tend to have program names).

[edit]
FWIW, though, this has the feel to me of an experimental payload, not for operational purposes but for assessment/testing.

I’ve been wondering if this is a rapid response launch.  Maybe to replace an existing bird with a standby payload.  SpaceX’s launcher availability and stream lined operations may enable that long sought after dream of DOD.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Shanuson on 10/25/2017 01:46 pm
So that leave some sort of military support that is not reconnaissance.  Perhaps communications?

Launch from the East Range suggests me me either:

* Recon asset over fixed target (SIGINT, especially);
* Military communications (Unlikely: These tend to have program names).

[edit]
FWIW, though, this has the feel to me of an experimental payload, not for operational purposes but for assessment/testing.

I’ve been wondering if this is a rapid response launch.  Maybe to replace an existing bird with a standby payload.  SpaceX’s launcher availability and stream lined operations may enable that long sought after dream of DOD.

IIRC we already concluded this is based on an contract between NG and SpaceX from 2015.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 10/25/2017 01:57 pm
Makes you wonder if it’s testing some sensitive piece of technology rather than being reconnaissance related.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: tleski on 10/25/2017 02:11 pm
NRO says that Zuma is not NRO.

http://aviationweek.com/awinspace/nro-spacex-zuma-payload-not-its-bird (http://aviationweek.com/awinspace/nro-spacex-zuma-payload-not-its-bird)

Per Aviation Week:
Quote
CAPE CANAVERAL—The U.S. National Reconnaissance Office says a mystery payload known as Zuma, which is slated to fly on a SpaceX Falcon 9 next month, does not belong to the ..

Sorry, but I don't subscribe to Aviation Week - so all I have is this teaser.

So, it would appear that Zuma is "US Government" but not military reconnaissance.

Not sure if we should trust this kind of news. I think that depending on classification level they may be obliged to deny their very involvement in a project even if they in fact are are involved. We may never know.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/25/2017 02:18 pm
So, is it even a national security launch?
It's really hard to imagine a non-military agency of the US government keeping a secret satellite.
I mean REALLY hard.  Would anyone really believe that the FBI, DEA, or ICE would ever get past the planning stage before this would be public?

So that leave some sort of military support that is not reconnaissance.  Perhaps communications?

see, CLIO and PAN
CIA & NSA are non-military agency of the US government
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: abaddon on 10/25/2017 02:19 pm
Not sure if we should trust this kind of news. I think that depending on classification level they may be obliged to deny their very involvement in a project even if they in fact are are involved. We may never know.
The quote is "doesn't belong to", not "not involved with".  As a hypothetical example, it could be a technology demonstrator serving multiple purposes, and hosting a NRO payload in addition to others, while still "not belonging" to the NRO.

Generally speaking, have we seen a pattern of actual disinformation (as opposed to "no information") in the past?  Seems like we tend to take these kinds of statements at face value, although the language should be parsed carefully.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/25/2017 03:55 pm
Not sure if we should trust this kind of news. I think that depending on classification level they may be obliged to deny their very involvement in a project even if they in fact are are involved. We may never know.
The quote is "doesn't belong to", not "not involved with".  As a hypothetical example, it could be a technology demonstrator serving multiple purposes, and hosting a NRO payload in addition to others, while still "not belonging" to the NRO.

Generally speaking, have we seen a pattern of actual disinformation (as opposed to "no information") in the past?  Seems like we tend to take these kinds of statements at face value, although the language should be parsed carefully.

Exactly.  And this would fit with Zuma being commercially owned and operated (i.e.: It doesn't belong to the U.S. government) but all its systems are for the U.S. government's use.  Therefore, it's technically not a government payload.  The government is just the customer using the satellite.  <<< And that is exactly what we know for absolute certain because.... https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/10/spacex-zuma-iridium-4-aims-vandenberg-landing/ ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 10/26/2017 04:12 am
A bunch of people who can't be bothered to look up where an agency that may or may not be involved with the launch lies in the executive branch is the last thing this thread needs.  Please make some attempt to stay on topic.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lar on 10/27/2017 03:35 pm
Agency structure, and whether NRO or NSA or CIA have generals or admirals at their heads? Anyone seriously think that's on topic???  Press report to mod on this post and make your case. But no.

(Second warning, some posts removed outright)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: the_other_Doug on 10/28/2017 02:44 am
If there is no live video from inside the payload shroud, or from stage 2, after MECO/staging, that will say a lot about the nature of this payload, won't it?

I don't recall any launches except spysat/DoD support payloads (of one form or another), in the rocketcam era, restricting the broadcast of video from stage 2 of their launch vehicles.  So, if they do restrict the stage 2 video on this one, then I'd say the expectation has been set that this means it's a spysat or DoD support payload of some ilk or flavor...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: vanoord on 10/28/2017 07:37 am
Given the late announcement of the mission and the secrecy that’s surrounded it, I’d be pleasantly surprised just to have a webcast showing footage from the ground and the post- separation footage of the S1 core.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ZachS09 on 10/28/2017 04:15 pm
Given the late announcement of the mission and the secrecy that’s surrounded it, I’d be pleasantly surprised just to have a webcast showing footage from the ground and the post- separation footage of the S1 core.

Don't be surprised; it's happened twice during NROL-76 and X-37B OTV-5.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 11/04/2017 05:48 pm
This may be normal but I find it interesting:

Quote
SpaceX Falcon 9 Strongback still sits on top of LC-39A following Monday's successful launch.

https://twitter.com/NASA_Nerd/status/926871276341174272 (https://twitter.com/NASA_Nerd/status/926871276341174272)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: old_sellsword on 11/04/2017 06:20 pm
This may be normal but I find it interesting:

Quote
SpaceX Falcon 9 Strongback still sits on top of LC-39A following Monday's successful launch.

SpaceX Falcon 9 Strongback still sits on top of LC-39A following Monday's successful launch. (http://SpaceX Falcon 9 Strongback still sits on top of LC-39A following Monday's successful launch.)

Your url on that is broken, here it is: https://twitter.com/NASA_Nerd/status/926871276341174272
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: russianhalo117 on 11/04/2017 06:28 pm
This may be normal but I find it interesting:

Quote
SpaceX Falcon 9 Strongback still sits on top of LC-39A following Monday's successful launch.

https://twitter.com/NASA_Nerd/status/926871276341174272 (https://twitter.com/NASA_Nerd/status/926871276341174272)
They finally installed the final 2 rain birds on the north side of the pad. Only 2 Hold Downs (HD) and 2 Tail Service Masts (TSM) and final TEL outfitting for FH visibly remain to be installed.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Wolfram66 on 11/06/2017 03:11 pm
Static fire is scheduled for when? T-5 days?? approx 11/9 or 11/10  ??? :-\
Thanks in advance!
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 11/07/2017 07:06 pm
Quote
I spy with my @SpaceX eye ...

https://twitter.com/wordsmithfl/status/927985043372470274
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: jjyach on 11/07/2017 11:37 pm
It was up, down, and halfway many times today.  No more progress on the last two hold downs, and saw some more being removed from the RSS.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 11/09/2017 03:15 pm
This really is a dark mission, the moon won't even be up.

Moonrise 4:04 am   Moonset 4:07 pm
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 11/09/2017 07:46 pm
Quote
Mandatory tour bus shot of 39A today ahead of #Zuma preparations.

https://twitter.com/julia_bergeron/status/928723026874650628
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: rpapo on 11/09/2017 08:23 pm
This really is a dark mission, the moon won't even be up.

Moonrise 4:04 am   Moonset 4:07 pm
Until the Merlins fire up, of course.  It's not like you can stealth launch a rocket.  At least not yet.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: vaporcobra on 11/09/2017 08:43 pm
This really is a dark mission, the moon won't even be up.

Moonrise 4:04 am   Moonset 4:07 pm
Until the Merlins fire up, of course.  It's not like you can stealth launch a rocket.  At least not yet.

Having fun imagining a huge suppressor screwing onto the bottom of Falcon 9.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris Bergin on 11/09/2017 10:01 pm
We're still on the schedule for the Static Fire on Saturday, but apparently this document shows a reschedule for the launch date to the 16th:

http://www.patrick.af.mil/Portals/14/documents/Launch%20Hazard%20Area%20Maps/11-15-2017%20%20LHA.pdf?ver=2017-11-09-154517-137

We'll stay as we are until it's got a secondary confirmation via KSC schedules, etc.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Maestro19 on 11/09/2017 10:07 pm
This really is a dark mission, the moon won't even be up.

Moonrise 4:04 am   Moonset 4:07 pm
Until the Merlins fire up, of course.  It's not like you can stealth launch a rocket.  At least not yet.

Having fun imagining a huge suppressor screwing onto the bottom of Falcon 9.
Re stealth launching rockets -
Not yet, not ever I think, while rockets work by producing immense shear and relative motion between two volumes of gas. OTOH if someone invents anti-gravity or teleportation, then you can perhaps stealth launch a payload.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris Bergin on 11/09/2017 10:25 pm
Let the ZUMA games begin! ;D

Air Force tweet out the 15th:
https://twitter.com/45thSpaceWing/status/928763643172474880
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 11/09/2017 11:07 pm
Airspace closure area
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Flying Beaver on 11/09/2017 11:24 pm
Launch Hazard Area.

Defo not GEO  8)

Edit: Added OTV-5 LHA for comparison, 45~deg parking orbit.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: shooter6947 on 11/10/2017 12:09 am
Defo not GEO  8)
Edit: Added OTV-5 LHA for comparison, 45~deg parking orbit.
Airspace closure area
The airspace closures looks to be on an easterly azimuth, even if the sea-based hazard zone more closely resembles OTV-5 for a 45-degree inclination.  Also, why is the sea hazard area so much less extensive eastbound than it was for OTV-5?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 11/10/2017 01:39 am
Defo not GEO  8)
Edit: Added OTV-5 LHA for comparison, 45~deg parking orbit.
Airspace closure area
The airspace closures looks to be on an easterly azimuth, even if the sea-based hazard zone more closely resembles OTV-5 for a 45-degree inclination.  Also, why is the sea hazard area so much less extensive eastbound than it was for OTV-5?
RTLS?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: cppetrie on 11/10/2017 01:41 am
Defo not GEO  8)
Edit: Added OTV-5 LHA for comparison, 45~deg parking orbit.
Airspace closure area
The airspace closures looks to be on an easterly azimuth, even if the sea-based hazard zone more closely resembles OTV-5 for a 45-degree inclination.  Also, why is the sea hazard area so much less extensive eastbound than it was for OTV-5?
RTLS?
OTV-5 was also RTLS.

My only thought is they are planning to use a very lofted flight path.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: OnWithTheShow on 11/10/2017 01:43 am
RTLS?

Both flights were/are RTLS
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 11/10/2017 10:35 am
I wonder if this might be the same vehicle bus as NROL-76? Both were RTLS, after all; there can't be many milspec busses that are light enough for that, even if they're only going into LEO.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Skyrocket on 11/10/2017 10:40 am
I wonder if this might be the same vehicle bus as NROL-76? Both were RTLS, after all; there can't be many milspec busses that are light enough for that, even if they're only going into LEO.

Unlikely, as NROL-76 was built by Ball Aerospace, not Northrop Grumman.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: AncientU on 11/10/2017 11:37 am
Defo not GEO  8)
Edit: Added OTV-5 LHA for comparison, 45~deg parking orbit.
Airspace closure area
The airspace closures looks to be on an easterly azimuth, even if the sea-based hazard zone more closely resembles OTV-5 for a 45-degree inclination.  Also, why is the sea hazard area so much less extensive eastbound than it was for OTV-5?
RTLS?

yup
Quote
Nov 15; window opens at 8 pm! A landing is planned at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station!
https://twitter.com/45thSpaceWing/status/928763643172474880
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 11/10/2017 11:44 am
(Sorry - I was saying that in response to the question of why the sea hazard area was so less extensive...)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 11/10/2017 01:47 pm
If it's going to 63 degrees, I wonder if the launch window will line up with OTV-5's orbital plane (Assume they have recovered OTV-5).
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: mn on 11/10/2017 02:49 pm
We're still on the schedule for the Static Fire on Saturday, but apparently this document shows a reschedule for the launch date to the 16th:

http://www.patrick.af.mil/Portals/14/documents/Launch%20Hazard%20Area%20Maps/11-15-2017%20%20LHA.pdf?ver=2017-11-09-154517-137

We'll stay as we are until it's got a secondary confirmation via KSC schedules, etc.

The air space closure document posted above shows the 16th but the time appears to be UTC (if I'm reading that correctly), so the date seems correct.

Could it be that the the Launch Hazard Area Map they changed the time to local time but forgot to change the date?

Edit: I missed the RESCHEDULED in red before the date.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Notleslie on 11/12/2017 02:01 am
A 51 deg orbit lines up with this NOTAM area lift off +02h24m. All approximately that is.


F3592/17 NOTAMN
Q) YMMM/QWMLW/IV/BO/W/000/999/3014S13202E999
A) YMMM
B) 1711160300 C) 1711170637
D) 1711160300 TO 1711160637
1711170300 TO 1711170637
E) US ROCKET SPLASHDOWN AREA
FLW RECEIVED FROM GOVERNMENT OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS WILL BE CONDUCTED SURFACE TO UNLIMITED FOR
ATMOSPHERIC RE-ENTRY AND SPLASHDOWN OF LAUNCH VEHICLE FALCON 9 ZUMA
AND PARTICIPATING SUPPORT AIRCRAFT WITHIN THE FOLLOWING AREA:
FROM 3027S 6451E TO 3044S 6703E TO 3810S 8243E TO 4722S 10839 TO
5030S 12439E TO 5155S 12603E TO 5332S 12505E TO 5424S 11601E TO 5334S
10127E TO 4746S 8205E TO 3958S 6931E TO 3156S 6323E TO BEGINNING. PRI
RE ENTRY 1711160300 0637. BACKUP RE ENTRY 171117 0300 0637

F) SFC G) UNL

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: jacqmans on 11/13/2017 01:18 pm
Launch Viewing for SpaceX Zuma

View the next launch from Kennedy Space Center!

Don’t miss the SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket launch from Kennedy Space Center’s LC-39A on Wednesday, November 15, 2017. The Falcon 9 rocket’s reusable first stage will attempt a controlled landing at Landing Zone 1 (LZ1) at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station.

 Launch viewing opportunities for this launch are available at the Apollo/Saturn V Center, approximately 3.9 miles/6.27 kilometers from launch pad, for only $20 in addition to daily admission. No viewing will be available from the main visitor complex.

https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/tickets.aspx?keyword=Rocket%20Launch&spMailingID=31554805&spUserID=MTE1Njg5MDIwMzQ4S0&spJobID=1161377047&spReportId=MTE2MTM3NzA0NwS2
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: nisse on 11/13/2017 06:30 pm
Where does the name "Zuma" come from? Who named it?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: rockets4life97 on 11/13/2017 07:11 pm
Where does the name "Zuma" come from? Who named it?

If I remember correctly, the name “Zuma” is of South African heritage, which is why Elon Musk named the payload “Zuma”.

No. Zuma is the codename used by the government (unclear which agency) and the contractor (Northrop Grumman). Nothing to do with Elon Musk and SpaceX.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Skyrocket on 11/13/2017 08:08 pm
Where does the name "Zuma" come from? Who named it?

If I remember correctly, the name “Zuma” is of South African heritage, which is why Elon Musk named the payload “Zuma”.

No. Zuma is the codename used by the government (unclear which agency) and the contractor (Northrop Grumman). Nothing to do with Elon Musk and SpaceX.

Perhaps the Code name was indeed selected with Musk's South African background in mind. These code names are not always randomly chosen. One of the 60ies secret SIGINT missions was named LONG JOHN after a very tall team member, who developed the payload and WILD BILL was also named after one of the team members. Perhaps we will know, when ZUMA gets declassified in 50 years.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: envy887 on 11/13/2017 08:13 pm
WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC.
FLORIDA.
1. HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS, ROCKET LAUNCHING
160055Z TO 160337Z NOV, ALTERNATE
170055Z TO 170337Z NOV IN AREAS BOUND BY:
A. 28-38N 080-43W, 29-12N 080-06W,
30-04N 079-00W, 29-56N 078-52W,
28-41N 080-10W, 28-26N 080-21W,
28-22N 080-38W.
B. 30-04N 079-00W, 30-52N 078-17W,
31-32N 077-25W, 31-54N 076-49W,
31-49N 076-45W, 31-36N 076-57W,
30-44N 077-53W, 29-56N 078-52W.
2. CANCEL THIS MSG 170437Z NOV 17.//

Authority: EASTERN RANGE 072156Z NOV 17.

Date: 110428Z NOV 17
Cancel: 17043700 Nov 17

SOUTHERN INDIAN OCEAN.
DNC 03, DNC 04.
1. HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS SPACE DEBRIS
160300Z TO 160637Z NOV, ALTERNATE
170300Z TO 170637Z NOV IN AREA BOUND BY
30-27S 064-51E, 30-44S 067-03E,
38-10S 082-43E, 47-22S 108-39E,
50-30S 124-39E, 51-55S 126-03E,
53-32S 125-05E, 54-24S 116-01E,
53-34S 101-27E, 47-46S 082-05E,
39-58S 069-31E, 31-56S 063-23E.
2. CANCEL THIS MSG 170737Z NOV 17.//

Authority: EASTERN RANGE 072155Z NOV 17.

Date: 110407Z NOV 17
Cancel: 17073700 Nov 17

Looks really close to 51.6 degrees. Is this going to have any close approaches to the ISS? It's odd that SpaceX has launched two USG classified birds to this inclination this year.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Flying Beaver on 11/13/2017 09:00 pm
Looks really close to 51.6 degrees. Is this going to have any close approaches to the ISS? It's odd that SpaceX has launched two USG classified birds to this inclination this year.

Also, the end of the launch window (which they could definitely be aiming, to keep the orbit somewhat unknown before launch) *almost* (Off by 15-20 minutes) lines up to launching into the plane of the ISS. So it's close. Almost exactly the same as NROL-76. And yes there will most lightly be close passes to station.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: vapour_nudge on 11/13/2017 09:32 pm
Where does the name "Zuma" come from? Who named it?

If I remember correctly, the name “Zuma” is of South African heritage, which is why Elon Musk named the payload “Zuma”.

No. Zuma is the codename used by the government (unclear which agency) and the contractor (Northrop Grumman). Nothing to do with Elon Musk and SpaceX.

Perhaps the Code name was indeed selected with Musk's South African background in mind. These code names are not always randomly chosen. One of the 60ies secret SIGINT missions was named LONG JOHN after a very tall team member, who developed the payload and WILD BILL was also named after one of the team members. Perhaps we will know, when ZUMA gets declassified in 50 years.
I suggested that on page two but the mods suggested we stop guessing and leave it be. I got it wrong too, his first name that is. I've spoken to many South Africans who suggest Zuma's wealth is accumulated through corrupt means. I don't know if that's true or not but I guess Musk would know that and would be smart enough not to get involved. Anyway, it's a US government funded mission isn't it? Would they name a mission after a foreign leader??  I don't know
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Tomness on 11/13/2017 10:25 pm
Quote
Northrop Grumman on #SpaceX Zuma launch: "This represents a cost effective approach to space access for government missions. Northrop realizes that this is monumental responsibility and has taken great care to ensure the most affordable and lowest risk scenario for Zuma."

https://twitter.com/nova_road/status/930211593014652934 (https://twitter.com/nova_road/status/930211593014652934)

Is that, we will scratch SpaceX back, if they scratch ours?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: shooter6947 on 11/13/2017 10:54 pm
Looks really close to 51.6 degrees. Is this going to have any close approaches to the ISS? It's odd that SpaceX has launched two USG classified birds to this inclination this year.
Also, the end of the launch window (which they could definitely be aiming, to keep the orbit somewhat unknown before launch) *almost* (Off by 15-20 minutes) lines up to launching into the plane of the ISS. So it's close. Almost exactly the same as NROL-76. And yes there will most lightly be close passes to station.

Okay, so what advantage could there be for a ~53 degree orbit, from a Milspace perspective?  It's the lowest inclination that the Russians can reach from Baikonur, roughly.  Do the Russians have a lot of military sats in this inclination?  Or the Chinese?  I mean, it's not a horrible inclination for surface imaging in visible, infrared, or RADAR:  the vast majority of the human population is within +/-50 degrees latitude.  If you wanted to get both coverage of China and significant repeat coverage for China this might be a good target inclination. 
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: schaban on 11/14/2017 01:56 am
Okay, so what advantage could there be for a ~53 degree orbit, from a Milspace perspective?
caliphate?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: docmordrid on 11/14/2017 03:43 am
Where does the name "Zuma" come from? Who named it?

If I remember correctly, the name “Zuma” is of South African heritage, which is why Elon Musk named the payload “Zuma”.

No. Zuma is the codename used by the government (unclear which agency) and the contractor (Northrop Grumman). Nothing to do with Elon Musk and SpaceX.

Also Zuma Engineering & Research, which I believe is in LA. Their senior PM  worked for Northrop Grumman

http://www.zumaengineering.com/aboutus/frederickmitchell.html
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: dnavas on 11/14/2017 03:52 am
Where does the name "Zuma" come from? Who named it?

If I remember correctly, the name “Zuma” is of South African heritage, which is why Elon Musk named the payload “Zuma”.

No. Zuma is the codename used by the government (unclear which agency) and the contractor (Northrop Grumman). Nothing to do with Elon Musk and SpaceX.

Also Zuma Engineering & Research, which I believe is in LA. IIRC one of their principles worked for Northrop Grumman a while back.

Lots of possibilities.  There's also: https://www.z-uma.com/  (see also: https://www.linkedin.com/in/matthew-zuma%E2%80%8B-ziska-bb288617/)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: vaporcobra on 11/14/2017 03:54 am
PLS. NO MORE NAME SPECULATION :'(
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 11/14/2017 03:55 am
Enough with the random guessing again.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ZachS09 on 11/15/2017 03:32 pm
Just saw the new SpaceX photo of Falcon 9 and Zuma. It's up on the Update Thread.

Looks really blank with barely any fairing art.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 11/15/2017 04:08 pm
Just saw the new SpaceX photo of Falcon 9 and Zuma. It's up on the Update Thread.

Looks really blank with barely any fairing art.

Not even any NRO type abstract art?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: vaporcobra on 11/15/2017 04:31 pm
Just saw the new SpaceX photo of Falcon 9 and Zuma. It's up on the Update Thread.

Looks really blank with barely any fairing art.

Not even any NRO type abstract art?

Nope, just a very minimal "Northrop Grumman" in tiny letters.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: whitelancer64 on 11/15/2017 04:32 pm
Just saw the new SpaceX photo of Falcon 9 and Zuma. It's up on the Update Thread.

Looks really blank with barely any fairing art.

Not even any NRO type abstract art?

It only has the NG logo on it.

*edit* image source:

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/930833296308674565
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: 76794p on 11/15/2017 06:55 pm
Rumors are circulating that the launch will not be livestreamed according to this article. https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/879593/spacex-launch-date-time-when-is-falcon-9-zuma-payload-space-nasa-elon-musk 

The source is dubious at best.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Rebel44 on 11/15/2017 07:04 pm
Rumors are circulating that the launch will not be livestreamed according to this article. https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/879593/spacex-launch-date-time-when-is-falcon-9-zuma-payload-space-nasa-elon-musk 

The source is dubious at best.

Considering that they also think that FH will fly in late November, I wouldn't take this article too seriously - most likely they won't stream flight of 2nd stage (just like with NROL-76) and author of this article mistaken that for not streaming launch at all.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: hopalong on 11/15/2017 07:09 pm
Rumors are circulating that the launch will not be livestreamed according to this article. https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/879593/spacex-launch-date-time-when-is-falcon-9-zuma-payload-space-nasa-elon-musk 

The source is dubious at best.

Considering that they also think that FH will fly in late November, I wouldn't take this article too seriously - most likely they won't stream flight of 2nd stage (just like with NROL-76) and author of this article mistaken that for not streaming launch at all.

The Express has gone downhill over the last 20 years or so. I don’t bother with it.  :)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 11/15/2017 07:12 pm
Rumors are circulating that the launch will not be livestreamed according to this article. https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/879593/spacex-launch-date-time-when-is-falcon-9-zuma-payload-space-nasa-elon-musk 

The source is dubious at best.

Considering that they also think that FH will fly in late November, I wouldn't take this article too seriously - most likely they won't stream flight of 2nd stage (just like with NROL-76) and author of this article mistaken that for not streaming launch at all.

The Express has gone downhill over the last 20 years or so. I don’t bother with it.  :)

This is not true.  The webcast will generally follow NRO and Air Force classified guidelines... with normal coverage through stage sep and then sole focus on the Booster's RTLS landing at LZ-1 with blackout rules on the second stage.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 11/15/2017 07:20 pm
Where does the name "Zuma" come from? Who named it?

If I remember correctly, the name “Zuma” is of South African heritage, which is why Elon Musk named the payload “Zuma”.

No. Zuma is the codename used by the government (unclear which agency) and the contractor (Northrop Grumman). Nothing to do with Elon Musk and SpaceX.

Perhaps the Code name was indeed selected with Musk's South African background in mind. These code names are not always randomly chosen. One of the 60ies secret SIGINT missions was named LONG JOHN after a very tall team member, who developed the payload and WILD BILL was also named after one of the team members. Perhaps we will know, when ZUMA gets declassified in 50 years.


The name would have be selected long before the launch vehicle
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: drnscr on 11/15/2017 07:40 pm
And, another error was the portion about the stage returning to OCISLY.  We know that’s incorrect.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: CorvusCorax on 11/15/2017 08:38 pm
Question, is Zuma launch now simultaneous with Teslas big electric truck revelation?
Which one will Elon be at ? ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: mrhuggy on 11/15/2017 08:47 pm
Zuma could be some form of Space Tracking and Surveillance System (SBIRS Low) which demo satellites where built by Northrop Grumman. With what has been happening in North Korea they may of been asked to take some out of storage and launch them, if they had spares.

 The tests that they have done before was during the 2009-2011 when they launched 2 on a Delta 2. They used them to detect and track launches of missiles, aircraft and other satellites. They could be used to help provide better targeting information for the Aegis and THAAD system for a quicker intercept of missiles launched from North Korea.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 11/15/2017 08:56 pm
Question, is Zuma launch now simultaneous with Teslas big electric truck revelation?
Which one will Elon be at ? ;)

No, they're in different time zones.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: vaporcobra on 11/15/2017 09:07 pm
Question, is Zuma launch now simultaneous with Teslas big electric truck revelation?
Which one will Elon be at ? ;)

No, they're in different time zones.

5pm and 8pm PDT, to be specific.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: nisse on 11/15/2017 09:26 pm
How important is it for companies like Northrop Grumman to launch government satallites it builds on non-ULA rockets? I.e. not having to let ULA and potentially Boeing and Lockheed know what capabilities they offer the US government?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gosnold on 11/15/2017 09:41 pm
Okay, so what advantage could there be for a ~53 degree orbit, from a Milspace perspective?
caliphate?

It's pretty good to look at China and southern Russia. A 53° orbit gets you a few consecutive orbits that pass over China, and even provides short revisit of some places at the altitude of USA 276.

It's very good to look at North Korea: it gives 5 consecutive passes a day with OK look angle, so you could get TEL positions updated every 90 minutes, over 7.5 hours. If Zuma gets into a similar orbit, it could increase the frequency to 45 minutes if injected in the same plane, or increase the duration of the coverage window to cover almost the whole day if injected in a symmetrical orbit (that seems to be the case given the launch hazard areas). For that kind a mission a radar bird is likely as they can see through clouds. That would be a similar mission to the Lacrosse/Topaz, which are probably used to hunt Soviet/Russian TELs.

Plus the plane of USA 276 is close to the ISS, so if you shoot it you get into a multinational mess.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: abaddon on 11/15/2017 09:42 pm
How important is it for companies like Northrop Grumman to launch government satallites it builds on non-ULA rockets? I.e. not having to let ULA and potentially Boeing and Lockheed know what capabilities they offer the US government?
Not a concern; LV payload processing is carefully firewalled from other parts of the companies as a matter of course.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ZachS09 on 11/15/2017 10:31 pm
According to the Zuma press kit, the MECO time is 2 minutes and 16 seconds, which is the record for the earliest MECO time for Falcon 9.

This barely beats the NROL-76 mission by one second.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: psionedge on 11/16/2017 01:29 am
How important is it for companies like Northrop Grumman to launch government satallites it builds on non-ULA rockets? I.e. not having to let ULA and potentially Boeing and Lockheed know what capabilities they offer the US government?
Irrelevant. You don't think the govt would tell the competitors the specs they have to better to get the next win?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 11/16/2017 02:19 am
Booster 43.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Eagandale4114 on 11/16/2017 05:26 am
Well this (http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Nov-2017/0062.html) is interesting.

If you dont click on the link, a launch within the first 15-20 minutes of the window may put it next to USA 276 (aka NROL 76).

The author also emphasizes that this may just be pure coincidence. It will be interesting to see when this bird launches.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: .Scott on 11/16/2017 11:45 am
Well this (http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Nov-2017/0062.html) is interesting.

If you dont click on the link, a launch within the first 15-20 minutes of the window may put it next to USA 276 (aka NROL 76).

The author also emphasizes that this may just be pure coincidence. It will be interesting to see when this bird launches.
USA 276 is reputed to be RADAR imaging demonstration satellite https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/05/24/observers-spot-top-secret-satellite-launched-by-spacex-earlier-this-month/ (https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/05/24/observers-spot-top-secret-satellite-launched-by-spacex-earlier-this-month/)

Zuma could be working in conjuction with that satellite - but NRO says it isn't there's.

My guess is that it's US Treasury or Justice Department.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 11/16/2017 11:51 am
Well this (http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Nov-2017/0062.html) is interesting.

If you dont click on the link, a launch within the first 15-20 minutes of the window may put it next to USA 276 (aka NROL 76).

The author also emphasizes that this may just be pure coincidence. It will be interesting to see when this bird launches.
USA 276 is reputed to be RADAR imaging demonstration satellite https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/05/24/observers-spot-top-secret-satellite-launched-by-spacex-earlier-this-month/ (https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/05/24/observers-spot-top-secret-satellite-launched-by-spacex-earlier-this-month/)

Zuma could be working in conjuction with that satellite - but NRO says it isn't there's.

My guess is that it's US Treasury or Justice Department.

Why on earth would it belong to either of those organisations it’s far more likely to belong directly to one of the intelligence agencies.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 11/16/2017 12:21 pm
I can’t track it down, but when this payload was first mentioned on this site, even before “Zumba” was known as the name, the poster had mentioned something to the effect that people would be amazed when it was revealed. I’m paraphrasing at best, and it may have been an L2 post, but ever since then there was no more - and Zuma became basically another secret spy satellite. I’m going on the record to predict that once this thing is launched, stably in it’s target orbit, and operational - once that happens there will be some kind of an announcement about it. I think it’s possible that Trump in his desire to go into the history books for achievement in space, has green lighted this thing. He tweeted (ugh) a few days ago that he’d be making a major announcement after he returned from Asia, time and date to be set. It’s a huge stretch I know, but why not...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: cscott on 11/16/2017 12:46 pm
The Air Force has tweeted launch announcements; although that would just be because the launch is from an Air Force base, it also seems reasonable to me that this is an Air Force payload.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: tleski on 11/16/2017 12:57 pm
I can’t track it down, but when this payload was first mentioned on this site, even before “Zumba” was known as the name, the poster had mentioned something to the effect that people would be amazed when it was revealed. I’m paraphrasing at best, and it may have been an L2 post, but ever since then there was no more - and Zuma became basically another secret spy satellite. I’m going on the record to predict that once this thing is launched, stably in it’s target orbit, and operational - once that happens there will be some kind of an announcement about it. I think it’s possible that Trump in his desire to go into the history books for achievement in space, has green lighted this thing. He tweeted (ugh) a few days ago that he’d be making a major announcement after he returned from Asia, time and date to be set. It’s a huge stretch I know, but why not...

I highly doubt it. Information posted a month ago on L2 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43994.msg1738611#msg1738611) directly contradicts this timeline. I would not be shocked if some of that "leaked information" posted on reddit was a deliberate misinformation. The fact that NRO denies it is their bird means nothing in case of highly secret mission IMO.

EDIT: Added link to the the L2 source and minor text fixes.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 11/16/2017 01:43 pm
Just saw the new SpaceX photo of Falcon 9 and Zuma. It's up on the Update Thread.

Looks really blank with barely any fairing art.

Not even any NRO type abstract art?

Nope, just a very minimal "Northrop Grumman" in tiny letters.

Bout time they stop letting the cat out of the bag!
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: old_sellsword on 11/16/2017 01:56 pm
I would not be shocked if some of that "leaked information" posted on reddit was a deliberate misinformation.

For what it’s worth, none of the claims u/ASTRALsunder made (https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/76c3gw/comment/dod5ewh) have turned out to be wrong. He’s been active in the subreddit for quite a while and is respected an as ex-employee with many connections, he has never given us false information before.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: tleski on 11/16/2017 02:01 pm
I would not be shocked if some of that "leaked information" posted on reddit was a deliberate misinformation.

For what it’s worth, none of the claims u/ASTRALsunder made (https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/76c3gw/comment/dod5ewh) have turned out to be wrong. He’s been active in the subreddit for quite a while and is respected an as ex-employee with many connections, he has never given us false information before.

But he was only relying what his SpaceX friend(s) told him. So I believe that he posted real information. We don't know what is the ultimate source of that information.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ATPTourFan on 11/16/2017 02:15 pm
According to the Zuma press kit, the MECO time is 2 minutes and 16 seconds, which is the record for the earliest MECO time for Falcon 9.

This barely beats the NROL-76 mission by one second.

Does this mean they configured this flight for extra high fault tolerance margins? If 100% nominal, they get the job done with 'plenty' of booster propellant left for RTLS. However, in the event of an engine malfunction or 2 (most unlikely), they'd still get this mission-critical bird where it needs to go by flying the booster longer to a later MECO time.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 11/16/2017 02:16 pm
Zuma could be some form of Space Tracking and Surveillance System (SBIRS Low) which demo satellites where built by Northrop Grumman. With what has been happening in North Korea they may of been asked to take some out of storage and launch them, if they had spares.


There are no spares and it would be a military launch
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 11/16/2017 02:17 pm
How important is it for companies like Northrop Grumman to launch government satallites it builds on non-ULA rockets? I.e. not having to let ULA and potentially Boeing and Lockheed know what capabilities they offer the US government?

Not important at all.  There is no issue with other companies launching other company hardware.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 11/16/2017 02:18 pm


My guess is that it's US Treasury or Justice Department.

neither deal with satellites
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 11/16/2017 02:25 pm
I would not be shocked if some of that "leaked information" posted on reddit was a deliberate misinformation.

For what it’s worth, none of the claims u/ASTRALsunder made (https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/76c3gw/comment/dod5ewh) have turned out to be wrong. He’s been active in the subreddit for quite a while and is respected an as ex-employee with many connections, he has never given us false information before.
According to u/ASTRALsunder this is a _commercial_ payload and not a government one.

From Reddit:
Quote
[–]ASTRALsunder 8 points 1 month ago
No, nothing my friends told me gave me the feeling that the customer was established. One friend did mention that the customer was pretty open and up front with SpaceX about their financial situation to give them an idea on how extremely crucial this flight was for them. I guess it was enough for SpaceX to squeeze them in risking the ire of their backlogged customers.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: SimonFD on 11/16/2017 02:29 pm
Rumors are circulating that the launch will not be livestreamed according to this article. https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/879593/spacex-launch-date-time-when-is-falcon-9-zuma-payload-space-nasa-elon-musk 

The source is dubious at best.

Considering that they also think that FH will fly in late November, I wouldn't take this article too seriously - most likely they won't stream flight of 2nd stage (just like with NROL-76) and author of this article mistaken that for not streaming launch at all.

The Express has gone downhill over the last 20 years or so. I don’t bother with it.  :)

Agree. Particularly as they keep posting articles saying NASA is hiding Planet X..  :o
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 11/16/2017 02:38 pm
According to u/ASTRALsunder this is a _commercial_ payload and not a government one.

EVERY other piece of information we've gotten says it's a government payload.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jarnis on 11/16/2017 02:44 pm
According to u/ASTRALsunder this is a _commercial_ payload and not a government one.

EVERY other piece of information we've gotten says it's a government payload.

It may mean a lot of revenue to Northrop Grumman if it flies on time and works. Some people think the revenue bit implies its commercial, but it implies no such thing. Companies make revenue out of government contracts all the time.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: mn on 11/16/2017 02:45 pm
Well this (http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Nov-2017/0062.html) is interesting.

If you dont click on the link, a launch within the first 15-20 minutes of the window may put it next to USA 276 (aka NROL 76).

The author also emphasizes that this may just be pure coincidence. It will be interesting to see when this bird launches.

OK, had they launched yesterday as originally planned, would it also be close?

(and for the conspiracy theorist in me, remember that the Launch Hazard Area notice was first published with a 'rescheduled' delay date, then they published a new one with the correct date before it was officially delayed).
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: cscott on 11/16/2017 03:01 pm
Zuma could be some form of Space Tracking and Surveillance System (SBIRS Low) which demo satellites where built by Northrop Grumman. With what has been happening in North Korea they may of been asked to take some out of storage and launch them, if they had spares.


There are no spares and it would be a military launch
Are you saying that ZUMA is definitely not a military launch?  I'm not sure how one could tell the difference, given the general secrecy, but you're the one on the ground with the inside info.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 11/16/2017 03:16 pm
Zuma could be some form of Space Tracking and Surveillance System (SBIRS Low) which demo satellites where built by Northrop Grumman. With what has been happening in North Korea they may of been asked to take some out of storage and launch them, if they had spares.


There are no spares and it would be a military launch
Are you saying that ZUMA is definitely not a military launch?  I'm not sure how one could tell the difference, given the general secrecy, but you're the one on the ground with the inside info.

Previous statements has said it is not a military launch.  STSS would be one.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 11/16/2017 03:19 pm
Zuma could be some form of Space Tracking and Surveillance System (SBIRS Low) which demo satellites where built by Northrop Grumman. With what has been happening in North Korea they may of been asked to take some out of storage and launch them, if they had spares.


There are no spares and it would be a military launch
Are you saying that ZUMA is definitely not a military launch?  I'm not sure how one could tell the difference, given the general secrecy, but you're the one on the ground with the inside info.

Previous statements has said it is not a military launch.  STSS would be one.

That’s interesting as it’s not often you see a ‘classified’ commercial launch.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: tleski on 11/16/2017 03:29 pm
Zuma could be some form of Space Tracking and Surveillance System (SBIRS Low) which demo satellites where built by Northrop Grumman. With what has been happening in North Korea they may of been asked to take some out of storage and launch them, if they had spares.


There are no spares and it would be a military launch
Are you saying that ZUMA is definitely not a military launch?  I'm not sure how one could tell the difference, given the general secrecy, but you're the one on the ground with the inside info.

Previous statements has said it is not a military launch.  STSS would be one.

That’s interesting as it’s not often you see a ‘classified’ commercial launch.

This is a US government launch, not a commercial one. There were numerous official statements on this. See five posts above yours.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 11/16/2017 03:32 pm
Zuma could be some form of Space Tracking and Surveillance System (SBIRS Low) which demo satellites where built by Northrop Grumman. With what has been happening in North Korea they may of been asked to take some out of storage and launch them, if they had spares.


There are no spares and it would be a military launch
Are you saying that ZUMA is definitely not a military launch?  I'm not sure how one could tell the difference, given the general secrecy, but you're the one on the ground with the inside info.

Previous statements has said it is not a military launch.  STSS would be one.

That’s interesting as it’s not often you see a ‘classified’ commercial launch.

This is a US government launch, not a commercial one. There were numerous official statements on this. See five posts above yours.

Jim just said it’s not a military launch, I can’t think who else government wise other than NASA would be launching satellites.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: shooter6947 on 11/16/2017 03:34 pm

Jim just said it’s not a military launch, I can’t think who else government wise other than NASA would be launching satellites.
NSA. CIA.  NRO.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: deruch on 11/16/2017 03:39 pm
People are conflating multiple issues.  From SpaceX's perspective, this is a commercial launch for Northrup Grumman.  Northrup's client is some part of the US Government.  Just because the payload is classified/secret doesn't mean that for SpaceX it isn't a commercial launch.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Rogerstigers on 11/16/2017 03:58 pm

Jim just said it’s not a military launch, I can’t think who else government wise other than NASA would be launching satellites.
NSA. CIA.  NRO.

They are military entities.

Eh, USINT is not generally considered to be a part of USMIL.   USMIL has its own intelligence community.   They, of course, all work together, in theory.  Given the CIA's history of using shell companies for everything, I would consider them just general government rather than military.

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 11/16/2017 03:59 pm
According to this article it is an NRO payload in spite of denials.

Quote
Although Ars understands the payload is being launched for the National Reconnaissance Office, the mission's press kit offers absolutely no details about the payload. It simply refers to the payload as the "Zuma spacecraft," which is bound for low-Earth orbit. (And indeed, the NRO has denied that Zuma is its satellite).

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/11/spacex-to-launch-a-secret-but-significant-payload-thursday/
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 11/16/2017 04:03 pm
According to this article it is an NRO payload in spite of denials.

Quote
Although Ars understands the payload is being launched for the National Reconnaissance Office, the mission's press kit offers absolutely no details about the payload. It simply refers to the payload as the "Zuma spacecraft," which is bound for low-Earth orbit. (And indeed, the NRO has denied that Zuma is its satellite).

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/11/spacex-to-launch-a-secret-but-significant-payload-thursday/
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Rogerstigers on 11/16/2017 04:03 pm
According to this article it is an NRO payload in spite of denials.

Quote
Although Ars understands the payload is being launched for the National Reconnaissance Office, the mission's press kit offers absolutely no details about the payload. It simply refers to the payload as the "Zuma spacecraft," which is bound for low-Earth orbit. (And indeed, the NRO has denied that Zuma is its satellite).

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/11/spacex-to-launch-a-secret-but-significant-payload-thursday/

So I guess the question is, where did Eric B get that information?  Obviously he has his sources, but inquiring minds and all that...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: envy887 on 11/16/2017 04:05 pm
Well this (http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Nov-2017/0062.html) is interesting.

If you dont click on the link, a launch within the first 15-20 minutes of the window may put it next to USA 276 (aka NROL 76).

The author also emphasizes that this may just be pure coincidence. It will be interesting to see when this bird launches.

OK, had they launched yesterday as originally planned, would it also be close?

(and for the conspiracy theorist in me, remember that the Launch Hazard Area notice was first published with a 'rescheduled' delay date, then they published a new one with the correct date before it was officially delayed).

It could have been in plane if launched at the right time in yesterday's window, but I'm not sure about in phase. The plane only drifts a few minutes per day.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 11/16/2017 04:08 pm

Jim just said it’s not a military launch, I can’t think who else government wise other than NASA would be launching satellites.
NSA. CIA.  NRO.

They are military entities.

Eh, USINT is not generally considered to be a part of USMIL.   USMIL has its own intelligence community.   They, of course, all work together, in theory.  Given the CIA's history of using shell companies for everything, I would consider them just general government rather than military.

I think most of us in the U.S. draw a distinction between the Armed Forces (Military) under DoD and the other agencies under DoD.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Skyrocket on 11/16/2017 04:37 pm
Zuma could be some form of Space Tracking and Surveillance System (SBIRS Low) which demo satellites where built by Northrop Grumman. With what has been happening in North Korea they may of been asked to take some out of storage and launch them, if they had spares.


There are no spares and it would be a military launch

And early warning satellites are usually not that classified. Usually you want your adversary to know, that you have early warning satellites - that is pretty essential for deterrence.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Skyrocket on 11/16/2017 05:06 pm
A day time shot:

Quote
gooooood morning from historic Launch Complex 39A. Just finished setting my remote cameras for tonight's 8PM launch of the mystery #Zuma payload. #SpaceX

https://twitter.com/TrevorMahlmann/status/931201861071368194 (https://twitter.com/TrevorMahlmann/status/931201861071368194)

Interesting - they leave two red working machines (cranes, forklifts or what ever) inside the partially demolished rotating structure during launch.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 11/16/2017 05:15 pm

Jim just said it’s not a military launch, I can’t think who else government wise other than NASA would be launching satellites.
NSA. CIA.  NRO.

They are military entities.

Eh, USINT is not generally considered to be a part of USMIL.   USMIL has its own intelligence community.   They, of course, all work together, in theory.  Given the CIA's history of using shell companies for everything, I would consider them just general government rather than military.

I think most of us in the U.S. draw a distinction between the Armed Forces (Military) under DoD and the other agencies under DoD.

And CIA is not DOD or military
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: NX-0 on 11/16/2017 05:28 pm
A day time shot:

Quote
gooooood morning from historic Launch Complex 39A. Just finished setting my remote cameras for tonight's 8PM launch of the mystery #Zuma payload. #SpaceX

https://twitter.com/TrevorMahlmann/status/931201861071368194 (https://twitter.com/TrevorMahlmann/status/931201861071368194)

Interesting - they leave two red working machines (cranes, forklifts or what ever) inside the partially demolished rotating structure during launch.

These were there for the previous launch, as well.

EDIT: Spellin'
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: AncientU on 11/16/2017 06:02 pm
ARTICLE: SpaceX Falcon 9 readies for launch of clandestine Zuma satellite - https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/11/spacex-falcon-9-launch-clandestine-zuma-satellite/

By Chris Gebhardt - who also took the photos (multi-talented!)

Nice article Chris G. -- one of many!



Notable:
Quote
Due to the U.S. government’s need to launch Zuma before 30 November, SpaceX’s manifest was rearranged to meet the customer’s short-notice launch need – representing a rapid launch response capability for SpaceX that has been greatly aided by the company’s immensely successful reuse of the Falcon 9 first stage booster.

This reuse ability has allowed SpaceX to optimize its launch manifest and has allowed its customers greater flexibility and launch date assurance than would otherwise have been available if the company only relied on brand new Falcon 9s for every flight.
bolds mine

Sound like features for which the USG might be willing to pay a significant amount -- $1B/yr maybe?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 11/16/2017 06:07 pm

Sound like features for which the USG might be willing to pay a significant amount -- $1B/yr maybe?

nope, can't launch most USG spacecraft
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Brian45 on 11/16/2017 06:13 pm
Reported that the flight is delayed until Friday.
https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean/status/931234190070374400
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: AncientU on 11/16/2017 06:18 pm

Sound like features for which the USG might be willing to pay a significant amount -- $1B/yr maybe?

nope, can't launch most USG spacecraft

...yet
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 11/16/2017 06:52 pm

Sound like features for which the USG might be willing to pay a significant amount -- $1B/yr maybe?

nope, can't launch most USG spacecraft

...yet

Nope, never. This capability only applies to single stick vehicles.  SpaceX can't add a FH into the schedule like a F9.

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/16/2017 07:25 pm
I was thinking this morning that there was a possibility for a postponement today - because Musk is unveiling his electric truck at Tesla tonight, and why risk bad PR in case something happens on the Zuma launch...  ;)

Probably not connected, but couldn't resist throwing it out there.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lar on 11/16/2017 07:36 pm
I was thinking this morning that there was a possibility for a postponement today - because Musk is unveiling his electric truck at Tesla tonight, and why risk bad PR in case something happens on the Zuma launch...  ;)

Probably not connected, but couldn't resist throwing it out there.
Dubious. Elon doesn't think that way, IMHO. I think SpaceX is taking this launch VERY seriously. It showcases their capabilities to rapidly respond to need.  Delaying for PR reasons defeats that message badly.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: saliva_sweet on 11/16/2017 07:37 pm
SpaceX can't add a FH into the schedule like a F9.

... yet.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 11/16/2017 07:44 pm
I was thinking this morning that there was a possibility for a postponement today - because Musk is unveiling his electric truck at Tesla tonight, and why risk bad PR in case something happens on the Zuma launch...  ;)

Probably not connected, but couldn't resist throwing it out there.
Dubious. Elon doesn't think that way, IMHO. I think SpaceX is taking this launch VERY seriously. It showcases their capabilities to rapidly respond to need.  Delaying for PR reasons defeats that message badly.

You don’t think he takes Tesla equally seriously?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lar on 11/16/2017 07:48 pm
I was thinking this morning that there was a possibility for a postponement today - because Musk is unveiling his electric truck at Tesla tonight, and why risk bad PR in case something happens on the Zuma launch...  ;)

Probably not connected, but couldn't resist throwing it out there.
Dubious. Elon doesn't think that way, IMHO. I think SpaceX is taking this launch VERY seriously. It showcases their capabilities to rapidly respond to need.  Delaying for PR reasons defeats that message badly.

You don’t think he takes Tesla equally seriously?

I don't think I made my point clearly enough, sorry....

While he certainly takes Tesla seriously (and it has the largest short interest of any stock ever) that's not how things are done. Not how his mind works. Elon doesn't think about PR first. (read the Rolling Stone article, it's pretty good) The long term consequences of delaying (what is probably) a national security launch for PR reasons are likely to be damaging to BOTH companies anyway.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: EspenU on 11/16/2017 08:01 pm
Someone should tell the webcast people about the delay ;-). The webcast is still counting down to launch in 3 hours.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Stefan.Christoff.19 on 11/16/2017 08:04 pm
Looking at the mission patch. There are 6 bright stars on the left of the rocket and on the right the flag is folded in a way that reveals 6 of the state stars. Does that give us any clues? Is there a 5-6 satellite constellation that this could be part of?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: joncz on 11/16/2017 08:09 pm
There are also nine dimmer starts on the left of the patch.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: psionedge on 11/16/2017 08:13 pm
I was thinking this morning that there was a possibility for a postponement today - because Musk is unveiling his electric truck at Tesla tonight, and why risk bad PR in case something happens on the Zuma launch...  ;)

Probably not connected, but couldn't resist throwing it out there.
I would think of this like a slap in the face if I worked at SpaceX.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: mme on 11/16/2017 09:00 pm
I was thinking this morning that there was a possibility for a postponement today - because Musk is unveiling his electric truck at Tesla tonight, and why risk bad PR in case something happens on the Zuma launch...  ;)

Probably not connected, but couldn't resist throwing it out there.
IMHO the last thing the world needs at the moment in history is more conspiracy thinking.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: mrhuggy on 11/16/2017 09:11 pm

Jim just said it’s not a military launch, I can’t think who else government wise other than NASA would be launching satellites.
NSA. CIA.  NRO.

Missile Defence Agency?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jcc on 11/16/2017 10:14 pm
I was thinking this morning that there was a possibility for a postponement today - because Musk is unveiling his electric truck at Tesla tonight, and why risk bad PR in case something happens on the Zuma launch...  ;)

Probably not connected, but couldn't resist throwing it out there.
IMHO the last thing the world needs at the moment in history is more conspiracy thinking.

The delay yesterday was due to the need for more "Mission Assurance" work, which as I understand it is paperwork, documentation, proof of process being followed, etc. This may be more of the same.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/16/2017 10:20 pm
I was thinking this morning that there was a possibility for a postponement today - because Musk is unveiling his electric truck at Tesla tonight, and why risk bad PR in case something happens on the Zuma launch...  ;)

Probably not connected, but couldn't resist throwing it out there.
I would think of this like a slap in the face if I worked at SpaceX.

No doubt.

Rarely do Musk-related events coincide, which is why it came to mind. And I agree with all that SpaceX launch operations would not consider Tesla events to be a factor.

Back to more meaningful discussions I hope...   :o
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: nacnud on 11/16/2017 10:28 pm
SpaceX Statement:

“We have decided to stand down and take a closer look at data from recent fairing testing for another customer. Though we have preserved the range opportunity for tomorrow, we will take the time we need to complete the data review and will then confirm a new launch date.”

Can someone explain this for me? Is there something wrong with the fairing?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: old_sellsword on 11/16/2017 10:30 pm
SpaceX Statement:

“We have decided to stand down and take a closer look at data from recent fairing testing for another customer. Though we have preserved the range opportunity for tomorrow, we will take the time we need to complete the data review and will then confirm a new launch date.”

Can someone explain this for me? Is there something wrong with the fairing?

They were running tests on another customer’s fairing for an upcoming mission, and they were getting data they didn’t expect. They thought this issue might be present in Zuma’s fairing too, so they’re standing down to investigate the issue.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: deruch on 11/16/2017 10:32 pm
A day time shot:

Quote
gooooood morning from historic Launch Complex 39A. Just finished setting my remote cameras for tonight's 8PM launch of the mystery #Zuma payload. #SpaceX

https://twitter.com/TrevorMahlmann/status/931201861071368194 (https://twitter.com/TrevorMahlmann/status/931201861071368194)

Interesting - they leave two red working machines (cranes, forklifts or what ever) inside the partially demolished rotating structure during launch.

JLG boom lifts.  They've been up there a while.  Go look in the Pad 39A - Transition to FH thread in SpaceX General for past pictures where they are visible.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: deruch on 11/16/2017 10:51 pm

Sound like features for which the USG might be willing to pay a significant amount -- $1B/yr maybe?

nope, can't launch most USG spacecraft

...yet

Nope, never. This capability only applies to single stick vehicles.  SpaceX can't add a FH into the schedule like a F9.

SpaceX is using refurbished F9s (of which they have a whole bunch) for the side cores of the demo mission and that may be the plan for all FH missions(?).  So, to me, the limitation actually seems related to FH center core production and not a complication due to "multiple cores" vs. "single stick".  F9s are more or less interchangeable and given the high production throughput on them, it's easy for SpaceX to swap/delay one core or another without much in the way of lasting schedule impact.  But, since production of FH center cores will be much lower--its manifest is much shorter currently--unless SpaceX have stockpiled one in advance, they don't have the ability to play with the launch order without potentially significant schedule impacts.  Of course, this barrier totally disappears if FH starts flying often.  Center core reuse would certainly help reduce the impacts but so long as FH requires a specialized upper stage it will still somewhat limit their flexibility.  In low flight rate operations, long lead items that are FH specific will be the gating item.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Michael Baylor on 11/16/2017 10:52 pm
My guess is that the Iridium-4 fairing is the culprit for this delay. SpaceX specifically stated that it happened during a test for another customer, so that means it is not an issue based on data from a past launch. The next three launches are expected to be CRS-13, Iridium-4, and Falcon Heavy. CRS-13 will not have a fairing and Falcon Heavy is not for a customer. Only other option is that it is for a 2018 launch, but that's a ways in the future.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Rogerstigers on 11/16/2017 11:11 pm
My guess is that the Iridium-4 fairing is the culprit for this delay. SpaceX specifically stated that it happened during a test for another customer, so that means it is not an issue based on data from a past launch. The next three launches are expected to be CRS-13, Iridium-4, and Falcon Heavy. CRS-13 will not have a fairing and Falcon Heavy is not for a customer. Only other option is that it is for a 2018 launch, but that's a ways in the future.

On that same note, it could be related to some sort of fairing v.Next that might have been launching with this mission.  This might explain why it is something just now surfacing. 
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 11/17/2017 07:13 pm
With Zuma still at the pad (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44175.msg1751072#msg1751072) SpaceX presumably hasn’t yet established that there is an issue with the Zuma fairing.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: tvg98 on 11/18/2017 12:19 am
I've heard that the Falcon 9 is no longer at the pad. Can anyone in the area to confirm this?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ZachS09 on 11/18/2017 12:56 am
If they're taking the Falcon 9/Zuma stack off the TEL, why not keep it to the side and continue work on the Falcon Heavy Demo preps?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: IanThePineapple on 11/18/2017 01:00 am
If they're taking the Falcon 9/Zuma stack off the TEL, why not keep it to the side and continue work on the Falcon Heavy Demo preps?

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they do some FH/ RSS removal work during the Zuma stand down, but only if there will clearly be a long delay (4+ days)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: RotoSequence on 11/18/2017 01:02 am
If they're taking the Falcon 9/Zuma stack off the TEL, why not keep it to the side and continue work on the Falcon Heavy Demo preps?

They probably won't do any work that could delay the launch, though. Zuma is contracted to launch by November 30th.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 11/18/2017 01:39 am
If they're taking the Falcon 9/Zuma stack off the TEL, why not keep it to the side and continue work on the Falcon Heavy Demo preps?

there is no side when it comes to an integrated launch vehicle
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ZachS09 on 11/18/2017 03:21 am
If they're taking the Falcon 9/Zuma stack off the TEL, why not keep it to the side and continue work on the Falcon Heavy Demo preps?

there is no side when it comes to an integrated launch vehicle

I meant leave the Zuma stack in the LC-39A hangar, finish Falcon Heavy modifications, then integrate the Falcon Heavy vehicle on the TEL.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Formica on 11/18/2017 04:38 am
If they're taking the Falcon 9/Zuma stack off the TEL, why not keep it to the side and continue work on the Falcon Heavy Demo preps?

there is no side when it comes to an integrated launch vehicle

I meant leave the Zuma stack in the LC-39A hangar, finish Falcon Heavy modifications, then integrate the Falcon Heavy vehicle on the TEL.

I doubt it. Zuma has a hard NLT of 11/30 and FH is non revenue. They wouldn't jeopardize it. FH will slide right to get Zuma off the pad. Bummer for fans, but great for SpaceX demoing rapid launch capabilities!  8)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: old_sellsword on 11/18/2017 05:11 am
If they're taking the Falcon 9/Zuma stack off the TEL, why not keep it to the side and continue work on the Falcon Heavy Demo preps?

there is no side when it comes to an integrated launch vehicle

I meant leave the Zuma stack in the LC-39A hangar, finish Falcon Heavy modifications, then integrate the Falcon Heavy vehicle on the TEL.

I’m pretty sure he understood what you meant, and his reply was stating that integrated launch vehicles (especially ones of this much importance) do not simply “get put to the side,” especially by something like FH-1.

Integrated launch vehicles get all the attention until they’ve safely done their job.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 11/18/2017 06:53 am
So, as I understand it, there is a possibility of a defective batch of fairings? Or is it that SpaceX were trying out a modification for some reason and it has basically not worked out so well?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: smoliarm on 11/18/2017 10:15 am
...
1
 Or is it that SpaceX were trying out a modification for some reason...
2
... and it has basically not worked out so well?

1. - we do know that SpaceX works on payload fairing return for reuse. This effectively means a "yes" for your first question: we do know that there are ongoing modifications to Falcon's fairing - right now, in progress.
And, BTW, I would not expect *batch* right now - most likely these modifications are of "one step at a time" kind, so that each fairing in a row is different. Hopefully the differences are minor.

2. - well, as it was enough to postpone a launch - it is safe to assume it did not work out so well...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: MarekCyzio on 11/18/2017 11:28 am
Assuming SpaceX needs to replace payload fairing - would this require demating the whole payload, returning it to payload processing facility and doing it there? Or it can be done on LC-39A?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Dante2121 on 11/18/2017 11:59 am
Assuming SpaceX needs to replace payload fairing - would this require demating the whole payload, returning it to payload processing facility and doing it there? Or it can be done on LC-39A?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Even if they could do it on 39A - I'd expect them to do it in the payload processing facility to avoid prying eyes on this super secret payload.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 11/18/2017 01:07 pm
Assuming SpaceX needs to replace payload fairing - would this require demating the whole payload, returning it to payload processing facility and doing it there? Or it can be done on LC-39A?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Even if they could do it on 39A - I'd expect them to do it in the payload processing facility to avoid prying eyes on this super secret payload.

There is no payload processing facility at Lc-39
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 11/18/2017 01:10 pm
Assuming SpaceX needs to replace payload fairing - would this require demating the whole payload, returning it to payload processing facility and doing it there? Or it can be done on LC-39A?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Given the nature of the payload a fairing swap will not be done at LC-39A. It requires demate of the payload stack, return to the non-SpaceX payload processing facility to do the fairing swap there. If a fairing swap is in order we are looking at 5 - 10 days delay. That is assuming SpaceX has an unaffected fairing available for the swap.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: shuttlefan on 11/18/2017 01:23 pm
Any possibility of an attempt Sunday?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 11/18/2017 02:26 pm
Any possibility of an attempt Sunday?

No. No NOTAM published, no launch date announced and the F9 back horizontal.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: shuttlefan on 11/18/2017 03:07 pm
Any possibility of an attempt Sunday?

No. No NOTAM published, no launch date announced and the F9 back horizontal.

Thanks.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: rabe0070 on 11/18/2017 03:14 pm
If they're taking the Falcon 9/Zuma stack off the TEL, why not keep it to the side and continue work on the Falcon Heavy Demo preps?

there is no side when it comes to an integrated launch vehicle

I meant leave the Zuma stack in the LC-39A hangar, finish Falcon Heavy modifications, then integrate the Falcon Heavy vehicle on the TEL.

I’m pretty sure he understood what you meant, and his reply was stating that integrated launch vehicles (especially ones of this much importance) do not simply “get put to the side,” especially by something like FH-1.

Integrated launch vehicles get all the attention until they’ve safely done their job.

I think he is saying you cannot take an integrated launch vehicle off of the TEL as that probably gives it the support it needs to be horizontal. You wold have to demate the payload from the stack.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: saliva_sweet on 11/18/2017 03:31 pm
Any possibility of an attempt Sunday?

No. No NOTAM published, no launch date announced and the F9 back horizontal.

Remembering this article:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3277/1

One wonders whether any "coincidences" may end up occurring again.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 11/18/2017 07:15 pm
So, given the requirement of launching before November is out and the nonzero chance the Zuma fairing is suspect as well, what are the odds that SpaceX just does not have another fairing ready? Their fairing production rate is also said to be limited, they really cannot crank them out fast.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Wolfram66 on 11/18/2017 07:30 pm
So, given the requirement of launching before November is out and the nonzero chance the Zuma fairing is suspect as well, what are the odds that SpaceX just does not have another fairing ready? Their fairing production rate is also said to be limited, they really cannot crank them out fast.
The question being, what IS the issue with the fairings? Latches, structural integrity, adapter, insulation?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lar on 11/19/2017 12:53 am
That certainly is an excellent question. We may never know. Or it may come out right away. Waiting is.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Wolfram66 on 11/19/2017 01:21 am
That certainly is an excellent question. We may never know. Or it may come out right away. Waiting is.

Thanks, Yoda! Wise you are!
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: kch on 11/19/2017 02:10 am
That certainly is an excellent question. We may never know. Or it may come out right away. Waiting is.

I grok.  :)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: mn on 11/19/2017 03:48 pm
Any possibility of an attempt Sunday?

No. No NOTAM published, no launch date announced and the F9 back horizontal.

Just out of curiosity is there a mandated minimum required advance notice for NOTAM's?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 11/19/2017 04:38 pm
Any possibility of an attempt Sunday?

No. No NOTAM published, no launch date announced and the F9 back horizontal.

Just out of curiosity is there a mandated minimum required advance notice for NOTAM's?

No, NOTAMs are issued by the FAA and there are no limits on when the NOTAMs can be issued.  When something unexpected comes up, the NOTAM can be issued to take effect immediately, with zero advance notice.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ZachS09 on 11/19/2017 05:15 pm
I'm thinking that if Zuma does not launch by November 30th, the payload might either be sent to the scrapyard, or have its parts reused for other satellites.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lar on 11/19/2017 05:20 pm
I'm thinking that if Zuma does not launch by November 30th, the payload might either be sent to the scrapyard, or have its parts reused for other satellites.
That stirkes me as highly implausible. Why would a very expensive bird be scrapped? Much more likely that SpaceX pays a lot of penalty and gets bad PR. If the mission was actually that time sensitive I could see repurposing.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 11/19/2017 06:28 pm
I'm thinking that if Zuma does not launch by November 30th, the payload might either be sent to the scrapyard, or have its parts reused for other satellites.
That stirkes me as highly implausible. Why would a very expensive bird be scrapped? Much more likely that SpaceX pays a lot of penalty and gets bad PR. If the mission was actually that time sensitive I could see repurposing.

There must be some Space X employees sweating buckets over this payload now.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: mulp on 11/19/2017 06:47 pm
What is the fairing issue? My guess at possible issues:

Like the shuttle, they have notices something breaking loose and falling during launch, not causing problems so far because they safely fall past payload.

They have noticed that the fairing splitting and falling away violates the payload envelope SpaceX contracts to be protected to customer, but all payloads do not intrude into that violated space.

They have discovered the air pressures or turbulence are higher than expected when the fairing splits, or that the pressure drop experienced by the faring is more extreme.

The most likely is, in my view:

They discovered on inspection of another fairing in the production batch a material problem that requires QC check and test by xray etc a portion of the fairing, (steel from  the corporation faking steel quality certifications). SpaceX can check the problem in four hours by looking inside the fairing, and in six hours by replacing the bolts, metal part, etc.

Steps soon far:

Getting a SpaceX QC guy an manufacturing tech security clearance.

Figuring out how to get a customer team trained to do QC and manufacturing steps.

Figuring out how to get the fairing removed so SpaceX can inspect and fix it if required without moving the payload and fairing far away and back.

Maybe they are building a room inside the SpaceX building with hardware to remove fairing and make it available to SpaceX while keeping payload out of sight of SpaceX security cleared workers.

Most likely all the delay is caused by SpaceX workers not being able to see the payload, even at the detail they will see in photos taken from the ground by hobbyist in a few weeks after the launch. Ie, from one end of the assembly building to the other with tarps hung to obstruct view.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: tleski on 11/19/2017 08:47 pm
What is the fairing issue? My guess at possible issues:

Like the shuttle, they have notices something breaking loose and falling during launch, not causing problems so far because they safely fall past payload.

They have noticed that the fairing splitting and falling away violates the payload envelope SpaceX contracts to be protected to customer, but all payloads do not intrude into that violated space.

They have discovered the air pressures or turbulence are higher than expected when the fairing splits, or that the pressure drop experienced by the faring is more extreme.

The most likely is, in my view:

They discovered on inspection of another fairing in the production batch a material problem that requires QC check and test by xray etc a portion of the fairing, (steel from  the corporation faking steel quality certifications). SpaceX can check the problem in four hours by looking inside the fairing, and in six hours by replacing the bolts, metal part, etc.

Steps soon far:

Getting a SpaceX QC guy an manufacturing tech security clearance.

Figuring out how to get a customer team trained to do QC and manufacturing steps.

Figuring out how to get the fairing removed so SpaceX can inspect and fix it if required without moving the payload and fairing far away and back.

Maybe they are building a room inside the SpaceX building with hardware to remove fairing and make it available to SpaceX while keeping payload out of sight of SpaceX security cleared workers.

Most likely all the delay is caused by SpaceX workers not being able to see the payload, even at the detail they will see in photos taken from the ground by hobbyist in a few weeks after the launch. Ie, from one end of the assembly building to the other with tarps hung to obstruct view.

If they need to replace the fairing they will do in an appropriate processing facility. In case of this payload, it will not be done by SpaceX but by a contractor employing people with required security clearances.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: jjyach on 11/19/2017 08:54 pm
SpaceX has cleared encapsulation personnel, they will just travel to the payloads facility to do a change if needed.  Fairing issues are likely a part of the fairing which hopefully just needs to be swapped out if indeed truly a problem.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Newton_V on 11/19/2017 08:56 pm
If they need to replace the fairing they will do in an appropriate processing facility. In case of this payload, it will not be done by SpaceX but by a contractor employing people with required security clearances.

Why wouldn't it be done by SpaceX employees with required security clearances?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: tleski on 11/19/2017 09:21 pm
If they need to replace the fairing they will do in an appropriate processing facility. In case of this payload, it will not be done by SpaceX but by a contractor employing people with required security clearances.

Why wouldn't it be done by SpaceX employees with required security clearances?

Sure, it could be done by SpaceX people with proper clearances. I had an impression that someone reported that SpaceX was not involved in the pre-integration processing of this payload but can't find it anymore. My main point was that there is no way they are going to do a fairing swap in the HIF.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 11/20/2017 12:27 am

Sure, it could be done by SpaceX people with proper clearances. I had an impression that someone reported that SpaceX was not involved in the pre-integration processing of this payload but can't find it anymore. My main point was that there is no way they are going to do a fairing swap in the HIF.

Spacex wouldn't  be involved with pre-integration processing.  Encapsulation is part of the integration process and would only be done by Spacex.  The only time LV personnel are not involved in encapsulation is when the LV does not provide the fairing like in the case of Hexagon
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 11/20/2017 01:50 am
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/HEXAGON_Factory_to_Launch_sequence.png)

edit/gongora:  This picture is for Hexagon if you hadn't guessed already.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: tleski on 11/20/2017 02:55 am

Sure, it could be done by SpaceX people with proper clearances. I had an impression that someone reported that SpaceX was not involved in the pre-integration processing of this payload but can't find it anymore. My main point was that there is no way they are going to do a fairing swap in the HIF.

Spacex wouldn't  be involved with pre-integration processing.  Encapsulation is part of the integration process and would only be done by Spacex.  The only time LV personnel are not involved in encapsulation is when the LV does not provide the fairing like in the case of Hexagon

Thanks for claryfying this. So, SpaceX has to have properly cleared people able to see a highly classified payload to integrate it with the payload adaptor and fairing and if needed they would just move it to their pyload processing facility to do a fairing swap?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 11/20/2017 03:14 am
Thanks for claryfying this. So, SpaceX has to have properly cleared people able to see a highly classified payload to integrate it with the payload adaptor and fairing and if needed they would just move it to their pyload processing facility to do a fairing swap?

They would probably move it to the facility where the payload was processed, which in the case of classified payloads is probably not the SpaceX PPF.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: psionedge on 11/20/2017 05:12 am
I'm thinking that if Zuma does not launch by November 30th, the payload might either be sent to the scrapyard, or have its parts reused for other satellites.
That stirkes me as highly implausible. Why would a very expensive bird be scrapped? Much more likely that SpaceX pays a lot of penalty and gets bad PR. If the mission was actually that time sensitive I could see repurposing.
I'd guess NG is pushing for Nov 30 to meet some contractual delivery date. This is probably what was meant when it was previously discussed the customer was intent on meeting some revenue milestone.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris Bergin on 11/20/2017 11:36 am
I agree. I think most sats have milestones, but if they don't launch by the end of the month, they won't go binning the satellite! ;D They'll just launch in a realigned period. Let's hope it doesn't come to that as Falcon Heavy going to be grumbling about this in the HIF.

Anyway, no update as of yet.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 11/20/2017 11:40 am
If the fairing is swapped, I wonder if SpaceX will go through another hotfire test.  In theory, nothing that has been changed is related to test, but it will have been longer than usual between the hotfire and the launch.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: shuttlefan on 11/20/2017 12:18 pm
Could they switch Zuma to SLC-40 so they can keep 39-A modifications for Falcon Heavy on schedule?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Semmel on 11/20/2017 01:00 pm
Could they switch Zuma to SLC-40 so they can keep 39-A modifications for Falcon Heavy on schedule?

Keeping FH on schedule is not the concern when it comes to launching ZUMA. The only way a swap would make sense was if they could launch it faster from LC40. Given that the pad is not the problem here, I cant see how that would happen though.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: MarekCyzio on 11/20/2017 01:02 pm
If the fairing is swapped, I wonder if SpaceX will go through another hotfire test.  In theory, nothing that has been changed is related to test, but it will have been longer than usual between the hotfire and the launch.

Hotfire is done without payload - why would they need to do another hotfire?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: AndyX on 11/20/2017 01:09 pm
If the fairing is swapped, I wonder if SpaceX will go through another hotfire test.  In theory, nothing that has been changed is related to test, but it will have been longer than usual between the hotfire and the launch.

Hotfire is done without payload - why would they need to do another hotfire?

I think he's speaking about the timeline between test and launch, which is usually a few days. But I don't think they'd need to fire up the booster again unless they did something like change out the engines....
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 11/20/2017 01:16 pm
I'd guess NG is pushing for Nov 30 to meet some contractual delivery date. This is probably what was meant when it was previously discussed the customer was intent on meeting some revenue milestone.
NG financial Quarter/Year end is December 31st...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 11/20/2017 03:11 pm

Sure, it could be done by SpaceX people with proper clearances. I had an impression that someone reported that SpaceX was not involved in the pre-integration processing of this payload but can't find it anymore. My main point was that there is no way they are going to do a fairing swap in the HIF.

Spacex wouldn't  be involved with pre-integration processing.  Encapsulation is part of the integration process and would only be done by Spacex.  The only time LV personnel are not involved in encapsulation is when the LV does not provide the fairing like in the case of Hexagon

Thanks for claryfying this. So, SpaceX has to have properly cleared people able to see a highly classified payload to integrate it with the payload adaptor and fairing and if needed they would just move it to their pyload processing facility to do a fairing swap?

Yes
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: cscott on 11/20/2017 03:27 pm
Occam's razor says that the problem is with delamination or voids in the composite fairing.  That's the most common problem with composite structures.  It would have to be in some place or under some condition that it is not caught by the usual NDE tests done during manufacturing, of course, but there are lots of ways for Murphy to offer surprises.

With the delay lasting this long, I expect that we'll see a fairing swap, or at least a return to the processing facility to de-encapsulate. In fact, I'm a bit surprised this hasn't already happened. The absence of road closure notices around LC-39A is the best reason to assume I'm totally off base with my speculation.

The scramble would be because they don't have another fairing ready to "swap in". Fairings are semi-custom, with customer-specified ports and other features (as I remember Jim pointing out once previously).  So you can't just take a fairing from mission N+1 and swap it in.  They are probably scrambling to evaluate "fixes" to the voids (reinforcement structures? I don't know much about composite manufacturing) as well as a hurry-up process to get a new custom fairing built or a semi-built fairing modified appropriately for Zuma.  But curing composites can't really be sped up, so there's a limit to how fast this can be done.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 11/20/2017 03:41 pm
Are there other examples of launch campaign PLF issues that have delayed launch?

Are there other launches that have been delayed to repair or modify a suspect PLF?

Are there other launches that have been delayed to remove and replace a PLF?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: speedevil on 11/20/2017 03:58 pm
Occam's razor says that the problem is with delamination or voids in the composite fairing.  That's the most common problem with composite structures.  It would have to be in some place or under some condition that it is not caught by the usual NDE tests done during manufacturing, of course, but there are lots of ways for Murphy to offer surprises.

The phrasing used from memory also did not seem to exclude tests on recovered fairing, and the timing might almost be right for a teardown of the most recent recovered fairing to reveal stuff.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: MarekCyzio on 11/20/2017 04:44 pm
Occam's razor says that the problem is with delamination or voids in the composite fairing.  That's the most common problem with composite structures.  It would have to be in some place or under some condition that it is not caught by the usual NDE tests done during manufacturing, of course, but there are lots of ways for Murphy to offer surprises.

The phrasing used from memory also did not seem to exclude tests on recovered fairing, and the timing might almost be right for a teardown of the most recent recovered fairing to reveal stuff.

It’s probably a coincidence but recovered fairing disappeared recently from SpaceX lawn next to Cape Canaveral facility (former Spacehab).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: RDMM2081 on 11/20/2017 05:39 pm
Occam's razor says that the problem is with delamination or voids in the composite fairing.  That's the most common problem with composite structures.  It would have to be in some place or under some condition that it is not caught by the usual NDE tests done during manufacturing, of course, but there are lots of ways for Murphy to offer surprises.

The phrasing used from memory also did not seem to exclude tests on recovered fairing, and the timing might almost be right for a teardown of the most recent recovered fairing to reveal stuff.

I think this case would be extremely interesting as it would be one of the first cases of "overinformation" from any part of a recovery process that has been used to pre-emptively reduce risk for a mission.

If the mission slips, I don't know whether NG should be happy or upset?  On one hand, the window slipped right, which is almost never good, but on the other hand, if the mission assurance indicates better odds of success by waiting, that's kind of a win, since they seem to be in favor of holding for further tests on the fairing (if not the ones requesting the hold in the first place).
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: AbuSimbel on 11/20/2017 06:07 pm
December:
Quote
SpaceX Classified Zuma Launch Delayed Until At Least December
http://aviationweek.com/awinspace/spacex-classified-zuma-launch-delayed-until-least-december
That's really unfortunate for both the costumer's Nov 30 deadline and SpaceX's FH fit checks...
When's the annual maintenance scheduled for?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: the_other_Doug on 11/20/2017 06:56 pm
December:
Quote
SpaceX Classified Zuma Launch Delayed Until At Least December
http://aviationweek.com/awinspace/spacex-classified-zuma-launch-delayed-until-least-december
That's really unfortunate for both the costumer's Nov 30 deadline and SpaceX's FH fit checks...
When's the annual maintenance scheduled for?

Can anyone with subscription access to AvLeak please let us know if the behind-the-paywall article discusses exactly what was found wrong with the F9 fairings, if the fairings have been flying with this weakness for years, or what?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: AbuSimbel on 11/20/2017 07:01 pm
Ok, haven't read the article but found out that the range maintenance period goes from today to Dec 1st. If true then it's possible Aviation Week doesn't actually know anything about the fairings but is just reporting the obvious delay based on the stand down period.

Edit: here's the source https://twitter.com/Free_Space/status/932689217599213568
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: IanThePineapple on 11/20/2017 07:25 pm
So they'll likely work on 39A for FH during this downtime, right?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 11/20/2017 07:31 pm
So they'll likely work on 39A for FH during this downtime, right?

Well, based on what we know and have reported, there really isn't a lot of work that could be done until Zuma is away. 

They still have to cut into the TEL, remove the east-west hold down clamps (which are 100% needed for Falcon 9 single stick missions), they have to install the compression bridges (which, again, can't be installed until Zuma is away as the compression bridge can't be installed until the east-west hold down clamps are removed)...

Basically, not really.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: IanThePineapple on 11/20/2017 07:33 pm
So they'll likely work on 39A for FH during this downtime, right?

Well, based on what we know and have reported, there really isn't a lot of work that could be done until Zuma is away. 

They still have to cut into the TEL, remove the east-west hold down clamps (which are 100% needed for Falcon 9 single stick missions), they have to install the compression bridges (which, again, can't be installed until Zuma is away as the compression bridge can't be installed until the east-west hold down clamps are removed)...

Basically, not really.

So all they can do now is work on the RSS and play the Jeopardy theme until the range is back online?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: AbuSimbel on 11/20/2017 07:39 pm
And even if they resolved the fairing issue by then, how close to CRS-4 could they launch from 39A?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 11/20/2017 07:41 pm
So they'll likely work on 39A for FH during this downtime, right?

Well, based on what we know and have reported, there really isn't a lot of work that could be done until Zuma is away. 

They still have to cut into the TEL, remove the east-west hold down clamps (which are 100% needed for Falcon 9 single stick missions), they have to install the compression bridges (which, again, can't be installed until Zuma is away as the compression bridge can't be installed until the east-west hold down clamps are removed)...

Basically, not really.

So all they can do now is work on the RSS and play the Jeopardy theme until the range is back online?

RSS work, FSS work for crew Dragon mission... those can certainly continue.  As can other pad work.  I'm not saying all FH work stops until Zuma is away; I'm saying that the schedule-driving work is dependent on Zuma's launch as that work can't begin until Zuma is away.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 11/20/2017 07:43 pm
And even if they resolved the fairing issue by then, how close to CRS-4 could they launch from 39A?

Assume you mean CRS-13.

Depending on launch time alignment, the two missions could go - as far as the Eastern Range is concern - no closer than 16hrs from each other.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: e of pi on 11/20/2017 08:10 pm
Worth a post in the update thread.

James Dean at Florida Today reports that Range maintenance down periods have been interrupted before to accommodate launch needs. 

So a hard close of the Range until 1 Dec appears, from a historical perspective, to be negotiable.

http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2017/11/20/spacex-launch-secret-zuma-mission-hold-until-after-thanksgiving/880972001/?hootPostID=197b6f8f7befd7117f8b39925b800a15
As a very authoritative source reported, they did some monkeying with range maintenance schedules for Intelsat 35e this July (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/08/eastern-range-return-two-key-launches-stand-down/), so it wouldn't even be a first time for SpaceX in the last six months.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: AbuSimbel on 11/20/2017 08:12 pm
And even if they resolved the fairing issue by then, how close to CRS-4 could they launch from 39A?

Assume you mean CRS-13.

Depending on launch time alignment, the two missions could go - as far as the Eastern Range is concern - no closer than 16hrs from each other.

Oh thanks, that's much closer than I thought

(Yeah sorry had Iridium-4 in mind  ;D)
 
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: IanThePineapple on 11/20/2017 08:17 pm
And even if they resolved the fairing issue by then, how close to CRS-4 could they launch from 39A?

Assume you mean CRS-13.

Depending on launch time alignment, the two missions could go - as far as the Eastern Range is concern - no closer than 16hrs from each other.

Why does it take so long to switch missions on the Range?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: cppetrie on 11/20/2017 08:22 pm
And even if they resolved the fairing issue by then, how close to CRS-4 could they launch from 39A?

Assume you mean CRS-13.

Depending on launch time alignment, the two missions could go - as far as the Eastern Range is concern - no closer than 16hrs from each other.

Why does it take so long to switch missions on the Range?
That’s less than half what it used to take (2 days IIRC).
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: AncientU on 11/20/2017 08:47 pm
Worth a post in the update thread.

James Dean at Florida Today reports that Range maintenance down periods have been interrupted before to accommodate launch needs. 

So a hard close of the Range until 1 Dec appears, from a historical perspective, to be negotiable.

http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2017/11/20/spacex-launch-secret-zuma-mission-hold-until-after-thanksgiving/880972001/?hootPostID=197b6f8f7befd7117f8b39925b800a15

Also interesting the conjecture that Zuma could have been a launch readiness drill:
Quote
Some have gone as far as to suggest that there really is no Zuma mission — that the pre-launch preparations were an exercise to prove SpaceX's ability to fly on short notice.

SpaceX put a Falcon 9 on the pad at KSC and test-fired its main engines on Nov. 11. The rocket went vertical again before last week's planned launch attempts, but has since returned to its hangar.

Under that scenario, the payload fairing tests SpaceX cited might merely be an excuse to stand down from a launch that was never really going to happen.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: llanitedave on 11/20/2017 08:49 pm
Worth a post in the update thread.

James Dean at Florida Today reports that Range maintenance down periods have been interrupted before to accommodate launch needs. 

So a hard close of the Range until 1 Dec appears, from a historical perspective, to be negotiable.

http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2017/11/20/spacex-launch-secret-zuma-mission-hold-until-after-thanksgiving/880972001/?hootPostID=197b6f8f7befd7117f8b39925b800a15 (http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2017/11/20/spacex-launch-secret-zuma-mission-hold-until-after-thanksgiving/880972001/?hootPostID=197b6f8f7befd7117f8b39925b800a15)

Also interesting the conjecture that Zuma could have been a launch readiness drill:
Quote
Some have gone as far as to suggest that there really is no Zuma mission — that the pre-launch preparations were an exercise to prove SpaceX's ability to fly on short notice.

SpaceX put a Falcon 9 on the pad at KSC and test-fired its main engines on Nov. 11. The rocket went vertical again before last week's planned launch attempts, but has since returned to its hangar.

Under that scenario, the payload fairing tests SpaceX cited might merely be an excuse to stand down from a launch that was never really going to happen.


In other Alex Jones-worthy news, we never landed on the Moon, either.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: AbuSimbel on 11/20/2017 08:57 pm
Worth a post in the update thread.

James Dean at Florida Today reports that Range maintenance down periods have been interrupted before to accommodate launch needs. 

So a hard close of the Range until 1 Dec appears, from a historical perspective, to be negotiable.

http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2017/11/20/spacex-launch-secret-zuma-mission-hold-until-after-thanksgiving/880972001/?hootPostID=197b6f8f7befd7117f8b39925b800a15

Also interesting the conjecture that Zuma could have been a launch readiness drill:
Quote
Some have gone as far as to suggest that there really is no Zuma mission — that the pre-launch preparations were an exercise to prove SpaceX's ability to fly on short notice.

SpaceX put a Falcon 9 on the pad at KSC and test-fired its main engines on Nov. 11. The rocket went vertical again before last week's planned launch attempts, but has since returned to its hangar.

Under that scenario, the payload fairing tests SpaceX cited might merely be an excuse to stand down from a launch that was never really going to happen.


Well, it would give some context to the name Zuma as a homophone (sort of) of Zoom indicating speediness.   But really, that seems a bit of a stretch and highly unlikely.

Not to mention that they would've to put forward another 'excuse' if this mission is never going to happen, as the fairing issue alone wouldn't do it, and as a commercial company I don't think they would release potentially damaging false statements.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: whitelancer64 on 11/20/2017 09:43 pm
And even if they resolved the fairing issue by then, how close to CRS-4 could they launch from 39A?

Assume you mean CRS-13.

Depending on launch time alignment, the two missions could go - as far as the Eastern Range is concern - no closer than 16hrs from each other.

Why does it take so long to switch missions on the Range?

What takes time is the physical relocation of range hardware - e.g., tracking cameras - that is deployed for a launch to a specific launch site, that needs to be moved to the other launch site. Any buildings that need to be opened on the other launch site, and any electrical switches, computers, and so on, have to get opened, turned on, and confirmed to be operating correctly. Also, the people working on the range need to be reset - food, rest, etc.

As cppetrie mentioned, this is much less time than had been required before. The range has been significantly modernized in the past several years and a great deal of effort has been put forward to making operations more efficient and lean.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: envy887 on 11/20/2017 10:29 pm
So they'll likely work on 39A for FH during this downtime, right?

Well, based on what we know and have reported, there really isn't a lot of work that could be done until Zuma is away. 

They still have to cut into the TEL, remove the east-west hold down clamps (which are 100% needed for Falcon 9 single stick missions), they have to install the compression bridges (which, again, can't be installed until Zuma is away as the compression bridge can't be installed until the east-west hold down clamps are removed)...

Basically, not really.
Can't they install the missing South side hold downs?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: psionedge on 11/20/2017 11:05 pm
I'd guess NG is pushing for Nov 30 to meet some contractual delivery date. This is probably what was meant when it was previously discussed the customer was intent on meeting some revenue milestone.
NG financial Quarter/Year end is December 31st...
Only thing that matters is the date on the contract between NG and their customer.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Flying Beaver on 11/21/2017 12:02 am
KSC opened up pad tours today it seems (multiple Instagram posts of the tour route). This would correlate to the payload being off-site (i.e the PPF @ CCAFS) as tours are prohibited if there is a fueled payload on-site at the launch complex.


Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: IanThePineapple on 11/21/2017 12:25 am
KSC opened up pad tours today it seems (multiple Instagram posts of the tour route). This would correlate to the payload being off-site (i.e the PPF @ CCAFS) as tours are prohibited if there is a fueled payload on-site at the launch complex.

Well, they have time to work on it now...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: jjyach on 11/21/2017 02:36 am
So they'll likely work on 39A for FH during this downtime, right?

Well, based on what we know and have reported, there really isn't a lot of work that could be done until Zuma is away. 

They still have to cut into the TEL, remove the east-west hold down clamps (which are 100% needed for Falcon 9 single stick missions), they have to install the compression bridges (which, again, can't be installed until Zuma is away as the compression bridge can't be installed until the east-west hold down clamps are removed)...

Basically, not really.
Can't they install the missing South side hold downs?

They will not be doing anything to the Reaction Frame or TEL while the booster is still attached.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: envy887 on 11/21/2017 02:47 am
So they'll likely work on 39A for FH during this downtime, right?

Well, based on what we know and have reported, there really isn't a lot of work that could be done until Zuma is away. 

They still have to cut into the TEL, remove the east-west hold down clamps (which are 100% needed for Falcon 9 single stick missions), they have to install the compression bridges (which, again, can't be installed until Zuma is away as the compression bridge can't be installed until the east-west hold down clamps are removed)...

Basically, not really.
Can't they install the missing South side hold downs?

They will not be doing anything to the Reaction Frame or TEL while the booster is still attached.

It's back in the barn, could be demated already.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: georgegassaway on 11/21/2017 03:05 am
Looks like no Zuma launch until December:

http://aviationweek.com/awinspace/spacex-classified-zuma-launch-delayed-until-least-december

Have to be a subscriber to read the whole thing, I'm not. 

A tweet by Irene Klotz , referencing the above, indicates the range will be down  for maintenance Dec 1st (and presumably a few days after).

Quote
#SpaceX Zuma off range at least until it reopens after annual maintenance Dec 1

https://twitter.com/Free_Space/status/932689217599213568
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: su27k on 11/21/2017 04:34 am
Worth a post in the update thread.

James Dean at Florida Today reports that Range maintenance down periods have been interrupted before to accommodate launch needs. 

So a hard close of the Range until 1 Dec appears, from a historical perspective, to be negotiable.

http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2017/11/20/spacex-launch-secret-zuma-mission-hold-until-after-thanksgiving/880972001/?hootPostID=197b6f8f7befd7117f8b39925b800a15 (http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2017/11/20/spacex-launch-secret-zuma-mission-hold-until-after-thanksgiving/880972001/?hootPostID=197b6f8f7befd7117f8b39925b800a15)

Also interesting the conjecture that Zuma could have been a launch readiness drill:
Quote
Some have gone as far as to suggest that there really is no Zuma mission — that the pre-launch preparations were an exercise to prove SpaceX's ability to fly on short notice.

SpaceX put a Falcon 9 on the pad at KSC and test-fired its main engines on Nov. 11. The rocket went vertical again before last week's planned launch attempts, but has since returned to its hangar.

Under that scenario, the payload fairing tests SpaceX cited might merely be an excuse to stand down from a launch that was never really going to happen.


In other Alex Jones-worthy news, we never landed on the Moon, either.

James Dean seems to be a respectable space journalist, I assume he wouldn't report something like this without some credible sources.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: CuddlyRocket on 11/21/2017 04:37 am
Also interesting the conjecture that Zuma could have been a launch readiness drill:
Quote
Some have gone as far as to suggest that there really is no Zuma mission — that the pre-launch preparations were an exercise to prove SpaceX's ability to fly on short notice.

SpaceX put a Falcon 9 on the pad at KSC and test-fired its main engines on Nov. 11. The rocket went vertical again before last week's planned launch attempts, but has since returned to its hangar.

Under that scenario, the payload fairing tests SpaceX cited might merely be an excuse to stand down from a launch that was never really going to happen.

Well, it would give some context to the name Zuma as a homophone (sort of) of Zoom indicating speediness.   But really, that seems a bit of a stretch and highly unlikely.

Not to mention that they would've to put forward another 'excuse' if this mission is never going to happen, as the fairing issue alone wouldn't do it, and as a commercial company I don't think they would release potentially damaging false statements.

There could be an actual payload; it's not ready to launch yet, but in the meantime the ultimate customer is prepared to pay to test SpaceX's ability to launch at short notice (you wouldn't want to test this on an actual time-critical mission - what if it failed?). In this scenario, the launcher will return to the integration facility where the current dummy payload will be removed and the real payload installed. Why invent a 'reason' for this scenario? It obfuscates the date that the payload has to be launched on, which makes it harder for third parties to divine its purpose!

As for any false statement by SpaceX being commercially damaging, I think that would be limited ('there was some unusual data ultimately deriving from the - classified - requirements that came with this particular payload, but we've double-checked and everything's fine'). And you have to set that against any commercial advantage from keeping this particular customer happy!

Though it's actually more likely they've found something and are being cautious! :)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: deruch on 11/21/2017 07:15 am
Worth a post in the update thread.

James Dean at Florida Today reports that Range maintenance down periods have been interrupted before to accommodate launch needs. 

So a hard close of the Range until 1 Dec appears, from a historical perspective, to be negotiable.

http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2017/11/20/spacex-launch-secret-zuma-mission-hold-until-after-thanksgiving/880972001/?hootPostID=197b6f8f7befd7117f8b39925b800a15
As a very authoritative source reported, they did some monkeying with range maintenance schedules for Intelsat 35e this July (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/08/eastern-range-return-two-key-launches-stand-down/), so it wouldn't even be a first time for SpaceX in the last six months.

Probably a bit annoying to the range to have SpaceX twice request such schedule adjustments in the same year, both times also overlapping major US holidays (July 4th and Thanksgiving).  That said, assuming that the ZUMA launch date was in fact considered high priority by the US gov. then I'm sure such an adjustment would certainly be possible.  The USAF knows how to get the mission done. 
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: jpo234 on 11/21/2017 12:15 pm
Looks like no Zuma launch until December:

http://aviationweek.com/awinspace/spacex-classified-zuma-launch-delayed-until-least-december

Have to be a subscriber to read the whole thing, I'm not. 

A tweet by Irene Klotz , referencing the above, indicates the range will be down  for maintenance Dec 1st (and presumably a few days after).

Quote
#SpaceX Zuma off range at least until it reopens after annual maintenance Dec 1

https://twitter.com/Free_Space/status/932689217599213568

This tweet is confusing. Does the annual maintenance start Dec 1st and SpaceX has to wait until after this (e.g. later in December) or does the annual maintenance end Dec 1st and SpaceX has to wait until then?

The fact that CRS-13 is scheduled to launch on Dec 4th seems to imply, that the range reopens on Dec 1st...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 11/21/2017 12:43 pm
Looks like no Zuma launch until December:

http://aviationweek.com/awinspace/spacex-classified-zuma-launch-delayed-until-least-december

Have to be a subscriber to read the whole thing, I'm not. 

A tweet by Irene Klotz , referencing the above, indicates the range will be down  for maintenance Dec 1st (and presumably a few days after).

Quote
#SpaceX Zuma off range at least until it reopens after annual maintenance Dec 1

https://twitter.com/Free_Space/status/932689217599213568

This tweet is confusing. Does the annual maintenance start Dec 1st and SpaceX has to wait until after this (e.g. later in December) or does the annual maintenance end Dec 1st and SpaceX has to wait until then?

The fact that CRS-13 is scheduled to launch on Dec 4th seems to imply, that the range reopens on Dec 1st...

It means the Range is currently closed for maintenance and will reopen - under a normal schedule - on 1 December.  However, as James Dean reported, these closure are not set in stone, and the Range can be reopened during a down period for a launch if needed.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: yokem55 on 11/21/2017 02:00 pm
Looks like no Zuma launch until December:

http://aviationweek.com/awinspace/spacex-classified-zuma-launch-delayed-until-least-december

Have to be a subscriber to read the whole thing, I'm not. 

A tweet by Irene Klotz , referencing the above, indicates the range will be down  for maintenance Dec 1st (and presumably a few days after).

Quote
#SpaceX Zuma off range at least until it reopens after annual maintenance Dec 1

https://twitter.com/Free_Space/status/932689217599213568

This tweet is confusing. Does the annual maintenance start Dec 1st and SpaceX has to wait until after this (e.g. later in December) or does the annual maintenance end Dec 1st and SpaceX has to wait until then?

The fact that CRS-13 is scheduled to launch on Dec 4th seems to imply, that the range reopens on Dec 1st...

It means the Range is currently closed for maintenance and will reopen - under a normal schedule - on 1 December.  However, as James Dean reported, these closure are not set in stone, and the Range can be reopened during a down period for a launch if needed.
In previous years, the range maintenance was around Christmas and new years. I wonder if the maintenance schedule was bumped up due to the issue so as to keep it open later in the year?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: jpo234 on 11/21/2017 02:11 pm
It means the Range is currently closed for maintenance and will reopen - under a normal schedule - on 1 December.  However, as James Dean reported, these closure are not set in stone, and the Range can be reopened during a down period for a launch if needed.
In previous years, the range maintenance was around Christmas and new years. I wonder if the maintenance schedule was bumped up due to the issue so as to keep it open later in the year?

Unlikely, I think. CRS-13 and FH have been planned for December quite some time now.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 11/21/2017 05:10 pm
It means the Range is currently closed for maintenance and will reopen - under a normal schedule - on 1 December.  However, as James Dean reported, these closure are not set in stone, and the Range can be reopened during a down period for a launch if needed.
In previous years, the range maintenance was around Christmas and new years. I wonder if the maintenance schedule was bumped up due to the issue so as to keep it open later in the year?

Unlikely, I think. CRS-13 and FH have been planned for December quite some time now.

Also, the sheer logistics of advancing a major down period like this by over a month with only a day or two's notice is completely impractical.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: jjyach on 11/21/2017 06:28 pm
It means the Range is currently closed for maintenance and will reopen - under a normal schedule - on 1 December.  However, as James Dean reported, these closure are not set in stone, and the Range can be reopened during a down period for a launch if needed.
In previous years, the range maintenance was around Christmas and new years. I wonder if the maintenance schedule was bumped up due to the issue so as to keep it open later in the year?

Unlikely, I think. CRS-13 and FH have been planned for December quite some time now.

Also, the sheer logistics of advancing a major down period like this by over a month with only a day or two's notice is completely impractical.

Chris is correct, the range was scheduled to be down this week through 12/1 well in advance of the planned launch.  SX knew this hence why they left the booster upright incase it was something they could launch with and not press the window start.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: mn on 11/21/2017 11:03 pm
From update thread

Worth a post in the update thread.

James Dean at Florida Today reports that Range maintenance down periods have been interrupted before to accommodate launch needs. 

So a hard close of the Range until 1 Dec appears, from a historical perspective, to be negotiable.

http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2017/11/20/spacex-launch-secret-zuma-mission-hold-until-after-thanksgiving/880972001/?hootPostID=197b6f8f7befd7117f8b39925b800a15

Update to this.  Below is a response from the 45th Squadron of the Air Force per my inquiry about the Range closure.

"Hi Chris,

Yes, our annual Eastern Capitalization Period began yesterday 20 Nov and will run through 1 Dec.

As an aside, the article referenced is inaccurate in that launches supported by the 45th Space Wing are at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, not Kennedy Space Center - which is NASA."

It would appear - if I'm reading that right - that the Range closure would not affect any missions going from LC-39A.

That doesn't sound right, the 45th Space wing most definitely issued Launch Hazard Area maps and such for 39A.

Edit: add quote from http://www.patrick.af.mil/Portals/14/documents/8-23%20Priorities%20Commitments%20Booklet.pdf?ver=2017-08-23-174650-240#page=3

Quote
and neighboring Kennedy Space Center (which relies heavily upon us for range support)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Michael Baylor on 11/21/2017 11:45 pm
I am certain the Eastern Range supports KSC. Either the person worded something wrong or they are very confused.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ChrisC on 11/22/2017 03:48 am
Often when there's confusing information like this, it's because there's an underlying conflict.  Turf battle?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: AbuSimbel on 11/22/2017 06:42 pm
Big news, 1043 is off the TEL.

FH mods continuing.

https://twitter.com/Delta_IV_Heavy/status/933405458051862528
As if Zuma wasn't an odd mission already...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ZachS09 on 11/22/2017 06:44 pm
Now the question is whether Zuma was just a fictitious mission or not.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Michael Baylor on 11/22/2017 06:49 pm
I am confident that there is a payload. If it was a bluff, they would have blamed the payload for the delay. SpaceX will have to explain the fairing problem to all of its customers. How would they tell them they there isn't actually an issue?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: pb2000 on 11/22/2017 07:14 pm
Now the question is whether Zuma was just a fictitious mission or not.
To what end?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 11/22/2017 07:32 pm
Now the question is whether Zuma was just a fictitious mission or not.
To what end?

Rapid Response test for the military
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 11/22/2017 08:44 pm
Now the question is whether Zuma was just a fictitious mission or not.
To what end?

Rapid Response test for the military
And throw their credibility in the trash can while doing it?  Elon might be a bit odd, but he is not that crazy.

Edit: fixed typo.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: vanoord on 11/22/2017 09:19 pm
Big news, 1043 is off the TEL.

FH mods continuing.

https://twitter.com/Delta_IV_Heavy/status/933405458051862528
As if Zuma wasn't an odd mission already...

I don't see mods to the TEL being incompatible with the delay, ie it will be capable of launching F9 as well as FH, so using a week of downtime to continue work doesn't have any implications as to the nature of 'Zuma'.

It simply makes sense from a logistical point of view.

It might also be interesting to know whether the TEL is designed to hold a core stage for extended durations anyway, ie whether removal would be standard practice or not.

No obvious reason that 'Zuma' can't still launch from 39A in early December, other than if the ground crew are going to be working at 39A and 40 so can't conduct two launches within a couple of days.

Shall we gamble on something like a 48 to 72 hour turnaround between 'Zuma' and CRS-13?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: cppetrie on 11/22/2017 09:26 pm
Much of the FH prep have been small incremental steps that could be completed between launches, but one of the few remaining tasks is a 2-week cut and weld operation. Starting that step is a guaranteed several week delay while they complete the prep then remate the Zuma stack on the TEL and roll back out. I think the general consensus is that they will not begin that final step until after Zuma is away unless it becomes so far delayed that it could move to 40 after CRS-13. Otherwise FH waits for Zuma.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: pb2000 on 11/22/2017 10:11 pm
Now the question is whether Zuma was just a fictitious mission or not.
To what end?

Rapid Response test for the military

SpaceX is stamping out new boosters every month; if a critical military satellite failed, the limiting factor would be preparation of a ground spare, not the F9 (it would be a safe bet that the US military can pull rank on the manifest).
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: cscott on 11/23/2017 01:04 am
I think this means that (a) a new fairing is required (ie, both this fairing and the future fairing for the other mission were found to have unrepairable defects), and (b) the bottleneck to rapid response (in this case) is fairing production, not stage production.

I wonder if the item transported from 39A is the other FH compression bridge, going to the load testing facility.  The payload went a while ago (we hear) and it doesn't make sense for the core to leave the 39A hanger.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: cppetrie on 11/23/2017 01:10 am
It may not mean a new fairing is required just yet. It may simply mean that de-encapsulation is required to inspect the fairing to make that determination.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: cscott on 11/23/2017 03:34 am
It may not mean a new fairing is required just yet. It may simply mean that de-encapsulation is required to inspect the fairing to make that determination.
To be clear, I believe that the removal of the F9 from the TEL means that they expect the wait to be long => a new fairing is required.

The payload went to the de-encapsulation facility a few days ago. If they thought that all that was needed was a quick look inside and then back to the pad, the F9 would still be keeping the TEL warm waiting for it.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Elthiryel on 11/23/2017 08:36 am
I think there is also a possibility that the range maintenance actually affects KSC (this is still unclear to me), so they have to wait until December even if the fairing issue is fixed by now. It would mean they have about a week now to do some TEL modifications and they don't want to waste that time.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: MarekCyzio on 11/23/2017 11:52 am
Will Zuma require another static test since it was removed from TEL?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jarnis on 11/23/2017 12:49 pm
Will Zuma require another static test since it was removed from TEL?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not by default. No clue what criteria would be used to decide if it needed one.

If they move it to SLC-40, that might be a factor.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: CorvusCorax on 11/25/2017 01:40 pm
Will Zuma require another static test since it was removed from TEL?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not by default. No clue what criteria would be used to decide if it needed one.

If they move it to SLC-40, that might be a factor.

Well a static fire is effectively a wet dress rehearsal + ignition sequence and hot engine test.

The engines are tested fine, so technically they don't need to fire them. If it was the first launch from the freshly repaired pad, it would have made sense to still do it to dress rehearse the pad systems, including ignition to rule out GSE issues with the TEA-TEB system.

But if the dragon launch launches first, all hat stuff is already checked out. They could go straight to launch then, without another hot fire or even WDR

On the other hand there's no such thing as too many tests ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 11/25/2017 02:54 pm
On the other hand there's no such thing as too many tests ;)


Actually - in fact, OF COURSE - there's such a thing as too many tests, especially of systems that involve high-energy combustion, pressurization events, and cryogenic fluids. See, e.g., AMOS-6.

Tests cause wear and tear; they reveal latent defects (e.g., quality control problems in materials, assembly and/or operations). Tests create data that needs to be reviewed, analyzed, and evaluated. That involves work for the test team and quality assurance team. So test as often as you must and then stop. Mature organizations know where that point is. Presumably, by this point, SpaceX is such an organization.

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 11/26/2017 02:05 pm


On the other hand there's no such thing as too many tests ;)


Actually - in fact, OF COURSE - there's such a thing as too many tests, especially of systems that involve high-energy combustion, pressurization events, and cryogenic fluids. See, e.g., AMOS-6.

Tests cause wear and tear; they reveal latent defects (e.g., quality control problems in materials, assembly and/or operations). Tests create data that needs to be reviewed, analyzed, and evaluated. That involves work for the test team and quality assurance team. So test as often as you must and then stop. Mature organizations know where that point is. Presumably, by this point, SpaceX is such an organization.

Not in a reusable system.

AMOS-6 is a terrible example.  What's your alternative, that it would fail during launch?  Or on its next flight?

Irrespective of the "payload during static fire", a reusable rocket should be able to be tested with impunity.

The extra work to perform the test is, again, a different issue. The original concern was risk.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: FinalFrontier on 11/26/2017 02:08 pm
Don't know if its been talked about officially yet but I am thinking its becoming very unlikely we see FH fly this year.

Any idea what the NET date is for Zuma or if there even is one yet?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: FinalFrontier on 11/26/2017 02:09 pm
Now the question is whether Zuma was just a fictitious mission or not.
There is a real payload.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 11/26/2017 02:53 pm
Don't know if its been talked about officially yet but I am thinking its becoming very unlikely we see FH fly this year.

Any idea what the NET date is for Zuma or if there even is one yet?

If there was a NET date to report, we would. ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 11/26/2017 03:37 pm

Not in a reusable system.

AMOS-6 is a terrible example.  What's your alternative, that it would fail during launch?  Or on its next flight?

Irrespective of the "payload during static fire", a reusable rocket should be able to be tested with impunity.

The extra work to perform the test is, again, a different issue. The original concern was risk.

Wrong, it is a perfect example, since there is no fully reusable system.


Irrespective of the "payload during static fire", a reusable rocket should be able to be tested with impunity.


Not true either.  Not until reusable rockets are actually like aircraft which will not apply to Falcon 9.  F9 still won't be  tested with impunity, it will have limited life items.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 11/26/2017 04:11 pm

Not in a reusable system.

AMOS-6 is a terrible example.  What's your alternative, that it would fail during launch?  Or on its next flight?

Irrespective of the "payload during static fire", a reusable rocket should be able to be tested with impunity.

The extra work to perform the test is, again, a different issue. The original concern was risk.

Wrong, it is a perfect example, since there is no fully reusable system.


Irrespective of the "payload during static fire", a reusable rocket should be able to be tested with impunity.


Not true either.  Not until reusable rockets are actually like aircraft which will not apply to Falcon 9.  F9 still won't be  tested with impunity, it will have limited life items.
F9 is not airplane like, but AMOS-6 is still a terrible example.

If it weren't for the payload decision, the test would have unmasked the design flaw before the actual flight - exactly as intended.

If anything, AMOS-6 fully demonstrated the value of a "test as you fly" static fire, since the design flaw caused the explosion of the He tank only under very specific circumstances.

So since they're going to a new barely-tested pad, I wouldn't be surprised if they do a static fire again.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: envy887 on 11/26/2017 08:20 pm
If it weren't for the payload decision, the test would have unmasked the design flaw before the actual flight - exactly as intended.
The static fire is not intended to uncover design flaws, that is done by qualification tests.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 11/26/2017 08:26 pm
If it weren't for the payload decision, the test would have unmasked the design flaw before the actual flight - exactly as intended.
The static fire is not intended to uncover design flaws, that is done by qualification tests.
Clearly not all flaws are discovered at qual, that should be obvious.

The static fire is an "all up" closest-thing-to-a-real-launch test, intended to be a catch-all.

Otherwise, what's the point.

With AMOS-6, the static fire caught a biggie. Regrettably, AMOS was on top... But the lesson is that if you change things (e.g. new pad) then a static fire is a good idea.

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: kevinstout on 11/27/2017 09:11 am
It seems that people tend to append the word test to static fire, when it should really be rehearsal.  like a wet dress rehearsal. 

its really not a test.  its practice.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: jacqmans on 11/27/2017 12:02 pm
And now back to the ZUMA mission, what this topic should be.....
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: deruch on 11/28/2017 09:14 pm
FAA Zuma launch license attached. It’s dated Nov 9, but I think has only been posted on the FAA’s website this week.

I didn't expect them to release the license, but interestingly, even though they did it doesn't list the flight azimuth from KSC like licenses usually do.  I assume this is due to the classified nature of the payload.  But if that's the case, why publicly release the license at all?  They didn't for the NROL-76 mission which was also a commercial launch (for Ball who was delivering to NRO on orbit) just like this one (Northrup delivering on orbit to an unidentified USG customer).  And, with the eventually published NOTAM and NOTMAR restrictions we'll have a decent idea of the launch azimuth anyway.  Seems a weird way to do things.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 11/28/2017 09:32 pm
FAA Zuma launch license attached. It’s dated Nov 9, but I think has only been posted on the FAA’s website this week.

If Zuma had launched on time we probably never would have seen an active link to this license on the FAA site.  I don't know if that's really their intent or just incompetent web design.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 11/28/2017 09:58 pm
FAA Zuma launch license attached. It’s dated Nov 9, but I think has only been posted on the FAA’s website this week.

If Zuma had launched on time we probably never would have seen an active link to this license on the FAA site.  I don't know if that's really their intent or just incompetent web design.

I've followed commercial launch licenses for certain types of payloads for over 10 years now. Some licenses seem to be granted well in advance, others just in the nick of time. Some are published several weeks before a launch, some seem to just never show up until a search a few years later when I run across them looking for something else. *shrug* I think it's just a combination of bad government IT policies, lackadaisical implementation of those policies and ever-tighter funding.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 11/29/2017 01:16 am
Is the liability insurance requirement mostly dependent on the launch azimuth, or RTLS?  The liability insurance requirement for the Zuma flight is the same as CRS missions and NROL-76, $160M.  The GTO launches are much lower ($30M typical, $68M on BulgariaSat for some reason).
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: deruch on 11/29/2017 01:41 am
Is the liability insurance requirement mostly dependent on the launch azimuth, or RTLS?  The liability insurance requirement for the Zuma flight is the same as CRS missions and NROL-76, $160M.  The GTO launches are much lower ($30M typical, $68M on BulgariaSat for some reason).

RTLS definitely has increased requirements.  I think there are differences based on where they are launching from.  I think the baseline limits for launches from KSC are higher than those from CCAFS.  I assume this is based on an evaluation of surrounding property, etc.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: vanoord on 11/29/2017 06:20 am
I wonder if the decision to push FH back to January - after a December static fire - increases the possibility of launching Zuma at the end of December?

A bit of a hassle if Zuma is going from 39A as FH would have to be de-stacked though.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: fast on 11/29/2017 11:02 am
I think this means that (a) a new fairing is required (ie, both this fairing and the future fairing for the other mission were found to have unrepairable defects), and (b) the bottleneck to rapid response (in this case) is fairing production, not stage production.


What if its not a fairing problem but payload? It is just strange that Iridium is not affected...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Shanuson on 11/29/2017 11:25 am
If the Fairing issue itself is minor but can only be corrected at the factory -> easy fix for iridium IV since faring was still at the factory -> therefore no delay to that mission.
But the Zuma faring would need to be shipped back to the factory with all that entails (demate, decapsulation, repair, encapsulation, remate) -> at least a few weeks delay.

Also you can not just swap to an other fairing since they are custom made with certain payload specific openings. At least this was stated earlier in this thread. (Can someone with knowledge confirm this part)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 11/29/2017 11:47 am
After all, fairings are not LEGOs you know...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 11/29/2017 12:34 pm
If the Fairing issue itself is minor but can only be corrected at the factory -> easy fix for iridium IV since faring was still at the factory -> therefore no delay to that mission.
But the Zuma faring would need to be shipped back to the factory with all that entails (demate, decapsulation, repair, encapsulation, remate) -> at least a few weeks delay.

Also you can not just swap to an other fairing since they are custom made with certain payload specific openings. At least this was stated earlier in this thread. (Can someone with knowledge confirm this part)

I remember that statement being posted in this thread earlier on.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Norm38 on 11/29/2017 12:58 pm
Also you can not just swap to an other fairing since they are custom made with certain payload specific openings. At least this was stated earlier in this thread. (Can someone with knowledge confirm this part)

That makes fairing reuse a lot more problematic doesn't it?  If they're payload specific?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: nacnud on 11/29/2017 01:16 pm
I guess it will become another trade down the line, use standard fairing for $$ or a custom one for $$$. Eventually this could be incorporated into spacecraft design from the outset. At the moment there is probably not enough demand for a standard as every fairing is custom.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: envy887 on 11/29/2017 01:16 pm
Also you can not just swap to an other fairing since they are custom made with certain payload specific openings. At least this was stated earlier in this thread. (Can someone with knowledge confirm this part)

That makes fairing reuse a lot more problematic doesn't it?  If they're payload specific?

Not for repeat payloads like satellite constellations. And it is probably cheaper and faster to recover and modify a fairing than to discard it and build a new one from scratch.

Recovery and reuse is a whole different operation then trying to swap fairing between payloads on a few days notice.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: intrepidpursuit on 11/29/2017 05:08 pm
I believe it has been said on these forums that SpaceX does try to use a standard fairing and pushes back when clients want custom openings. That was one of the issues cited with doing government payloads. The Falcon 9 users manual from 2015 has this statement:
Quote
The fairing can accommodate up to two access doors in the cylindrical portion as a standard service. The
standard payload fairing door is elliptical, with a maximum size of 450 x 550 mm (17.7 x 21.7 in.).

To me that is unclear if that means there are two available openings of that size or if you can make your own openings according to those parameters. It is also an old manual so things could have changed.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: deruch on 11/29/2017 05:54 pm
I think this means that (a) a new fairing is required (ie, both this fairing and the future fairing for the other mission were found to have unrepairable defects), and (b) the bottleneck to rapid response (in this case) is fairing production, not stage production.


What if its not a fairing problem but payload? It is just strange that Iridium is not affected...

Could, for example, be that the issue is a material defect and the Iridium fairing (or part(s)) came from a different lot/batch that was unaffected.  Or they were able to test the Iridium fairing more easily because that payload hadn't been encapsulated yet.  Or the Zuma fairing was different from the Iridium one in some way that made it an item of concern.  Or it is an investigation/analysis that SpaceX thinks they can close out in very short order but not before the end of November and since Zuma wasn't going to be able to launch before their primary deadline a longer delay was irrelevant.  Etc. 

Regardless, why are people so insistent on trying to fabricate convoluted, contrary explications for something (apparently) very straightforward?  SpaceX said they delayed the launch because they found a problem with 1 of their fairings and needed to investigate.  Why, suddenly, is everyone building "conspiracies" where that's not what actually happened?  First the "Zuma wasn't a real payload" thing and now this.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Brian45 on 11/29/2017 10:37 pm
I suspect that the lack of information on what the issue was with the fairing is causing people to speculate, sometime wildly. SpaceX is under no compulsion to reveal what the problem was, which is too bad, but hey, they're not government but a private enterprise and they can do what they want. I hope that someday the problem they encountered will be revealed, but until then, we're all in the dark.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: dorkmo on 11/30/2017 12:52 am
Werent they sorta inbetween fairing recovery designs? I think itd be fair to speculate a design change caused an issue.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: IntoTheVoid on 12/01/2017 08:17 pm
Quote from: Chris Gebhardt
In another coincidence, NASA is currently scheduled to be the first and last SpaceX launch from the East Coast this year
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/12/slc-40-comes-back-with-crs-13-static-fire/


Strongly implies no expectation of getting this thing launched in Dec.
Given that they seem to be prepping 39A for FH, I was holding out some small hope that maybe this would go from Pad-40 after CRS-13. Seems not.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: rockets4life97 on 12/02/2017 12:10 am
Quote from: Chris Gebhardt
In another coincidence, NASA is currently scheduled to be the first and last SpaceX launch from the East Coast this year
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/12/slc-40-comes-back-with-crs-13-static-fire/


Strongly implies no expectation of getting this thing launched in Dec.
Given that they seem to be prepping 39A for FH, I was holding out some small hope that maybe this would go from Pad-40 after CRS-13. Seems not.

I think there is probably a general lack of information about Zuma. We probably won't hear about it launching until a week or less in advance is my guess.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: noogie on 12/02/2017 11:15 pm
Let's assume worse case scenario - that a new fairing needs to be manufactured.
How long will that take and to have the payload encapsulated into it?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: deruch on 12/03/2017 02:50 am
Let's assume worse case scenario - that a new fairing needs to be manufactured.
How long will that take and to have the payload encapsulated into it?

Without any idea of what the problem is it's hard to accurately guesstimate.  Have they found the cause and what is the solution to avoid the issue in subsequent fairings? 

Don't forget that since they missed the Nov. 30th launch deadline, there may be no rush to launch this payload anymore.  Given its nature we don't have much insight.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: crandles57 on 12/06/2017 01:07 pm
http://www.launchphotography.com/Delta_4_Atlas_5_Falcon_9_Launch_Viewing.html
has Jan 4th likely 8pm EST

https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/
also has Jan 4th time TBD

Is that Jan 4th EST so that it is likely 5th 01:00 UTC?

Or might it be 01:00 UTC on the 4th?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: shuttlefan on 12/06/2017 01:19 pm
http://www.launchphotography.com/Delta_4_Atlas_5_Falcon_9_Launch_Viewing.html
has Jan 4th likely 8pm EST

https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/
also has Jan 4th time TBD

Is that Jan 4th EST so that it is likely 5th 01:00 UTC?

Or might it be 01:00 UTC on the 4th?

They also show it going from SLC-40.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: cppetrie on 12/06/2017 08:20 pm
A launch on the 4th would seem to suggest that the fairing issue was a fix-it type of issue as opposed to a replace-it type of issue, yes? Could they have built a new set of fairings and shipped them across the country in about a month’s time? Im thinking they just needed to de-encapsulate in order to either test for the suspected problem or find it and fix it. Could more knowledgeable folks confirm or deny that line of thought?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kansan52 on 12/06/2017 08:56 pm
Or the discovered the problem didn't affect Zuma's fairing.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Formica on 12/06/2017 11:55 pm
Strongly implies no expectation of getting this thing launched in Dec.
Given that they seem to be prepping 39A for FH, I was holding out some small hope that maybe this would go from Pad-40 after CRS-13. Seems not.

I think there is probably a general lack of information about Zuma. We probably won't hear about it launching until a week or less in advance is my guess.

As noted in the CRS-13 thread, we now know that Zuma will launch from SLC-40 in "early January". I am a bit surprised - but certainly pleased! - with the turnaround speed. Also demonstrates confidence in SLC-40 going forward, and bodes well for Heavy.

https://twitter.com/spacex/status/938510889484828673
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 12/16/2017 12:48 pm
So not sure which mission this is, but someone took a picture of a Falcon core on transporter at the LC-39A HIF yesterday. Looks like the stage 2 is still integrated?

https://www.instagram.com/p/BcuyZ9Ags4e/
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: CorvusCorax on 12/16/2017 01:14 pm
So not sure which mission this is, but someone took a picture of a Falcon core on transporter at the LC-39A HIF yesterday. Looks like the stage 2 is still integrated?

https://www.instagram.com/p/BcuyZ9Ags4e/

I wonder, is this the first time we ever see a complete F9 (without payload or fairing)  including 2nd stage, horizontal on anything BUT a transporter erector. If I remember right, people even speculated that they can't even be lifted off the TE without demating. Looks like they indeed can be moved around stacked together :)

This looks like a brand new core, so either the FH center core went out for a spin, or much more likely, they are bringing the Zuma launcher over to pad 40 to have 39A clear for FH


Any idea where it went after thos pic? If it headed for CCAFS I'd bet its Zuma's ride
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: SmallKing on 12/16/2017 01:16 pm
Apparently zuma
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: yokem55 on 12/16/2017 06:07 pm
So not sure which mission this is, but someone took a picture of a Falcon core on transporter at the LC-39A HIF yesterday. Looks like the stage 2 is still integrated?

https://www.instagram.com/p/BcuyZ9Ags4e/

I wonder, is this the first time we ever see a complete F9 (without payload or fairing)  including 2nd stage, horizontal on anything BUT a transporter erector. If I remember right, people even speculated that they can't even be lifted off the TE without demating. Looks like they indeed can be moved around stacked together :)

This looks like a brand new core, so either the FH center core went out for a spin, or much more likely, they are bringing the Zuma launcher over to pad 40 to have 39A clear for FH


Any idea where it went after thos pic? If it headed for CCAFS I'd bet its Zuma's ride
I'm surprised they transported it integrated like that. I would have thought that the unsupported weight of the upper stage would have put too much strain on the interstage.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Norm38 on 12/16/2017 06:59 pm
The interstage has to handle lateral flight loads on a fueled upper stage and the payload fairing. I'm not surprised it can support an empty stage.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: douglas100 on 12/16/2017 07:34 pm
Also, it takes the weight of the first stage when it's being handled by crane at Port Canaveral, LZ-1 and McGregor.

The F9 stages are integrated on the hangar floor before being raised by crane. Then the integrated vehicle is lowered on to the TEL and the various connections are made. The Zuma vehicle would be removed from the TEL and lowered on to the transporter in the reverse process.

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 12/20/2017 08:16 pm
Strongly implies no expectation of getting this thing launched in Dec.
Given that they seem to be prepping 39A for FH, I was holding out some small hope that maybe this would go from Pad-40 after CRS-13. Seems not.

I think there is probably a general lack of information about Zuma. We probably won't hear about it launching until a week or less in advance is my guess.

As noted in the CRS-13 thread, we now know that Zuma will launch from SLC-40 in "early January". I am a bit surprised - but certainly pleased! - with the turnaround speed. Also demonstrates confidence in SLC-40 going forward, and bodes well for Heavy.

https://twitter.com/spacex/status/938510889484828673
From the NSF Calendar:

January 5th - Events: Zuma - Falcon 9 - KSC LC39A 01:00 UT

Perhaps someone should check this for accuracy: MODS or Chris Bergin...

Would be a nice Birthday Present though - Thursday January 4th 8:00 PM EST :D 
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 12/21/2017 05:09 am
From the NSF Calendar:

January 5th - Events: Zuma - Falcon 9 - KSC LC39A 01:00 UT

Perhaps someone should check this for accuracy: MODS or Chris Bergin...

Would be a nice Birthday Present though - Thursday January 4th 8:00 PM EST :D 

01:00 UTC is the same launch time given in the press kit for the 17 November attempt.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 12/29/2017 01:15 pm
The NSF calendar (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=calendar;year=2018;month=1) still lists Zuma as launching from LC39A.  Is there a better thread to report this?

Fixed.  I think when people get around to editing the calendar they're mostly looking at the dates  :)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 12/29/2017 03:14 pm
From the NSF Calendar:

January 5th - Events: Zuma - Falcon 9 - KSC LC39A 01:00 UT

Perhaps someone should check this for accuracy: MODS or Chris Bergin...

Would be a nice Birthday Present though - Thursday January 4th 8:00 PM EST :D 

01:00 UTC is the same launch time given in the press kit for the 17 November attempt.

Where will the ISS orbit be at that time?
IIRC, the 17 Nov launch time was close to the north-east bound ISS pass, which lead to some speculation.
Just askin'

And really, no news since 12/20 for a launch supposedly in a week?  I know we are all fascinated by Heavy but....
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: cscott on 12/29/2017 03:29 pm
There is a small bit of information/confirmation in L2.  But Zuma has always been quite a quiet mission, I'm not surprised there's not a public hullabaloo.  And I'd expect official pictures of FH to come out from SpaceX PR sometime soon, and Zuma would be a distraction from that planned New Year's Party. IMO no Zuma news until the official FH press release party has run it's course.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: king1999 on 01/02/2018 02:23 am
No more static fire needed for moving to another pad?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lar on 01/02/2018 02:27 am
No more static fire needed for moving to another pad?
I am surprised by that... seems like it would be a good idea.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ZachS09 on 01/02/2018 02:36 am
Maybe the static fire happened in secrecy and no press was available at Canaveral at that time.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: old_sellsword on 01/02/2018 02:41 am
Maybe the static fire happened in secrecy and no press was available at Canaveral at that time.

No, we would’ve seen it on the Eastern Range’s schedule.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 01/02/2018 02:44 am
No more static fire needed for moving to another pad?
I am surprised by that... seems like it would be a good idea.
I am too.

I assume that a 2nd static fire would have occurred by today? to allow a the LRR that would follow to occur with sufficient time before a launch on the evening of January 4, EST.

And you can't have a static fire without a base safety notice or a notice of the use of the range.  And that content is apparently, not secret.

So, I don't think one can have a "secret" static fire, at least not at CCAFS (or KSC, for that matter).

I deduce that SpaceX and NG (and NG's client) are sufficiently confident in the LV to forego a static fire and proceed directly to the launch.

(I'm not an expert, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express!)

EDIT 1/2 re possible 2nd "something" for ZUMA, after all: Well, I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express!
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 01/02/2018 11:16 am
No more static fire needed for moving to another pad?
I am surprised by that... seems like it would be a good idea.

And that would be why exactly?

Static fire is about testing the vehicle. It is not about testing the pad. Falcon 9 rockets are not custom-built for a specific launchpad.

And LC-40 had its testing done prior to and during the static fire of CRS-13 and its subsequent launch.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 01/02/2018 11:31 am
No more static fire needed for moving to another pad?
I am surprised by that... seems like it would be a good idea.

And that would be why exactly?

Static fire is about testing the vehicle. It is not about testing the pad. Falcon 9 rockets are not custom-built for a specific launchpad.

And LC-40 had its testing done prior to and during the static fire of CRS-13 and its subsequent launch.

Although the static fire itself may test the vehicle, the WDR that is part of the static fire tests the pad facilities and the vehicle to pad interfaces.  SpaceX must be pretty confident of their ground processes at this point if they don't see a need to do a test after moving the vehicle between pads and a different TE.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 01/02/2018 11:50 am
No more static fire needed for moving to another pad?
I am surprised by that... seems like it would be a good idea.

And that would be why exactly?

Static fire is about testing the vehicle. It is not about testing the pad. Falcon 9 rockets are not custom-built for a specific launchpad.

And LC-40 had its testing done prior to and during the static fire of CRS-13 and its subsequent launch.

Although the static fire itself may test the vehicle, the WDR that is part of the static fire tests the pad facilities and the vehicle to pad interfaces.  SpaceX must be pretty confident of their ground processes at this point if they don't see a need to do a test after moving the vehicle between pads and a different TE.

Please read what I posted earlier: Falcon 9 vehicles are not custom-built for a specific launchpad.
Although the TEL from LC-39A is outwardly dissimilar to the one on LC-40, they are functionally the same: both support the vehicle in an identical manner. Both TEL's provide identical pad-to-vehicle interfaces.
And although launchpad LC-39A as-a-whole looks outwardly very different from LC-40 as-a-whole they are functionally identical: both can launch the same Falcon 9 vehicle.

So, again: no need for a second static fire unless there was an issue with the Falcon 9 vehicle itself.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 01/02/2018 03:31 pm
The point of "fit checks" is to fit all vehicles to all launchers, not a vehicle to a launcher.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 01/02/2018 05:14 pm
The point of "fit checks" is to fit all vehicles to all launchers, not a vehicle to a launcher.
Correct. And LC-40 already has had its "fit checks".
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 01/02/2018 05:55 pm
The point of "fit checks" is to fit all vehicles to all launchers, not a vehicle to a launcher.
Correct. And LC-40 already has had its "fit checks".
Sorry but your statement that the static fire is to test the complex not the booster, and that since LC-40 has had a successful operational launch since reactivation there is no need to do a static fire for Zuma doesn’t follow axiomatically. Otherwise SpaceX would not still routinely do static fires at each complex before each mission. After all, how many launches came off each pad this past year and for how many of those was the static fire skipped, regardless of how recent the prior launch occurred?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: RocketLover0119 on 01/02/2018 06:21 pm
Chris B states on the update thread that a 2nd SF is coming up potentially.....
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 01/02/2018 06:34 pm
Static fire is about testing the vehicle. It is not about testing the pad.

Maybe not once they have a well-oiled pad running. However, their history shows them hitting various snags with new/upgraded pads due to their idiosyncrasies, with the GSE (pad or test site) in some severe cases causing hardware damage.

I'm not the least bit surprised they opted for another full dress rehearsal for such an important mission.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 01/02/2018 06:40 pm
Chris B states on the update thread that a 2nd SF is coming up potentially.....

"Potential second static fire" is the post in the update thread.

With no payload, all signs point toward that.  But this could be a WDR with no engine firing.  Or it could be fit checks for SLC-40 -- as it's only hosted one launch since being rebuilt and they could want to do part of a normal static fire flow with this booster to test connections and everything without actually static firing it again.  Or it could be a static fire.  We don't know yet.

We've never had a booster static fire on one pad and then move to another pad.  This all a new part of the puzzle that is launching a Falcon 9.

EDIT: Remember, the entire static fire process of getting the vehicle connected to the pad, fueling it, and lighting the engines DOESN'T JUST TEST the rocket but all the pad systems, too.  So while the booster might not NEED another static fire, they might still need to do some of these routine static fire elements to satisfy pre-mission pad readiness.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 01/03/2018 06:45 am
Chris B states on the update thread that a 2nd SF is coming up potentially.....

"Potential second static fire" is the post in the update thread.

With no payload, all signs point toward that.  But this could be a WDR with no engine firing.  Or it could be fit checks for SLC-40 -- as it's only hosted one launch since being rebuilt and they could want to do part of a normal static fire flow with this booster to test connections and everything without actually static firing it again.  Or it could be a static fire.  We don't know yet.

We've never had a booster static fire on one pad and then move to another pad.  This all a new part of the puzzle that is launching a Falcon 9.

EDIT: Remember, the entire static fire process of getting the vehicle connected to the pad, fueling it, and lighting the engines DOESN'T JUST TEST the rocket but all the pad systems, too.  So while the booster might not NEED another static fire, they might still need to do some of these routine static fire elements to satisfy pre-mission pad readiness.

Let me put it this way: If SpaceX were actually planning to perform a second static fire for Zuma, it would be on the range schedule.

Have you checked the range schedule?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: paolozamparutti on 01/03/2018 12:18 pm
strong jet stream over florida, basically is the condition that is bringing exceptionally cold weather in some parts of the United States. I think this is what made the launch slip by 24 hours

(http://www.wetterzentrale.de/maps/GFSOPNA06_48_22.png)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: RocketLover0119 on 01/03/2018 12:43 pm
The fact that the supposed second SF has not occurred yet would mean this was simply a fit check, and a SF requires range booking, and SpaceX had not yet done that.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: kdhilliard on 01/03/2018 01:25 pm
Does a full Wet Dress Rehearsal not require the same level of roadblocks needed for a Static Fire?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: abaddon on 01/03/2018 01:43 pm
Does a full Wet Dress Rehearsal not require the same level of roadblocks needed for a Static Fire?
A good question, since the AMOS conflagration could easily have happened during a WDR...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: RocketLover0119 on 01/03/2018 01:57 pm
Per twitter, spacex confirms a WDR was complete and that all is on track for launch friday-

https://mobile.twitter.com/SpaceX/status/948554978163007488
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 01/03/2018 02:23 pm
I was wondering about the WDR safety issue as well. I would think that it would require much of the same safety requirements as a static fire.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 01/03/2018 04:46 pm
WDR does not require the range. Does require pad safety issues. WDR does prove the vehicle interfaces / GSE change.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: abaddon on 01/03/2018 04:55 pm
I fail to see much difference between a WDR and a static fire, unless you presume that the hold-down clamps might accidentally be released.  As much as Hollywood might love that idea, it seems like a vanishingly small probability to me.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 01/03/2018 05:07 pm
There's clearly more paranoia/concern with this payload. First with the fairing, and now with the pad/GSE switch.

Perhaps someone constantly is bringing up "what could go wrong?". And SX answers with "well, we could do X", so X gets done ...

This one's been a bit different.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: whitelancer64 on 01/03/2018 05:16 pm
A full WDR would do the exact same things as a static fire except light the engines.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: wannamoonbase on 01/03/2018 05:26 pm
There's clearly more paranoia/concern with this payload. First with the fairing, and now with the pad/GSE switch.

Perhaps someone constantly is bringing up "what could go wrong?". And SX answers with "well, we could do X", so X gets done ...

This one's been a bit different.

I wonder if they get paid extra to doing 'X'?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: pb2000 on 01/03/2018 05:33 pm
I would hazard a guess that they only loaded a fraction of the propellant and just did leak and systems check. There's a lot that can go wrong between McGregor and the Cape, but not a lot between the barns.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 01/03/2018 06:08 pm
A full WDR would do the exact same things as a static fire except light the engines.

And that is in fact a MAJOR difference.

A WDR doesn't require the services of the range. In this case the WDR was a propellant loading test. IMO it is a safe guess that SpaceX only partially loaded the vehicle and didn't even bother pressurizing the tanks to flight pressure.

A Static Fire does require the range because a static fire is considered to be a potential launch, coming with all the hazards that are associated with an actual launch, such as having a fully fueled and fully pressurized vehicle.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Formica on 01/03/2018 06:10 pm
I've given Chris Gebhardt's previous Zuma article a big update based on latest status, etc. And also to revamp it into the new NSF news site style (all images changed, etc.)

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/01/spacex-falcon-9-launch-clandestine-zuma-satellite/

Great update to a great article, Chris G and Chris B  :) Once again, NSF's articles are clear, well written, detail oriented for the space nerds, and accessible to the casual reader. Bravo.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: RocketLover0119 on 01/03/2018 06:36 pm
This may mean nothing but why hasn't the L-2 forecast been released yet?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: jpo234 on 01/03/2018 06:51 pm
This may mean nothing but why hasn't the L-2 forecast been released yet?
Just appeared in the update thread.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: smndk on 01/03/2018 08:28 pm
Could the detection of particles in the second stage fuel system of CRS-13 have anything to do with the need of a WDR?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: speedevil on 01/03/2018 11:07 pm
I wonder if they get paid extra to doing 'X'?

They already get paid a lot more typically for doing government launches.
The customer having more options to make them screw with the rocket and say what they're not happy with is likely one of the reasons for this.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 01/03/2018 11:33 pm
I wonder if they get paid extra to doing 'X'?

They already get paid a lot more typically for doing government launches.
The customer having more options to make them screw with the rocket and say what they're not happy with could is likely one of the reasons for this.
Ironically, for wanting to do a low-profile launch, they've drawn increasing amounts of scrutiny by every one of this moves.

It's almost as if someone is trying to constantly find flaw to make things more difficult and annoying for the customer's customer here. Which doesn't make much sense.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 01/03/2018 11:36 pm
There's clearly more paranoia/concern with this payload. First with the fairing, and now with the pad/GSE switch.

Perhaps someone constantly is bringing up "what could go wrong?". And SX answers with "well, we could do X", so X gets done ...

This one's been a bit different.
I would not recommend doing X...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: su27k on 01/04/2018 03:59 am
There's clearly more paranoia/concern with this payload. First with the fairing, and now with the pad/GSE switch.

Perhaps someone constantly is bringing up "what could go wrong?". And SX answers with "well, we could do X", so X gets done ...

This one's been a bit different.

I wonder if they get paid extra to doing 'X'?

I think this is just SpaceX/Elon running at maximum paranoid mode. From the reddit source: https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/7dgvlz/spacex_launch_of_secretive_zuma_mission_from_ksc/dpy98qs/

Quote
Not only does Elon say it, he also emails the entire company. My friends on the inside mentioned that he sent an email about this launch stating that it was the most valuable satellite they have launched to date. Any misgivings or inklings of issues, then to call or email him directly and he would get teams on it to verify.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: speedevil on 01/04/2018 04:49 am
Not only does Elon say it, he also emails the entire company. My friends on the inside mentioned that he sent an email about this launch stating that it was the most valuable satellite they have launched to date.

Assuming he is talking about dollar value of a particular satellite launch - which is admittedly only one interpretation - what would this be?
X-37B came to mind, but this does not as far as I'm aware have a published number.

I guess alternatives would be if he's referring to requiring this to get further air force / ... work.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44184.msg1747406#msg1747406 - for example the still-to-be-awarded contract for the air force batch of 5 launches.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: TorenAltair on 01/04/2018 07:07 am
The range (http://www.patrick.af.mil/) went back to "TBD" from yesterday's "Jan 5". It was TBD the day before.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Pete on 01/04/2018 08:20 am
Considering the level of secrecy surrounding this launch,
I guess we should be happy to know *anything*.
If they could have managed it, I bet they would have done a complete access shutdown and only informed us after the fact that a launch has occurred.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 01/04/2018 11:18 am
Just out of interest, how easy would it be to make a launch attempt initially look like a WDR or static fire? The only difference would be that the payload is attached to the stack. Would it be plausible to hide that?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: RocketLover0119 on 01/04/2018 11:45 am
As far as I'm concerned, they have not yet updated that, the L-2 forecast was released yesterday so......

EDIT: well, Chris B states Friday is off and another WDR may be occurring right now....

The range (http://www.patrick.af.mil/) went back to "TBD" from yesterday's "Jan 5". It was TBD the day before.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 01/04/2018 11:57 am
Just out of interest, how easy would it be to make a launch attempt initially look like a WDR or static fire? The only difference would be that the payload is attached to the stack. Would it be plausible to hide that?
No, not plausible. Too many entities involved to pull off such a stunt. Besides, the only thing that really needs to be kept secret is the payload. The orbit will be independently determined soon enough after launch.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 01/04/2018 02:07 pm
Just out of interest, how easy would it be to make a launch attempt initially look like a WDR or static fire? The only difference would be that the payload is attached to the stack. Would it be plausible to hide that?
No, not plausible. Too many entities involved to pull off such a stunt. Besides, the only thing that really needs to be kept secret is the payload. The orbit will be independently determined soon enough after launch.
Maybe I missed it, but I thought they where still not 100% certain they have independently found OTV-5.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: envy887 on 01/04/2018 02:45 pm
Just out of interest, how easy would it be to make a launch attempt initially look like a WDR or static fire? The only difference would be that the payload is attached to the stack. Would it be plausible to hide that?

A launch needs range support (WDR doesn't) and NOTAMs (neither WDR nor static fire do). So a launch attempt would be public.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 01/04/2018 03:01 pm
Just out of interest, how easy would it be to make a launch attempt initially look like a WDR or static fire? The only difference would be that the payload is attached to the stack. Would it be plausible to hide that?

A launch needs range support (WDR doesn't) and NOTAMs (neither WDR nor static fire do). So a launch attempt would be public.

Exactly.  It's kind of necessary to warn the air and maritime community of restricted zones.  And those have to be public.  Shooting a rocket off into busy air- and sea-space (Port Canaveral) is not gonna happen.  Also, we have published launch dates and media invited to cover this.  So the question is really moot.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: LouScheffer on 01/04/2018 03:19 pm
Everyone seems to assume that the Zuma mission was in the works for a while, but kept secret until 30 days before launch. Example:  SpaceX adds mystery “Zuma” mission, Iridium-4 aims for Vandenberg landing (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/10/spacex-zuma-iridium-4-aims-vandenberg-landing/)

But what if the mission did not even exist before then?  Suppose some government branch wanted the ability to launch on short notice - pick up the phone, say "I've got a payload here and I want it launched within 30 days".  I see no reason this could not be done technically - the agency would need to provide a satellite built and ready to go, analysis such as coupled loads would need to be pre-done, some sort of retainer would need to go the launch provider to reserve the ability to jump the queue, and so on.  All seem solvable by applying money, and national security implications, to the problem.

This report by the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board of the National Academy of Sciences in 2010,  Review and Assessment of Reusable Booster System for USAF Space Command (https://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/depssite/documents/webpage/deps_080718.pdf) looked at cost, responsiveness, and reliability.

Two of their findings are (RBS = Reusable Booster System, bold is mine):

 (3) Reusability remains a potential option for achieving full spectrum launch capabilities at reduced cost with important launch flexibility to enable significant new capabilities

 (4) To significantly impact USAF operations, RBS must be more responsive than current systems, but no responsiveness requirement has been identified

Their very first recommendation is:  "USAF should establish specific launch responsiveness objectives to drive associated technology development".   

Launch with 30 days notice sure sounds like a responsiveness objective to me.  And if such a requirement exists, ZUMA looks like exactly what we would expect to see.  Coinicidence?  You decide...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 01/04/2018 04:07 pm
The Northrop Grumman mission was on the SpaceX manifest for a while, we just didn't know it was called Zuma or when it would launch.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: RocketLover0119 on 01/04/2018 05:51 pm
this may mean nothing, but the new L-2 forecast hasnt been released yet, and on the 45th SW weather page it says, ''no current launch forecasts''  ???
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: satwatcher on 01/04/2018 07:50 pm
Maybe I missed it, but I thought they where still not 100% certain they have independently found OTV-5.
The ~50 deg inclination of ZUMA will have much favorable visiblity to the amateur satellite trackers than the ~40 deg inclination of OTV-5.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: IanThePineapple on 01/04/2018 08:14 pm
Maybe I missed it, but I thought they where still not 100% certain they have independently found OTV-5.
The ~50 deg inclination of ZUMA will have much favorable visiblity to the amateur satellite trackers than the ~40 deg inclination of OTV-5.

If the Zuma-running agency even wanted to work with the OTV, they'd need some serious plane changes. Kind of puts that idea to rest
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 01/04/2018 09:12 pm
Some truly bizarre rumours doing the rounds online about this payload. Not worthy of being repeated on this forum.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: IanThePineapple on 01/04/2018 09:13 pm
Some truly bizarre rumours doing the rounds online about this payload. Not worthy of being repeated on this forum.

Oh my gosh, yes.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 01/04/2018 09:15 pm
Some truly bizarre rumours doing the rounds online about this payload. Not worthy of being repeated on this forum.

Oh my gosh, yes.

You’ve seen them then, even You Tube videos with 200K+ views.

I am putting it down partly to Space X phenomenally high public profile and partly the classified nature of the payload.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: RocketLover0119 on 01/04/2018 09:18 pm
Chris B on update thread says the  launch is net saturday, but may slip to sunday.......... seems like zuma doesn't want to fly.....
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: LouScheffer on 01/04/2018 11:15 pm
Speculation about this being a "responsive" launch...

The Northrop Grumman mission was on the SpaceX manifest for a while, we just didn't know it was called Zuma or when it would launch.

I don't think this is a contradiction.  For the first responsive launch, they would probably tell SpaceX to build a booster for a payload to be named later.   Then once SpaceX says the booster is ready, Grumman would say that at some future time they will give them a call, tell them about the payload, and the 30 day clock starts ticking.  This would provide a good test of whether they could integrate and launch an unknown payload in 30 days.

This would explain why SpaceX knew there was a Grumman launch, but not when or the payload name.   That would be by design.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 01/05/2018 06:45 am
I understand that high-level winds were the cause of some of the recent Zuma delays. What about cold weather? I don’t recall seeing any info previously about whether there’s a minimum temperature needed to be able to launch?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Ictogan on 01/05/2018 07:35 am
Speculation about this being a "responsive" launch...

The Northrop Grumman mission was on the SpaceX manifest for a while, we just didn't know it was called Zuma or when it would launch.

I don't think this is a contradiction.  For the first responsive launch, they would probably tell SpaceX to build a booster for a payload to be named later.   Then once SpaceX says the booster is ready, Grumman would say that at some future time they will give them a call, tell them about the payload, and the 30 day clock starts ticking.  This would provide a good test of whether they could integrate and launch an unknown payload in 30 days.

This would explain why SpaceX knew there was a Grumman launch, but not when or the payload name.   That would be by design.
If that were the case, would there be any reason to keep it a secret? Why not say publicly that you are testing SX's ability to launch on short notice?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Pete on 01/05/2018 08:29 am
Chris B on update thread says the  launch is net saturday, but may slip to sunday.......... seems like zuma doesn't want to fly.....

The Zuma launch really counts!
launch date is: Nov 15,erm 16, erm 17,
jan 4,erm 5, erm 6,erm 7

I understand that delays can and will happen, but this steady cadence of one-day-at-a-time-delay is quite soporific.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: dnavas on 01/05/2018 01:59 pm
jan 4,erm 5, erm 6,erm 7

I understand that delays can and will happen, but this steady cadence of one-day-at-a-time-delay is quite soporific.

Same thing we do every day, Pinky -- wake up two days from a Zuma launch.
Ah well, can't do anything about the weather.  At least I'm not waking up to a day forecast to remain below 0F!

Is it back in the barn yet, or are they still running tests?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ZachS09 on 01/05/2018 02:20 pm
It's still on the launch pad at the present time.

Don't know when it'll go back into the HIF for payload mating.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 01/05/2018 03:03 pm
It will be ~46 deg F tonight at 8 PM EST at the Cape.
~50 tomorrow and ~60 Sunday
SpaceX may be waiting for the weather to warm up.
Sounds odd, to be honest, but could that be a contributor?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: e of pi on 01/05/2018 03:29 pm
It will be ~46 deg F tonight at 8 PM EST at the Cape.
~50 tomorrow and ~60 Sunday
SpaceX may be waiting for the weather to warm up.
Sounds odd, to be honest, but could that be a contributor?
I don't know if it's so much the absolute temperature as the winds created by the shear masses of air moving around with the disruption that's yanking the jet stream down and creating this cold snap, and the implications for upper level winds during launch. There may be some desire to see how the new LC-40 hardware and the Falcon 9 system are effected in pad ops by the cold in a safer environment than trying to launch through it, though--it's a bit of a unique opportunity to look for any unanticipated breakpoints for the future, but I know I'd rather they wait a few days and find GSE faults in a WDR than in a failed launch.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: toruonu on 01/06/2018 05:04 pm
On a. Rief glance I didn’t find the launch window for tomorrow’s launch
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 01/06/2018 05:15 pm
On a. Rief glance I didn’t find the launch window for tomorrow’s launch

8-10pm EST (UTC-5).  The top post in the thread shows the start of the launch window.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Elthiryel on 01/06/2018 08:25 pm
The new press kit has been released (available in the updates thread). I've decided to look for differences between the old and the new press kit and this is what I've found:

1. The old one stated that "SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket will deliver the Zuma spacecraft to low-Earth orbit.". The new one says that "SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket will deliver the Zuma spacecraft to orbit". So LEO removed.
2. Falcon 9 description is a bit more detailed, and there is a statement that "Falcon 9 is the first orbital class rocket capable of reflight." and that "SpaceX believes rocket reusability is the key breakthrough needed to reduce the cost of access to space and enable people to live on other planets."
3. Several events are offset by a few seconds!

Old timeline:
Quote
00:01:10 Max Q (moment of peak mechanical stress on the rocket)
00:02:16 1st stage main engine cutoff (MECO)
00:02:19 1st and 2nd stages separate
00:02:21 2nd stage engine starts
00:02:30 1st stage boostback burn begins
00:03:08 Fairing deployment
00:06:09 1st stage entry burn begins
00:07:51 1st stage landing

New timeline:
Quote
00:01:16 Max Q (moment of peak mechanical stress on the rocket)
00:02:20 1st stage main engine cutoff (MECO)
00:02:24 1st and 2nd stages separate
00:02:25 2nd stage engine starts
00:02:33 1st stage boostback burn begins
00:03:08 Fairing deployment
00:06:15 1st stage entry burn begins
00:07:56 1st stage landing
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ZachS09 on 01/06/2018 08:37 pm
Could these time differences indicate that Falcon 9 will fly a more flattened trajectory?

I ask that because the new MECO time is four seconds later than the original time (140 seconds compared to 136 seconds).
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 01/06/2018 09:16 pm
Everyone seems to assume that the Zuma mission was in the works for a while, but kept secret until 30 days before launch. Example:  SpaceX adds mystery “Zuma” mission, Iridium-4 aims for Vandenberg landing (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/10/spacex-zuma-iridium-4-aims-vandenberg-landing/)

But what if the mission did not even exist before then?


Except that our article clearly says Zuma's launch contract was established in 2015.    ;) https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/01/spacex-falcon-9-launch-clandestine-zuma-satellite/
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 01/06/2018 09:19 pm
Could these time differences indicate that Falcon 9 will fly a more flattened trajectory?

I ask that because the new MECO time is four seconds later than the original time (140 seconds compared to 136 seconds).

The adjusted times could be trajectory related or related to month of year of launch.  Winter months produce a thicker lower atmosphere and thus the rocket has to work harder to get through it.  Shuttle compensated for this by having "winter SRBs" that had their prop poured in a configuration to produce greater thrust but shorter burn time.  As Flacon 9 is a liquid rocket, a longer burn time for a winter month launch mission would make sense.  And given the atmospheric setup over Florida of the last week, this might be the case.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: cppetrie on 01/06/2018 09:31 pm
Could these time differences indicate that Falcon 9 will fly a more flattened trajectory?

I ask that because the new MECO time is four seconds later than the original time (140 seconds compared to 136 seconds).

The adjusted times could be trajectory related or related to month of year of launch.  Winter months produce a thicker lower atmosphere and thus the rocket has to work harder to get through it.  Shuttle compensated for this by having "winter SRBs" that had their prop poured in a configuration to produce greater thrust but shorter burn time.  As Flacon 9 is a liquid rocket, a longer burn time for a winter month launch mission would make sense.  And given the atmospheric setup over Florida of the last week, this might be the case.
Very interesting factoid. Thanks for that! I’d never considered the effect of season and its associated atmospheric density changes as a factor. Certainly makes logical sense. This would be a rare instance where a payload was close enough to launching that a press kit was issued and then delayed long enough that seasonal atmospheric changes would effect the timeline seen in a revised press kit. All of that is accentuated by the unusually cold weather currently at the Cape.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Raul on 01/06/2018 10:17 pm
M1390 Zuma Launch Hazard Areas (https://goo.gl/ErbkUw) based on NOTMAR.
For comparison also former hazard area of planned 39a launch issued in November. Area A is now slightly shorter compare old one.

Stage2 debris area in Southern Indian Ocean.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: LouScheffer on 01/07/2018 12:04 am
Everyone seems to assume that the Zuma mission was in the works for a while, but kept secret until 30 days before launch. Example:  SpaceX adds mystery “Zuma” mission, Iridium-4 aims for Vandenberg landing (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/10/spacex-zuma-iridium-4-aims-vandenberg-landing/)

But what if the mission did not even exist before then?


Except that our article clearly says Zuma's launch contract was established in 2015.    ;) https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/01/spacex-falcon-9-launch-clandestine-zuma-satellite/
Again, I don't think this is a contradiction.  Your article states (bold mine):
Quote
According to source documentation, Zuma’s launch contract – which did not specify a launch date – was established with SpaceX in 2015.
For a first pass at a responsiveness test, Agency X might grant SpaceX a contract for a booster, and a launch, but nothing else - no payload specified, no date, no orbit, maybe not even which coast.   Then, for example, on 1 November 2017, they call up and say "Here's your payload , name is ZUMA.  Here's the orbit we want.  Get it into orbit within 30 days."

This is exactly consistent with what we saw, your article, and the NAS report from 2010 recommending the Air Force set up responsiveness objectives.  It explains why we heard nothing from SpaceX before 1 November - they did not know.  And (my opinion only) this seems like very reasonable first pass at responsiveness by the government.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: crandles57 on 01/07/2018 11:29 am

The adjusted times could be trajectory related or related to month of year of launch.  Winter months produce a thicker lower atmosphere and thus the rocket has to work harder to get through it.  Shuttle compensated for this by having "winter SRBs" that had their prop poured in a configuration to produce greater thrust but shorter burn time.  As Flacon 9 is a liquid rocket, a longer burn time for a winter month launch mission would make sense.  And given the atmospheric setup over Florida of the last week, this might be the case.

More burn time and more fuel to get though thicker atmosphere makes sense.

Can we tell anything from Max q being 6 seconds later compared to MECO being only 4 seconds later?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 01/07/2018 01:17 pm
Everyone seems to assume that the Zuma mission was in the works for a while, but kept secret until 30 days before launch. Example:  SpaceX adds mystery “Zuma” mission, Iridium-4 aims for Vandenberg landing (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/10/spacex-zuma-iridium-4-aims-vandenberg-landing/)

But what if the mission did not even exist before then?


Except that our article clearly says Zuma's launch contract was established in 2015.    ;) https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/01/spacex-falcon-9-launch-clandestine-zuma-satellite/
Again, I don't think this is a contradiction.  Your article states (bold mine):
Quote
According to source documentation, Zuma’s launch contract – which did not specify a launch date – was established with SpaceX in 2015.
For a first pass at a responsiveness test, Agency X might grant SpaceX a contract for a booster, and a launch, but nothing else - no payload specified, no date, no orbit, maybe not even which coast.   Then, for example, on 1 November 2017, they call up and say "Here's your payload , name is ZUMA.  Here's the orbit we want.  Get it into orbit within 30 days."

This is exactly consistent with what we saw, your article, and the NAS report from 2010 recommending the Air Force set up responsiveness objectives.  It explains why we heard nothing from SpaceX before 1 November - they did not know.  And (my opinion only) this seems like very reasonable first pass at responsiveness by the government.

Please read our articles about this.  You are saying that we assume this mission was in the works for years but unknown to everyone including SpaceX until 30 days before for launch.  It is a fact that Zuma was in the works between Northrop Grumman and SpaceX since 2015 - code name and all.  That is a fact not speculation.  It is also a fact – as we have reported – that Northrop Grumman communicated the launch date of 1–30 November 2017 to SpaceX in April 2017 and that SpaceX chose not to release that information.  It is also a fact that SpaceX didn't release the first mention of Zuma.  We did on this site by finding the FCC communication launch license.  Again, this is fact, not speculation.  Your assertion that all of this was secretive to all parties involved until 30 days before lift off is your own speculation, not fact... as SpaceX knew about this in 2015, knew the target launch date 7 months in adavamce, and filed the FCC license application more than 30 days before the launch.

You also omit the part of our articles and reporting detailing that the initial contract called for the launch booster to be B1046 and how the three flight proven missions assigned before Zuma's original launch date gives us B1043 for this mission - which points to a knowledge in the original contract that launch would occur around the time that booster B1046 would be ready.  So even there a notional NET date would have been known to SpaceX.

So, in short...
- SpaceX knew about this more than two years ago
- SpaceX knew it would be B1046 two years ago, which accounting for three assigned reflights last year before Zuma Nov launch window makes it B1043
- SpaceX knew in April 2017 that NG wanted a launch in November 2017
- SpaceX filed for a launch communications license with the FCC more than 30 days before launch target

None of this supports an assertion that no one, including SpaceX, knew of the launch date more than 30 days before launch.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: yokem55 on 01/07/2018 02:44 pm
Is it just me or do the landing legs look different?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: douglas100 on 01/07/2018 03:33 pm
Had a quick look. They seem the same to me.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: MP99 on 01/07/2018 04:56 pm
A full WDR would do the exact same things as a static fire except light the engines.

And that is in fact a MAJOR difference.

A WDR doesn't require the services of the range. In this case the WDR was a propellant loading test. IMO it is a safe guess that SpaceX only partially loaded the vehicle and didn't even bother pressurizing the tanks to flight pressure.

A Static Fire does require the range because a static fire is considered to be a potential launch, coming with all the hazards that are associated with an actual launch, such as having a fully fueled and fully pressurized vehicle.
I thought a WDR included pressurising the vehicle? Does it not?

Thanks, Martin

Sent from my GT-N5120 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: HVM on 01/07/2018 06:43 pm
Is it just me or do the landing legs look different?

Maybe its just lighting condition (it is), but those really look flatter and missing the sharp triangular (cutaway by spin axes) outer 'crest'.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 01/07/2018 06:51 pm
Is it just me or do the landing legs look different?

Maybe its just lighting condition, but those really look flatter and missing the sharp triangular (cutaway by spin axes) outer 'crest'.

I think the combination of angle and lighting.  Compare to this when it was on the pad at LC-39A:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44175.msg1750258#msg1750258
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 01/07/2018 09:03 pm
Updated Zuma elset estimates for an assumed 395 x 400 km orbit for various launch times at http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Jan-2018/0034.html , by Marco Langbroek.

Quote
...targeting the orbital plane of USA 276 has become viable near the end of the 1:00 - 3:30 UT launch window. The orbital plane of USA 276 passes over the launch site near 3:38 UT on January 8th.

However, the launch window is only 01:00 to 03:00 UTC, not 03:30 UTC, correct?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ZachS09 on 01/07/2018 09:37 pm
However, the launch window is only 01:00 to 03:00 UTC, not 03:30 UTC, correct?

That's the right launch window: 01:00 to 03:00 UTC.

Never heard from SpaceX that the window extended another half-hour.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: RocketLover0119 on 01/07/2018 10:02 pm
Reeeeaaallyy hope I get to see this from Tampa (hoping no cloud cover)

Especially hope I get to see this- https://www.instagram.com/p/BI5wLIFj7f7/?hl=en&taken-by=spacex
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ZachS09 on 01/07/2018 11:51 pm
Now that's some loud venting as heard in the launch webcast.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Tomness on 01/07/2018 11:54 pm
Miss the technical launch loop webcasts. I love the hosts just want to mute them
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: francesco nicoli on 01/08/2018 12:05 am
no fairing separation?


edit- nevermind
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: quagmire on 01/08/2018 12:07 am
I was certainly holding my breath waiting to hear about fairing sep.....
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Prettz on 01/08/2018 12:07 am
Strange, they skipped all the visually interesting parts with the tracking camera.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ZachS09 on 01/08/2018 12:10 am
Strange, they skipped all the visually interesting parts with the tracking camera.

It was dark, so the cameras couldn't pick up a thing during unpowered flight.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Tomness on 01/08/2018 12:11 am
Strange, they skipped all the visually interesting parts with the tracking camera.
I don't blame them,  luckly got what what we got.. hopefully every thing goes well
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ZachF on 01/08/2018 12:11 am
Looks like the landing legs were lined up pretty well with the crosshairs on the landing pad (in addition to dead center)... practice for BFR?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: inventodoc on 01/08/2018 12:13 am
It was interesting to see the STAGE 1 velocity and altitude information from launch until landing.    I do have a question, shouldn't the velocity have gone down to 0 for the boostback then gone up again if they were changing direction???   

The velocity indicator was near 6000km/hr and only went down to 2000km/hr from the boostback.   If that is the case, how does it boost back?   (may need vectoral representation to understand)   Am I missing something?   
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ZachS09 on 01/08/2018 12:13 am
Just checking the Elon Musk and SpaceX Twitter pages for spacecraft sep confirmation.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: nacnud on 01/08/2018 12:14 am
It was interesting to see the STAGE 1 velocity and altitude information from launch until landing.    I do have a question, shouldn't the velocity have gone down to 0 for the boostback then gone up again if they were changing direction???   

The velocity indicator was near 6000km/hr and only went down to 2000km/hr from the boostback.   If that is the case, how does it boost back?   (may need vectoral representation to understand)   Am I missing something?   

For return to launch site the boostback kills and reverses the horizontal velocity, but the stage is still going up, for now.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Prettz on 01/08/2018 12:16 am
Strange, they skipped all the visually interesting parts with the tracking camera.

It was dark, so the cameras couldn't pick up a thing during unpowered flight.
No, I mean the start of boostback burn after separation, and the entirety of the entry burn.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: inventodoc on 01/08/2018 12:17 am
It was interesting to see the STAGE 1 velocity and altitude information from launch until landing.    I do have a question, shouldn't the velocity have gone down to 0 for the boostback then gone up again if they were changing direction???   

The velocity indicator was near 6000km/hr and only went down to 2000km/hr from the boostback.   If that is the case, how does it boost back?   (may need vectoral representation to understand)   Am I missing something?   

Boostback kills and reverses the horizontal velocity, but the stage is still going up, for now.

The speed is horizontal + vertical.  Wouldn't that reverse too?.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: RotoSequence on 01/08/2018 12:17 am
Just checking the Elon Musk and SpaceX Twitter pages for spacecraft sep confirmation.

I won't be surprised if they end up taking a while to confirm it. They're being extra secretive with this one, whatever it is.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: inventodoc on 01/08/2018 12:18 am
It was interesting to see the STAGE 1 velocity and altitude information from launch until landing.    I do have a question, shouldn't the velocity have gone down to 0 for the boostback then gone up again if they were changing direction???   

The velocity indicator was near 6000km/hr and only went down to 2000km/hr from the boostback.   If that is the case, how does it boost back?   (may need vectoral representation to understand)   Am I missing something?   

Boostback kills and reverses the horizontal velocity, but the stage is still going up, for now.

The speed is horizontal + vertical.  Wouldn't that reverse too?.

I guess there is some absolute combination of horizontal and vertical vectors that would keep numbers this way.  Thanks for the replies.  Its just hard to visualize...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: IanThePineapple on 01/08/2018 12:19 am
Just checking the Elon Musk and SpaceX Twitter pages for spacecraft sep confirmation.

I won't be surprised if they end up taking a while to confirm it. They're being extra secretive with this one, whatever it is.

They usually confirm payload deploy about 20-30 minutes post-launch, at least from what I have seen so far.

EDIT: minor fix
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: leetdan on 01/08/2018 12:19 am
I didn't bother filming, but it was a gorgeous launch from Osceola County.  I could follow S2 down to the tree line, staging/boostback was pretty, and I could even make out the 1-3-1 sequence of the entry burn.  The landing burn started at the treeline, meaning I could mozy back inside to see the landing 'live' on stream.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ZachS09 on 01/08/2018 12:19 am
Just checking the Elon Musk and SpaceX Twitter pages for spacecraft sep confirmation.

I won't be surprised if they end up taking a while to confirm it. They're being extra secretive with this one, whatever it is.

What do you mean by "extra secretive"? I thought the secretiveness was just as much as NROL-76 and X-37B OTV-5.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Paul_G on 01/08/2018 12:20 am
Strange, they skipped all the visually interesting parts with the tracking camera.

At T+2.07 just before MECO there was a call out to relinquish control of the camera - I wonder if that covered tracking cameras as well as vehicle cameras?

Paul
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: nacnud on 01/08/2018 12:20 am
The speed is horizontal + vertical.  Wouldn't that reverse too?.

No as they only publish the magnitude of the scalar part of the velocity.

Edit: Take a look at this reddit : Falcon 9 Stage 1 Landing Analysis (https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/7ajf09/falcon_9_stage_1_landing_analysis/)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: toruonu on 01/08/2018 12:21 am
It was interesting to see the STAGE 1 velocity and altitude information from launch until landing.    I do have a question, shouldn't the velocity have gone down to 0 for the boostback then gone up again if they were changing direction???   

The velocity indicator was near 6000km/hr and only went down to 2000km/hr from the boostback.   If that is the case, how does it boost back?   (may need vectoral representation to understand)   Am I missing something?   

Boostback kills and reverses the horizontal velocity, but the stage is still going up, for now.

The speed is horizontal + vertical.  Wouldn't that reverse too?.

Pretty sure the number is the velocity vector magnitude, as lomg as the vehicle isn’t standing still it won’t be 0. They kill and reverse the horizontal component, but vertical is still there and boosting back some horizontal one will add to it too.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: RotoSequence on 01/08/2018 12:25 am
Just checking the Elon Musk and SpaceX Twitter pages for spacecraft sep confirmation.

I won't be surprised if they end up taking a while to confirm it. They're being extra secretive with this one, whatever it is.

What do you mean by "extra secretive"? I thought the secretiveness was just as much as NROL-76 and X-37B OTV-5.

We still don't know who ZUMA was built for, and previous launches had a few more tracking shots of the vehicle up to staging.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: JimO on 01/08/2018 12:26 am
Is stage-2 deorbit burn over a land mass with dark-sky potential observers?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: IanThePineapple on 01/08/2018 12:28 am
Is stage-2 deorbit burn over a land mass with dark-sky potential observers?

It's possible to see it, it will occur near the Middle East or Africa. There was a video of a deorbit burn from a few months/years back, can't remember which or when...  :-\
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: deruch on 01/08/2018 12:29 am
It was interesting to see the STAGE 1 velocity and altitude information from launch until landing.    I do have a question, shouldn't the velocity have gone down to 0 for the boostback then gone up again if they were changing direction???   

The velocity indicator was near 6000km/hr and only went down to 2000km/hr from the boostback.   If that is the case, how does it boost back?   (may need vectoral representation to understand)   Am I missing something?

Rewatch it and pay attention to the altitude prior to and post boostback burn.  What you'll see is that the stage is still rising and hasn't yet hit its apogee when the boostback happens.  This means that at the time of the boostback, if we were to split the stage's total velocity into its component parts, it has a significant, positive vertical velocity vector (i.e. upward speed) in addition to its downrange (positive) horizontal velocity.  The boostback burn is just in the horizontal plane (or almost entirely in the horizontal plane, there may, in fact, be some very modest amount of pitch).  So, while the horizontal velocity will hit zero in the process of having its direction reversed to allow RTLS, the vertical velocity portion of total velocity is relatively unaffected by the boostback and only decreasing due to gravity.  So, during the boostback, in the instant where the horizontal velocity is fully zeroed out the total velocity becomes just the vertical velocity.  Since the stage is still rising at that point, it remains non-zero.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ZachS09 on 01/08/2018 12:29 am
Is stage-2 deorbit burn over a land mass with dark-sky potential observers?

No. Stage 2 deorbit will happen over the southern Indian Ocean.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: RocketLover0119 on 01/08/2018 12:29 am
man, that was great! I am in Tampa and saw the launch, boostback, and entry burns. Didnt get to see the landing, but was by far the best launch in person I have seen! (havnt been to canaveral yet for one but probably will for FH if possible)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: deruch on 01/08/2018 12:33 am
Is stage-2 deorbit burn over a land mass with dark-sky potential observers?

No. Stage 2 deorbit will happen over the southern Indian Ocean.

He's asking about the burn itself, not where any surviving stage debris will land.  The burn happens well before the reentry and debris field.  And may potentially occur over a land mass.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: russianhalo117 on 01/08/2018 12:33 am
Is stage-2 deorbit burn over a land mass with dark-sky potential observers?

It's possible to see it, it will occur near the Middle East or Africa. There was a video of a deorbit burn from a few months/years back, can't remember which or when...  :-\
Which would be roughly within Coordinates of a rectangle of 30-60S and 60-120E traveling approximately parallel with the coastline.

Exact NOTAM debris area:
30-27S 064-51E, 30-44S 067-03E,
38-10S 082-43E, 47-22S 108-39E,
50-30S 124-39E, 51-55S 126-03E,
53-32S 125-05E, 54-24S 116-01E,
53-34S 101-27E, 47-46S 082-05E,
39-58S 069-31E, 31-56S 063-23E.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 01/08/2018 12:38 am
It was interesting to see the STAGE 1 velocity and altitude information from launch until landing.    I do have a question, shouldn't the velocity have gone down to 0 for the boostback then gone up again if they were changing direction???   

The velocity indicator was near 6000km/hr and only went down to 2000km/hr from the boostback.   If that is the case, how does it boost back?   (may need vectoral representation to understand)   Am I missing something?   

Boostback kills and reverses the horizontal velocity, but the stage is still going up, for now.

The speed is horizontal + vertical.  Wouldn't that reverse too?.

boostback mostly changes the horizontal velocity, if you watch the numbers the altitude keeps increasing for a while and the velocity keeps slowing until it reaches apogee, and then it starts coming back down and increasing velocity again (all of this happening after the boostback burn).
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Perchlorate on 01/08/2018 12:48 am
Reminder we're holding this as update only until SpaceX confirms a good mission. Moved a few posts to Discussion. Leaving Bovane's in here as Steven, Zach, Chris G and the gang deserve the praise.

Confirmation will come via SpaceX or Elon, likely on Twitter.

Yeah, Chris, you cut him some slack...but then got a little tweak in by calling him a cow.

(Bovane vs. Brovane)   :D

Yours truly, and with an itchy trigger finger hovering over the Post button in "Updates."

--Pete
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: mdeep on 01/08/2018 01:02 am
Patch distribution to the media signals mission success  :P
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ZachS09 on 01/08/2018 01:03 am
Patch distribution to the media signals mission success  :P

That's new to me. I thought it was a press release or something like that.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: mdeep on 01/08/2018 01:06 am
Patch distribution to the media signals mission success  :P

That's new to me. I thought it was a press release or something like that.

Tradition here. SpaceX doesn't hand them out until the mission is confirmed to be a success. It's not an "official" statement though which is why I'm not posting it in the update thread.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: deruch on 01/08/2018 01:07 am
Patch distribution to the media signals mission success  :P

That's new to me. I thought it was a press release or something like that.

If the mission fails, they won't give out the patches.  That's why it's so hard to find CRS-7 patches, for example.  It's not an official determination of mission success, but it's decent as an unofficial one.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ZachS09 on 01/08/2018 01:07 am
mdeep, if they do release the ZUMA patch, would you mind getting a pic of it?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: yg1968 on 01/08/2018 01:13 am
mdeep, if they do release the ZUMA patch, would you mind getting a pic of it?

See, here:
https://twitter.com/ChrisG_NSF/status/950186092992622593
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Perchlorate on 01/08/2018 01:25 am
Congrats to SpaceX, all the other companies and agencies involved, and of course to our dauntless NSF team

I love this stuff; I delight in its increasing routine-ness.

[ This is what I would have posted in Updates, but who knows when confirmation might come. Gotta get back to life. ]
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: CJ on 01/08/2018 01:36 am
Okay, the confirmation of success is pretty late. So, two questions; on a secret payload launch (such as X-37) did they give a confirmation then? What I'm wondering is will we ever get one?

Second question; delayed confirmations like this are normal on GEO launches due to the need for a second burn of S2. So, possible second burn here? Not for GEO, but for a slight plane change or insertion to a higher orbit of some sort?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Celestar on 01/08/2018 01:37 am
Okay, the confirmation of success is pretty late. So, two questions; on a secret payload launch (such as X-37) did they give a confirmation then? What I'm wondering is will we ever get one?

Second question; delayed confirmations like this are normal on GEO launches due to the need for a second burn of S2. So, possible second burn here? Not for GEO, but for a slight plane change or insertion to a higher orbit of some sort?

Aren't we way past the maximum (known) loiter time of S2 (~30 minutes)?

Celestar
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: yokem55 on 01/08/2018 01:40 am
Okay, the confirmation of success is pretty late. So, two questions; on a secret payload launch (such as X-37) did they give a confirmation then? What I'm wondering is will we ever get one?

Second question; delayed confirmations like this are normal on GEO launches due to the need for a second burn of S2. So, possible second burn here? Not for GEO, but for a slight plane change or insertion to a higher orbit of some sort?
Or it was all done by the time the booster landed (which is usually when SECO is), but by policy, no announcement of success would be given before n minutes after separation.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 01/08/2018 01:56 am
Okay, the confirmation of success is pretty late. So, two questions; on a secret payload launch (such as X-37) did they give a confirmation then? What I'm wondering is will we ever get one?

Second question; delayed confirmations like this are normal on GEO launches due to the need for a second burn of S2. So, possible second burn here? Not for GEO, but for a slight plane change or insertion to a higher orbit of some sort?

Aren't we way past the maximum (known) loiter time of S2 (~30 minutes)?

Celestar

Iridium launches are over an hour in total duration (about 50 minutes between S2 engine burns on last mission), and SpaceX has done extended duration S2 testing on previous missions.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: old_sellsword on 01/08/2018 01:57 am
Okay, the confirmation of success is pretty late. So, two questions; on a secret payload launch (such as X-37) did they give a confirmation then? What I'm wondering is will we ever get one?

Second question; delayed confirmations like this are normal on GEO launches due to the need for a second burn of S2. So, possible second burn here? Not for GEO, but for a slight plane change or insertion to a higher orbit of some sort?

Aren't we way past the maximum (known) loiter time of S2 (~30 minutes)?

Celestar

F9 S2 performed a long-coast and successful relight during NROL-76. We're not sure how long "long" is, but apparently more than it was previously (about 30 minutes).
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars-J on 01/08/2018 02:06 am
Yep, this could also be heading to a GPS or Molnyia- like orbit. (Even if it most likely is a LEO delivery)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ZachS09 on 01/08/2018 02:07 am
T+2 hours and waiting.

 - Ed Kyle

Could be another two hours. Maybe more than that.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Flying Beaver on 01/08/2018 02:11 am
T+2 hours and waiting.

 - Ed Kyle

Press got the patches. I'd say we're good.

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Wolfram66 on 01/08/2018 02:16 am
Yep, this could also be heading to a GPS or Molnyia- like orbit. (Even if it most likely is a LEO delivery)

http://spaceflight101.com/falcon-9-launches-secret-zuma-spacecraft/ (http://spaceflight101.com/falcon-9-launches-secret-zuma-spacecraft/) Spaceflight101.com has a nice article regarding multiple re-lights on LEO missions like Zuma and NROL-76 with high inclination non-synchronous orbits.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ZachS09 on 01/08/2018 02:20 am
I'd still hold off on my congrats until an official press release is announced.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 01/08/2018 02:25 am
Is stage-2 deorbit burn over a land mass with dark-sky potential observers?

Marco Langbroek's original ZUMA search elset estimates (http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Jan-2018/0008.html) post on Seesat-l of January 2, regarding the January 5 launch window, wrote:
Quote
If the launch is at the start of the launch window, there are almost no sighting opportunities on the first revolution.

If the launch is at the end of the launch window, there could be sighting opportunities from the Balkans and Near East 30 minutes after launch.

Europe in general will get sighting opportunities only half a month after launch, if these estimated elsets are anywhere near reality.

So, given the launch at the opening of the launch window, only a few days later, maybe a 2nd stage de-orbit burn could have been visible from the Balkans and Near East (visible in darkness by its own engine burn, not by reflected sunlight)?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 01/08/2018 02:36 am
Also, and please correct me if I'm wrong, one of the constraints on the orbital destination of Zuma is the NOTAM/NOTMAR de-orbit location.  EDIT: Doesn't this indicate a de-orbit on the 1st orbit?  With re-entry following launch by about 2 to 3.5 hours, it's more likely on the 2nd orbit?

Does this also imply, given constraints on the 2nd stage performance, that Zuma would have been delivered to a roughly 50 deg. LEO orbit, not a Molniya, circular semisynchronous, or other HEO orbit?

EDIT: Or is there a "window of opportunity" in the performance/timings to achieve s/c delivery to a non-LEO orbit?

How many burns is the 2nd stage capable of?

Hmm.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: RocketLover0119 on 01/08/2018 02:37 am
not to worry anybody, but ppl. on reddit are reporting that straight over the projected launch area around T plus 25- 30 min. an object was seen plunging into the attmosphere.... ???  :-[  :-\

EDIT: conversation- https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/7oqjf0/rspacex_zuma_official_launch_discussion_updates/dscjjhz/
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars-J on 01/08/2018 02:42 am
not to worry anybody, but ppl. on reddit are reporting that straight over the projected launch area around T plus 25- 30 min. an object was seen plunging into the attmosphere.... ???  :-[  :-\

EDIT: conversation- https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/7oqjf0/rspacex_zuma_official_launch_discussion_updates/dscjjhz/

Use common sense - like the people responding to that comment - if it was visible at the launch site 25-30 mins after launch, it has nothing to do with this launch. Stage 2/Zuma would faaaar our of view, over Europe/Asia.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: dorkmo on 01/08/2018 02:55 am
could the second stage "hover" instead of entering orbit?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 01/08/2018 02:59 am
could the second stage "hover" instead of entering orbit?

No
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Flying Beaver on 01/08/2018 03:00 am
could the second stage "hover" instead of entering orbit?

Tentative yes.

It's got a high T/W ratio for a second stage. So in theory it could do a lofting 'boostback'. 2000+ km apogee would bring it down around T+25min, close as you like to the coast.

Maybe a launch was the ultimate cover for a readiness review mission  8).
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: dorkmo on 01/08/2018 03:06 am
(is this right thread for wild speculation?)

could it be possible to deploy one of these?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_platform_station

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP_Aerospace#Dark_Sky_Station
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars-J on 01/08/2018 03:12 am
(is this right thread for wild speculation?)

could it be possible to deploy one of these?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_platform_station

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP_Aerospace#Dark_Sky_Station

No and No. Why would those be launched by a rocket? Those would be deployed by high altitude balloons.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: guckyfan on 01/08/2018 04:14 am
Still no confirmation. We can take the next launch as confirmation. If the second stage failed there would be a stand down of significant length.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: speedevil on 01/08/2018 04:16 am
Looking at the excellent
(https://i.redd.it/8jkukgakvq801.jpg)

What I think I see, can anyone add stuff?
Beginning on the left.
Stage 1 ignition through MECO, with the plume shading blue at the end.
A gap in the trail, followed by second stage ignition beginning blue and shading orange until it dissapears at the edge of the exposure taken.
A gap in this second stage trail due to the fairing occluding the second stage engine.

Above this is the booster thrusting with the engines away from the viewer on its boostback burn, which curves upwards, with an interruption where the engines are directly away from the viewer.
To the right of this, puffs of gas from the cold gas thrusters.
Up at the top, the booster reentry burn, to kill most of the entry velocity, beginning with one engine, brightening to three, and then back to one before going out.
And then finally in the centre the landing burn.

Is there anything I've missed or gotten wrong?
Are the 'shock features' on the landing burn just coincidental clouds?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: docmordrid on 01/08/2018 04:36 am


https://youtu.be/0PWu3BRxn60

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: flyright on 01/08/2018 04:37 am
Looking at the excellent


What I think I see, can anyone add stuff?
Beginning on the left.
Stage 1 ignition through MECO, with the plume shading blue at the end.
A gap in the trail, followed by second stage ignition beginning blue and shading orange until it dissapears at the edge of the exposure taken.
A gap in this second stage trail due to the fairing occluding the second stage engine.

Above this is the booster thrusting with the engines away from the viewer on its boostback burn, which curves upwards, with an interruption where the engines are directly away from the viewer.
To the right of this, puffs of gas from the cold gas thrusters.
Up at the top, the booster reentry burn, to kill most of the entry velocity, beginning with one engine, brightening to three, and then back to one before going out.
And then finally in the centre the landing burn.

Is there anything I've missed or gotten wrong?
Are the 'shock features' on the landing burn just coincidental clouds?

This summary looks right to me except I suspect the gap in the second stage trail is more likely an image artifact. It looks like there are similar gaps in the star trails.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/08/2018 04:46 am
This summary looks right to me except I suspect the gap in the second stage trail is more likely an image artifact. It looks like there are similar gaps in the star trails.

The gap could be due to changing the lens aperture.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: leetdan on 01/08/2018 04:50 am
The gap could be due to changing the lens aperture.

Especially considering the corresponding gap in the stage 1 trail following boostback.

Edit:  Look at the stars, you can clearly see motion during each of the 3 composite exposures.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 01/08/2018 04:52 am
The gap could be due to changing the lens aperture.

Especially considering the corresponding gap in the stage 1 trail following boostback.

Wasn't it said that this is the combination of three exposures?
Perhaps there was a gap in time between the end of one and the start of another.

edit: yes
Quote
A stunning launch photo by John Kraus (combination of 3 exposures)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: flyright on 01/08/2018 04:59 am
The gap could be due to changing the lens aperture.

Especially considering the corresponding gap in the stage 1 trail following boostback.

Wasn't it said that this is the combination of three exposures?
Perhaps there was a gap in time between the end of one and the start of another.

edit: yes
Quote
A stunning launch photo by John Kraus (combination of 3 exposures)

The photographer, John Kraus, posted the exposure times in the Reddit thread:
Spacing was roughly as follows. 00:00 is liftoff.

Exposure 1: 00:00 -> 3:13
Exposure 2: ~3:15 -> ~5:15
Exposure 3: ~6:00 -> ~8:00

This is an amazing picture!
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: deruch on 01/08/2018 05:11 am
My question is this.  Why does the second stage burn reappear?  Otherwise, was it short?  I would expect it to burn over the horizon.

 - Ed Kyle
 
Not sure I understand your question.  What do you mean reappear?  Can you annotate a copy of the picture so that we are sure to be on the same page?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: deruch on 01/08/2018 05:31 am
Ah.  You meant why doesn't the second stage reappear.  That makes much more sense as a question.  Maybe it was out of frame by then, or hidden by those clouds?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: RotoSequence on 01/08/2018 05:41 am
USLaunchReport claims to have gotten a shot of Stage 2 all the way up to SECO. The only problem is that they say SECO was when they lost visual T+7:15, which is far short for a RTLS mission (CRS-13, T+9:00).

Early S2 cutoff with re-ignition over the horizon for a late inclination change to the final orbit?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars-J on 01/08/2018 05:57 am
My question is this.  Why does the second stage burn reappear?  Otherwise, was it short?  I would expect it to burn over the horizon.

 - Ed Kyle
 
Not sure I understand your question.  What do you mean reappear?  Can you annotate a copy of the picture so that we are sure to be on the same page?
The second stage burn ends, presumably when the photographer changed exposures or ended an exposure.  The photographer then restarted the exposure to capture the landing, but the second stage does not reappear.  It should still have been burning.

 - Ed Kyle

But it *does* reappear. Look closer - when the 2nd stage trail changes color (blueish to reddish), that's the gap in exposures, that's where 3rd exposure begins. (I think)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: marshal on 01/08/2018 06:05 am
(is this right thread for wild speculation?)

could it be possible to deploy one of these?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_platform_station

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP_Aerospace#Dark_Sky_Station

No and No. Why would those be launched by a rocket? Those would be deployed by high altitude balloons.

Northrop Grumman acquired TRW , so Zuma is Space Based Laser (SBL) weapon ?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: deruch on 01/08/2018 06:28 am
The second stage burn ends, presumably when the photographer changed exposures or ended an exposure.  The photographer then restarted the exposure to capture the landing, but the second stage does not reappear.  It should still have been burning.

 - Ed Kyle

But it *does* reappear. Look closer - when the 2nd stage trail changes color (blueish to reddish), that's the gap in exposures, that's where 3rd exposure begins. (I think)
No.  I'm attaching my quickly annotated version of Ed's question (MS paint).  Note that @flyright quotes the photographer as saying that the exposures were: 

Exposure 1: 00:00 -> 3:13     [this ends post MECO/Stage Sep. and after the start of boostback burn]
Exposure 2: ~3:15 -> ~5:15   [this ends after boostback is over, but before reentry+landing begin, and during 2nd stage burn]
Exposure 3: ~6:00 -> ~8:00   [catches reentry+landing of 1st stage, 2nd stage should still be burning]
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 01/08/2018 06:35 am
USLaunchReport claims to have gotten a shot of Stage 2 all the way up to SECO. The only problem is that they say SECO was when they lost visual T+7:15, which is far short for a RTLS mission (CRS-13, T+9:00).

Agreed.  The shortest ascents to first stage cutoff I can find were something like 8 min 20-ish sec, for some GTO missions.

Data like this makes me think that, firstly, the payload was relatively light and also there was going to be a long second stage 2 burn.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: leetdan on 01/08/2018 06:40 am
I'm attaching my quickly annotated version of Ed's question (MS paint).

It's behind the clouds.  In the 2 minutes of the 2nd exposure, the 2nd stage covers about 1/3rd of the frame, accelerating all the while.  In the 45 seconds that passes before the 3rd exposure begins, it could have easily moved behind the lower rank of clouds.

The USLaunchReport video tracks it more than 7 minutes, which is easily explained by the different filming locations.  They look to be on 401, while the Kraus composite is from the beach farther south.

Nothing to see here. (pun intended?)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 01/08/2018 07:39 am
I'd still hold off on my congrats until an official press release is announced.

According to certain posters on Reddit there likely will not be one, if no other reason that no agency officially owns this payload.

By the way seen some comment online and I did hear shouting myself before launch but it sounded like someone was ‘heckling’ the launch countdown at a couple of points
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 01/08/2018 07:45 am
I'm attaching my quickly annotated version of Ed's question (MS paint).

It's behind the clouds.  In the 2 minutes of the 2nd exposure, the 2nd stage covers about 1/3rd of the frame, accelerating all the while.  In the 45 seconds that passes before the 3rd exposure begins, it could have easily moved behind the lower rank of clouds.

The USLaunchReport video tracks it more than 7 minutes, which is easily explained by the different filming locations.  They look to be on 401, while the Kraus composite is from the beach farther south.

Nothing to see here. (pun intended?)

Correct. Also note that the star streaks - in the outlined box where the second stage burn is supposed to be - disappear well above the clouds and also don't show underneath the cloud base. So, chances of the second stage showing up thru the clouds and underneath the cloud base is zero. By that time the stage is so far away that the glow of the MVac has become so weak that it no longer penetrates the muck underneath the clouds (atmospheric dust and moisture) in sufficient strength to register on the camera's sensor.
This was after all a multiple-minute timed exposure with a relatively low sensitivity setting.

Additionally, John Kraus apparently altered the sensitivity settings between the three exposures.
Just take a good look at the star streaks in (and near) the outlined box. You will notice that each streak is actually three parts, given the three exposures. Sequence is bottom-to-top.

The bottom part of each streak is relatively dim, with the middle part being much brighter. The top part is dimmest of all. So dim in fact that on some streaks you can't actually see the top part.

The dim lower part of each star streak is the first exposure. John probably set his camera sensitivity quite low to prevent over-exposure of the launch streak.
The brighter middle-part of each star streak is the second exposure. Given that the rocket is now up quite high and rapidly moving away John probably increased the sensitivity setting to still get a good image(-part) for the second stage burn.
The dimmest top part of each star streak is the third exposure. That exposure was aimed at capturing the reentry- and landing burns. Given that the latter happens quite close to the camera I would guess that John set his sensitivity setting low again to prevent over-exposure. But, that has the added effect of almost blotting out sensitivity for stars and other low-strength light sources (such as the third stage). Combine that with high-level haze and clouds right over the third stage's extended track and you have a perfectly good explanation why the third stage doesn't show up in the third exposure.

It is a leetdan phrased it: nothing to see here folks. No need for early-cutoff theories and other stuff that doesn't fit orbital mechanics.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 01/08/2018 10:12 am
USLaunchReport claims to have gotten a shot of Stage 2 all the way up to SECO. The only problem is that they say SECO was when they lost visual T+7:15, which is far short for a RTLS mission (CRS-13, T+9:00).

Agreed.  The shortest ascents to first stage cutoff I can find were something like 8 min 20-ish sec, for some GTO missions.

Data like this makes me think that, firstly, the payload was relatively light and also there was going to be a long second stage 2 burn.

Let me expand on this: I'm wondering if SECO1 did not occur when the upper stage's perigee was high enough to give even a briefly circular orbit but was, rather, to give an initial apogee where the upper stage would fire again to further raise the far end of the orbit to the final operating apogee. To re-phrase, the initial apogee is close to the operating perigee and the operating apogee is very high indeed - A Molnyia-like eccentric and inclined orbit. Perhaps to give long-duration coverage over the Arctic?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: satwatcher on 01/08/2018 10:33 am
To re-phrase, the initial apogee is close to the operating perigee and the operating apogee is very high indeed - A Molnyia-like eccentric and inclined orbit. Perhaps to give long-duration coverage over the Arctic?
This scenario is not really compatible with the location and time of the S2 de-orbit area. Those, like NROL-76, suggest a low Earth orbit type mission.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: malu5531 on 01/08/2018 10:56 am
USLaunchReport claims to have gotten a shot of Stage 2 all the way up to SECO. The only problem is that they say SECO was when they lost visual T+7:15, which is far short for a RTLS mission (CRS-13, T+9:00).

Agreed.  The shortest ascents to first stage cutoff I can find were something like 8 min 20-ish sec, for some GTO missions.

Data like this makes me think that, firstly, the payload was relatively light and also there was going to be a long second stage 2 burn.

Let me expand on this: I'm wondering if SECO1 did not occur when the upper stage's perigee was high enough to give even a briefly circular orbit but was, rather, to give an initial apogee where the upper stage would fire again to further raise the far end of the orbit to the final operating apogee. To re-phrase, the initial apogee is close to the operating perigee and the operating apogee is very high indeed - A Molnyia-like eccentric and inclined orbit. Perhaps to give long-duration coverage over the Arctic?

How about a tundra orbit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tundra_orbit)?

Perhaps we'll see two more late scheduled Northrop Grumman missions in the coming months (and MDA could be the government agency)?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: RotoSequence on 01/08/2018 11:52 am
Maybe it's a launch for an unacknowledged foreign government, through and with the cooperation of the US Government? It would explain why none of the agencies are taking ownership of it (assuming they're not lying, of course).
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: wannamoonbase on 01/08/2018 12:36 pm
Congratulations to SpaceX, NG and the USAF for a successful launch. 

It was very pretty to watch and I love the RTLS landings.  It looks like they are really getting the accuracy down on these landings, this one looked spot on!

Now onto the next one and a FH static burn.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ZachS09 on 01/08/2018 12:55 pm
Good luck to the satellite trackers out and about; hopefully, they might determine the orbit type ZUMA is located in.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: dnavas on 01/08/2018 12:56 pm
No.  I'm attaching my quickly annotated version of Ed's question (MS paint).  Note that @flyright quotes the photographer as saying that the exposures were: 
Exposure 3: ~6:00 -> ~8:00   [catches reentry+landing of 1st stage, 2nd stage should still be burning]

For anyone still wondering, see Marek's photo in Updates:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44175.msg1768668#msg1768668

You can see the 2nd stage burn nearly all the way to the thicker cloud layer nearer the horizon.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: TorenAltair on 01/08/2018 01:19 pm
What's that sat image in their webcast before you click play? Just a fantasy design or a known one?

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Ilikeboosterrockets on 01/08/2018 01:30 pm
It's from the Northrop Grumman promo video. I think it's Aqua.

https://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/12_aqua-lrg.en.png
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 01/08/2018 01:41 pm
I'd still hold off on my congrats until an official press release is announced.

According to certain posters on Reddit there likely will not be one, if no other reason that no agency officially owns this payload.
That would be unprecedented, at least for the past two or three decades.  In my view, no news is bad news.

A lot of things about Zuma are unprecedented, so it seems a bit premature to jump to conclusions based on comparisons with any other missions.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: MarekCyzio on 01/08/2018 01:42 pm
No.  I'm attaching my quickly annotated version of Ed's question (MS paint).  Note that @flyright quotes the photographer as saying that the exposures were: 
Exposure 3: ~6:00 -> ~8:00   [catches reentry+landing of 1st stage, 2nd stage should still be burning]

For anyone still wondering, see Marek's photo in Updates:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44175.msg1768668#msg1768668

You can see the 2nd stage burn nearly all the way to the thicker cloud layer nearer the horizon.

Just to add context - exposure time is 517 seconds, but it started a few seconds after liftoff.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 01/08/2018 01:46 pm
I'd still hold off on my congrats until an official press release is announced.

According to certain posters on Reddit there likely will not be one, if no other reason that no agency officially owns this payload.
That would be unprecedented, at least for the past two or three decades.  In my view, no news is bad news.  That said, perhaps everyone needs to sit through a Monday morning meeting before approving their press releases.

 - Ed Kyle

I could think of certain types of mission that would not be owned by a government.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/08/2018 01:47 pm
I'd still hold off on my congrats until an official press release is announced.

According to certain posters on Reddit there likely will not be one, if no other reason that no agency officially owns this payload.
That would be unprecedented, at least for the past two or three decades.  In my view, no news is bad news.  That said, perhaps everyone needs to sit through a Monday morning meeting before approving their press releases.

 - Ed Kyle
This is probably the most Ed comment ever.

My theory is that this mission is all hush hush because the USAF needs to know that SpaceX can keep a secret, in spite of internal leaks about ITS/BFR, etc. if SpaceX can keep an absolute secret, then they can handle a mission where the secrecy is truly important.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 01/08/2018 01:48 pm
I'd still hold off on my congrats until an official press release is announced.

According to certain posters on Reddit there likely will not be one, if no other reason that no agency officially owns this payload.
That would be unprecedented, at least for the past two or three decades.  In my view, no news is bad news.  That said, perhaps everyone needs to sit through a Monday morning meeting before approving their press releases.

 - Ed Kyle
This is probably the most Ed comment ever.

My theory is that this mission is all hush hush because the USAF needs to know that SpaceX can keep a secret, in spite of internal leaks about ITS/BFR, etc. if SpaceX can keep an absolute secret, then they can handle a mission where the secrecy is truly important.

Surely the earlier mission for the NRO would have shown this.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: LastWyzard on 01/08/2018 02:23 pm
I'd still hold off on my congrats until an official press release is announced.

According to certain posters on Reddit there likely will not be one, if no other reason that no agency officially owns this payload.
That would be unprecedented, at least for the past two or three decades.  In my view, no news is bad news.  That said, perhaps everyone needs to sit through a Monday morning meeting before approving their press releases.

 - Ed Kyle

I could think of certain types of mission that would not be owned by a government.

There is precedence for this sort of thing.  It is not uncommon for the company that builds a "black" test aircraft to retain ownership.  That gives the US government plausible deniability when asked if the government has such a thing.  (More for me soon as I'm near retirement and can spend more time responding).
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Skyrocket on 01/08/2018 02:35 pm
I'd still hold off on my congrats until an official press release is announced.

According to certain posters on Reddit there likely will not be one, if no other reason that no agency officially owns this payload.
That would be unprecedented, at least for the past two or three decades.  In my view, no news is bad news.  That said, perhaps everyone needs to sit through a Monday morning meeting before approving their press releases.

 - Ed Kyle

I could think of certain types of mission that would not be owned by a government.

"Not owned by government" might simply mean a "delivery in orbit" contract, where ownership of the payload gets transferred after successfully reaching orbit. So the satellite is in fact not owned by a government entity at launch, but still by the manufacturer.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: marshal on 01/08/2018 02:44 pm
I think Zuma is a space weapon which can shoot down Missiles in space . A Space Based Laser (SBL) weapon ? Northrop Grumman acquired TRW in 2002 . I remember TRW and Boeing in SBL program .
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 01/08/2018 02:50 pm
I'd still hold off on my congrats until an official press release is announced.

According to certain posters on Reddit there likely will not be one, if no other reason that no agency officially owns this payload.
That would be unprecedented, at least for the past two or three decades.  In my view, no news is bad news.  That said, perhaps everyone needs to sit through a Monday morning meeting before approving their press releases.

 - Ed Kyle

I could think of certain types of mission that would not be owned by a government.

"Not owned by government" might simply mean a "delivery in orbit" contract, where ownership of the payload gets transferred after successfully reaching orbit. So the satellite is in fact not owned by a government entity at launch, but still by the manufacturer.

I think it might be a payload where its ownership is unacknowledged for political and diplomatic reasons.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: LastWyzard on 01/08/2018 02:57 pm
I think Zuma is a space weapon which can shoot down Missiles in space . A Space Based Laser (SBL) weapon ? Northrop Grumman acquired TRW in 2002 . I remember TRW and Boeing in SBL program .
Doubtful.  The energy for a laser powerful enough for that would require a very large spacecraft.  The problem is how to provide the energy.  Chemical is the usual choice and it is complex and heavy.  I suppose it isn't completely out of the question.  The very first Russian Energia heavy booster had a space based laser weapon (Polyus) but it failed as it never achieved orbit.

-Ron
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: jpo234 on 01/08/2018 02:58 pm
I'd still hold off on my congrats until an official press release is announced.

According to certain posters on Reddit there likely will not be one, if no other reason that no agency officially owns this payload.
That would be unprecedented, at least for the past two or three decades.  In my view, no news is bad news.  That said, perhaps everyone needs to sit through a Monday morning meeting before approving their press releases.

 - Ed Kyle

AFAIR there never was an official confirmation that the OTV-5 mission was a success. There were just some congratulations from AF top brass...

Edit: We got a Boeing tweet for X-37B...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 01/08/2018 03:02 pm
I think you shouldn’t think of weapons as being used against the Earth but rather again other satellites. Notice the quote here from Frank Rose.

This is about the same time I believe someone said Zuma appeared on the manifest as a NG payload.

Quote
In response to these possible threats, the Obama administration has budgeted at least $5 billion to be spent over the next five years to enhance both the defensive and offensive capabilities of the U.S. military space program. The U.S. is also attempting to tackle the problem through diplomacy, although with minimal success; in late July at the United Nations, long-awaited discussions stalled on a European Union-drafted code of conduct for spacefaring nations due to opposition from Russia, China and several other countries including Brazil, India, South Africa and Iran. The failure has placed diplomatic solutions for the growing threat in limbo, likely leading to years of further debate within the UN’s General Assembly.
“The bottom line is the United States does not want conflict in outer space,” says Frank Rose, assistant secretary of state for arms control, verification and compliance, who has led American diplomatic efforts to prevent a space arms race. The U.S., he says, is willing to work with Russia and China to keep space secure. “But let me make it very clear: we will defend our space assets if attacked.”

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/war-in-space-may-be-closer-than-ever/
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Alter Sachse on 01/08/2018 03:02 pm
I think Zuma is a space weapon which can shoot down Missiles in space . A Space Based Laser (SBL) weapon ? Northrop Grumman acquired TRW in 2002 . I remember TRW and Boeing in SBL program .
Doubtful.  The energy for a laser powerful enough for that would require a very large spacecraft.  The problem is how to provide the energy.  Chemical is the usual choice and it is complex and heavy.  I suppose it isn't completely out of the question.  The very first Russian Energia heavy booster had a space based laser weapon (Polyus) but it failed as it never achieved orbit.

-Ron
Polyus weighed ~77000 kg !
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 01/08/2018 03:18 pm
Just stop with the space weapons stuff.  EVERY defense prime has some connection to a military laser program.  There's nothing special about Northrup Grumman making some acquisition years ago that would increase the odds of this being a weapon payload.

edit: apparently laser weapons aren't banned by treaty, I need to brush up on my space legal knowledge some day (or just keep letting people correct me, which is far easier)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: rockets4life97 on 01/08/2018 03:28 pm
The rollout of FH for the static fire test is enough confirmation for me that the Zuma mission was a success. Business as usual. The steamroller continues.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: CyndyC on 01/08/2018 04:27 pm
Maybe it's a launch for an unacknowledged foreign government, through and with the cooperation of the US Government? It would explain why none of the agencies are taking ownership of it (assuming they're not lying, of course).

Possibly a US spy sat that protects another country directly and the US only indirectly, but otherwise why not just report the mission as a secret Israeli, South Korean, or Ukranian govt mission, or whatever, just as in the past it has not been covered up when the mission was a secret US govt mission.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: yokem55 on 01/08/2018 04:31 pm
The rollout of FH for the static fire test is enough confirmation for me that the Zuma mission was a success. Business as usual. The steamroller continues.
The only pause I have on this is if there was a failure in a capability that Zuma needed from the upper stage that usually isn't needed. If there was a restart failure after a very long coast (much longer than normal missions require), we might not ever hear about it as that might give away part of the mission. Other missions not needing such long coast phases could proceed as normal, and the investigation/remediation could happen completely out of the public eye.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: e of pi on 01/08/2018 04:41 pm
Now catalogued as USA 280, 2018-001A, 43098.  Naturally no orbital data given.
Do you have a source on that? It'd be good to get an outside confirmation of success since it seems that might be all we get.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: wannamoonbase on 01/08/2018 04:45 pm
Quote
My favorite remote camera image I took from last nights Zuma launch. My camera was setup at the launch pad and fitted with a Miops Smart Trigger. #spacex #Falcon9 #rocketlaunch #spacexlaunch @elonmusk @SpaceX @Teslarati @MiopsTrigger

https://twitter.com/_tomcross_/status/950281149871542272 (https://twitter.com/_tomcross_/status/950281149871542272)

Now imagine this x3 ...

Great photo, that's awesome work!  Bring on the FH.

Edit: Great detail of the lower end, is that a bolted octoweb?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 01/08/2018 05:21 pm
The de-orbit burn of the upper stage was observed.

Quote
Hi all,

Just got a report with pictures from a Dutch aircraft pilot of what I think is
the de-orbit burn/depressurization of the Falcon 9 upper stage from the Zuma
launch last night.

The images definitely show something rocket-related. Time reportedly was near
2:18 UT (January 8), location flying above Khartoum in Sudan. Object moved in
(roughly) southerly direction. This was about 40-45 minutes before opening of
the upper stage re-entry window.

More details to follow later.

- Marco

http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Jan-2018/0063.html
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: basedoesgames on 01/08/2018 05:25 pm
I feel like this is a good place to post my launch picture. (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DS-2r6hXcAAsXqI.jpg:large)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Formica on 01/08/2018 05:41 pm

Great photo, that's awesome work!  Bring on the FH.

Edit: Great detail of the lower end, is that a bolted octoweb?

Yeah, that might be the best image from the Zuma launch so far. Very impressive  :)

As for what we're seeing, my guess would be that the bolted on panels are the new-ish non ablative (Inconel?) heat shields.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 01/08/2018 05:55 pm
The de-orbit burn of the upper stage was observed.

Quote
Hi all,

Just got a report with pictures from a Dutch aircraft pilot of what I think is
the de-orbit burn/depressurization of the Falcon 9 upper stage from the Zuma
launch last night.

The images definitely show something rocket-related. Time reportedly was near
2:18 UT (January 8), location flying above Khartoum in Sudan. Object moved in
(roughly) southerly direction. This was about 40-45 minutes before opening of
the upper stage re-entry window.

More details to follow later.

- Marco

http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Jan-2018/0063.html
Observed 40-45 minutes before the opening of the upper stage re-entry window. Is that a normal delay between a de-orbit burn and expected re-entry?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars-J on 01/08/2018 06:20 pm

Great photo, that's awesome work!  Bring on the FH.

Edit: Great detail of the lower end, is that a bolted octoweb?

Yeah, that might be the best image from the Zuma launch so far. Very impressive  :)

As for what we're seeing, my guess would be that the bolted on panels are the new-ish non ablative (Inconel?) heat shields.

It doesn't look much different that previous flights. As far as the bolted vs welded(?) octaweb, that's all internal and the difference would be not visible from the exterior.

As far as new non ablative heat shield, is that being implemented? Because this looks no different in my eyes to the normal "spam"-ish material.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: francesco nicoli on 01/08/2018 06:34 pm
Just stop with the space weapons stuff.  EVERY defense prime has some connection to a military laser program.  There's nothing special about Northrup Grumman making some acquisition years ago that would increase the odds of this being a banned weapon payload.

apologies, but why "banned"?

Conventional weaponry, including lasers, is not banned in space. Nuclear warheads are.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 01/08/2018 06:35 pm
The de-orbit burn of the upper stage was observed.

Quote
Hi all,

Just got a report with pictures from a Dutch aircraft pilot of what I think is
the de-orbit burn/depressurization of the Falcon 9 upper stage from the Zuma
launch last night.

The images definitely show something rocket-related. Time reportedly was near
2:18 UT (January 8), location flying above Khartoum in Sudan. Object moved in
(roughly) southerly direction. This was about 40-45 minutes before opening of
the upper stage re-entry window.

More details to follow later.

- Marco

http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Jan-2018/0063.html
Observed 40-45 minutes before the opening of the upper stage re-entry window. Is that a normal delay between a de-orbit burn and expected re-entry?

TBH I was wondering that as well when I posted that & Marco has followed it up with this post saying he is making further enquiries regarding the sighting.

http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Jan-2018/0064.html
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: e of pi on 01/08/2018 06:37 pm
The de-orbit burn of the upper stage was observed.

Quote
Hi all,

Just got a report with pictures from a Dutch aircraft pilot of what I think is
the de-orbit burn/depressurization of the Falcon 9 upper stage from the Zuma
launch last night.

The images definitely show something rocket-related. Time reportedly was near
2:18 UT (January 8), location flying above Khartoum in Sudan. Object moved in
(roughly) southerly direction. This was about 40-45 minutes before opening of
the upper stage re-entry window.

More details to follow later.

- Marco

http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Jan-2018/0063.html
Observed 40-45 minutes before the opening of the upper stage re-entry window. Is that a normal delay between a de-orbit burn and expected re-entry?
About half an orbit is pretty typical AIUI, so 40 minutes from retro to entry wouldn't be too surprising to me.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lar on 01/08/2018 06:43 pm
Just stop with the space weapons stuff.  EVERY defense prime has some connection to a military laser program.  There's nothing special about Northrup Grumman making some acquisition years ago that would increase the odds of this being a banned weapon payload.

apologies, but why "banned"?

Conventional weaponry, including lasers, is not banned in space. Nuclear warheads are.
That's a quibble, and off-topic.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: old_sellsword on 01/08/2018 06:59 pm
Quote
My favorite remote camera image I took from last nights Zuma launch. My camera was setup at the launch pad and fitted with a Miops Smart Trigger. #spacex #Falcon9 #rocketlaunch #spacexlaunch @elonmusk @SpaceX @Teslarati @MiopsTrigger

https://twitter.com/_tomcross_/status/950281149871542272 (https://twitter.com/_tomcross_/status/950281149871542272)

Now imagine this x3 ...

Great photo, that's awesome work!  Bring on the FH.

Edit: Great detail of the lower end, is that a bolted octoweb?

It looks no different than any previous v1.2 octawebs.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: russianhalo117 on 01/08/2018 07:05 pm
Quote
My favorite remote camera image I took from last nights Zuma launch. My camera was setup at the launch pad and fitted with a Miops Smart Trigger. #spacex #Falcon9 #rocketlaunch #spacexlaunch @elonmusk @SpaceX @Teslarati @MiopsTrigger

https://twitter.com/_tomcross_/status/950281149871542272 (https://twitter.com/_tomcross_/status/950281149871542272)

Now imagine this x3 ...

Great photo, that's awesome work!  Bring on the FH.

Edit: Great detail of the lower end, is that a bolted octoweb?

It looks no different than any previous v1.2 octawebs.
Only difference up close is no welds attaching the octaweb to the stage and slight differences to the panels on the Octawebs themselves.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars-J on 01/08/2018 07:11 pm
Quote
My favorite remote camera image I took from last nights Zuma launch. My camera was setup at the launch pad and fitted with a Miops Smart Trigger. #spacex #Falcon9 #rocketlaunch #spacexlaunch @elonmusk @SpaceX @Teslarati @MiopsTrigger

https://twitter.com/_tomcross_/status/950281149871542272 (https://twitter.com/_tomcross_/status/950281149871542272)

Now imagine this x3 ...

Great photo, that's awesome work!  Bring on the FH.

Edit: Great detail of the lower end, is that a bolted octoweb?

It looks no different than any previous v1.2 octawebs.
Only difference up close is no welds attaching the octaweb to the stage and slight differences to the panels on the Octawebs themselves.

Those welds were internal, not external. Unless you can point out the difference in images?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 01/08/2018 07:52 pm

TBH I was wondering that as well when I posted that & Marco has followed it up with this post saying he is making further enquiries regarding the sighting.

http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Jan-2018/0064.html

Sounds like he is working on a blog post to appear later in the week with the re-entry burn photos.

http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Jan-2018/0066.html
Quote
I will post the images on my blog later this week.

- Marco
So watch his space https://sattrackcam.blogspot.com/
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: drnscr on 01/08/2018 08:06 pm
I apologize but, for some reason, I cannot get the likelihood there was an issue with fairing and payload deployment out of my mind.  It strikes me as odd we haven’t seen a Musk tweet or something... just my two cents.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: sunbingfa on 01/08/2018 08:13 pm
 :'(
Peter Selding:
 
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/950473623483101186

Zuma satellite from @northropgrumman may be dead in orbit after separation from @SpaceX Falcon 9, sources say. Info blackout renders any conclusion - launcher issue? Satellite-only issue? -- impossible to draw.


Eric Berger:

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/950474284807450625
I have been chasing this story as well. No comment from SpaceX as of yet.


This mission has a lot of weirdness from the start.....
..........
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: vanoord on 01/08/2018 08:13 pm
Peter B. de Sending on Twitter
@pbdes
Quote
Zuma satellite from @northropgrumman may be dead in orbit after separation from @SpaceX Falcon 9, sources say. Info blackout renders any conclusion - launcher issue? Satellite-only issue? -- impossible to draw.

If you wanted your secret satellite to remain secret, it mightn't be a bad thing to suggest it never woke up on orbit.

Or am I being cynical?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 01/08/2018 08:17 pm
:'(
Peter Selding:
 
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/950473623483101186

Zuma satellite from @northropgrumman may be dead in orbit after separation from @SpaceX Falcon 9, sources say. Info blackout renders any conclusion - launcher issue? Satellite-only issue? -- impossible to draw.


Eric Berger:

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/950474284807450625
I have been chasing this story as well. No comment from SpaceX as of yet.


This mission has a lot of weirdness from the start.....
..........


Per Peter's tweet, what I struggle with is how this could be a launcher issue if Zuma separated and is dead in space after separating from F9?

EDIT: Not calling his first report into question - that Zuma might be dead in space per sources. If he's saying this publicly, he's got multiple good sources.  But the second part is what I struggle with - that it could be an F9 issue, when the first part clearly states that the payload separated from the 2nd stage.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: AbuSimbel on 01/08/2018 08:17 pm
Peter B. de Sending on Twitter
@pbdes
Quote
Zuma satellite from @northropgrumman may be dead in orbit after separation from @SpaceX Falcon 9, sources say. Info blackout renders any conclusion - launcher issue? Satellite-only issue? -- impossible to draw.

If you wanted your secret satellite to remain secret, it mightn't be a bad thing to suggest it never woke up on orbit.

Or am I being cynical?

eh, had we seen the usual 'payload healthy and placed in good orbit' tweet we would be forgetting about Zuma and moving into FH hype.
If these maneuvers are intended to lower people's attention to the payload they're not very effective.


Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 01/08/2018 08:22 pm
Per Peter's tweet, what I struggle is how is could be a launcher issue if Zuma separated and is dead in space after separating from F9?
See Progress M-27M, Commercial Titan 3 (Intelsat 6), etc.

 - Ed Kyle

Progress M-27M - "a malfunction occurred near the end of the upper stage burn shortly before the separation of the Progress spacecraft".

Intelsat 6- "An uninsured $140-million communications satellite apparently failed to separate from its Titan 3 booster rocket."

Peter's tweet says "Zuma satellite from @northropgrumman may be dead in orbit after separation from @SpaceX Falcon 9.

My question stands.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: vanoord on 01/08/2018 08:25 pm
eh, had we seen the usual 'payload healthy and placed in good orbit' tweet we would be forgetting about Zuma and moving into FH hype.
If these maneuvers are intended to lower people's attention to the payload they're not very effective.

The health of the spacecraft was not for SpaceX to report; and they do not do that other than with Dragon - any health update comes from the satellite owner / operator.

SpaceX are virtually certainly contractually-bound not to reveal anything to do with the vehicle (ie their S2, the fairings and the payload) after S1 separation. That would, by definition, include whether or not it reached the correct orbit.

This has been an odd and strangely secretive launch and I doubt we'll ever know for certain what's happened either way.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Rebel44 on 01/08/2018 08:29 pm
Quote
SpaceX just told me there were no anomalies with the rocket during Sunday night's launch. (But that doesn't mean there weren't with the satellite).

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/950477142386794496

IMO: if there were no anomalies with Falcon 9 payload should be in planned orbit and owner (NG or whatever government agency owned it) is unlikely to give us a satellite health info unless there are signs of trouble that would be visible to people on the ground
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 01/08/2018 08:30 pm
We'll probably have a clue of a stage 2 issue if GovSat-1 is postponed for checks on its launcher. However, there are many other failure points including payload processing and even construction. It wouldn't be the first time that a launcher worked perfectly but the payload was actually dead on encapsulation.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: yokem55 on 01/08/2018 08:30 pm
:'(
Peter Selding:
 
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/950473623483101186

Zuma satellite from @northropgrumman may be dead in orbit after separation from @SpaceX Falcon 9, sources say. Info blackout renders any conclusion - launcher issue? Satellite-only issue? -- impossible to draw.


Eric Berger:

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/950474284807450625
I have been chasing this story as well. No comment from SpaceX as of yet.


This mission has a lot of weirdness from the start.....
..........


Per Peter's tweet, what I struggle is how is could be a launcher issue if Zuma separated and is dead in space after separating from F9?
Virbration or G-Loads could have been exceeded? Recontact during faring separation? Electrical malfunction?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: AbuSimbel on 01/08/2018 08:33 pm
eh, had we seen the usual 'payload healthy and placed in good orbit' tweet we would be forgetting about Zuma and moving into FH hype.
If these maneuvers are intended to lower people's attention to the payload they're not very effective.

The health of the spacecraft was not for SpaceX to report; and they do not do that other than with Dragon - any health update comes from the satellite owner / operator.

SpaceX are virtually certainly contractually-bound not to reveal anything to do with the vehicle (ie their S2, the fairings and the payload) after S1 separation. That would, by definition, include whether or not it reached the correct orbit.

This has been an odd and strangely secretive launch and I doubt we'll ever know for certain what's happened either way.
You're right. What I wanted to say is that simulating an anomaly with the payload isn't the best way to lower people's attention on it.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Rebel44 on 01/08/2018 08:36 pm
:'(
Peter Selding:
 
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/950473623483101186

Zuma satellite from @northropgrumman may be dead in orbit after separation from @SpaceX Falcon 9, sources say. Info blackout renders any conclusion - launcher issue? Satellite-only issue? -- impossible to draw.


Eric Berger:

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/950474284807450625
I have been chasing this story as well. No comment from SpaceX as of yet.


This mission has a lot of weirdness from the start.....
..........


Per Peter's tweet, what I struggle is how is could be a launcher issue if Zuma separated and is dead in space after separating from F9?
Virbration or G-Loads could have been exceeded? Recontact during faring separation? Electrical malfunction?

IMO: excessive vibrations, G-loads or recontact during fairing separation would count as rocket anomalies.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: cebri on 01/08/2018 08:43 pm
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/the-zuma-satellite-launched-by-spacex-may-be-lost-sources-tell-ars/

"According to one source, the payload fell back to Earth along with the spent upper stage of the Falcon 9 rocket."

Could this be possible?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 01/08/2018 08:45 pm
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/the-zuma-satellite-launched-by-spacex-may-be-lost-sources-tell-ars/

"According to one source, the payload fell back to Earth along with the spent upper stage of the Falcon 9 rocket."

Could this be possible?

Bottom line, yes. Especially if, for whatever reason, the upper stage did not get Zuma into a stable initial parking orbit (by accident or design).
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Semmel on 01/08/2018 08:45 pm
Eric Berger’s write-up:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/the-zuma-satellite-launched-by-spacex-may-be-lost-sources-tell-ars/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/the-zuma-satellite-launched-by-spacex-may-be-lost-sources-tell-ars/)

Edit to add:

Article includes:

Quote
According to one source, the payload fell back to Earth along with the spent upper stage of the Falcon 9 rocket.

Eric also gives same quote as in Chris G’s post above.


That makes no sense since there was a de-orbit burn of S2.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Freddedonna on 01/08/2018 08:50 pm
That makes no sense since there was a de-orbit burn of S2.

And the payload was cataloged as mentioned here :

Now catalogued as USA 280, 2018-001A, 43098.  Naturally no orbital data given.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Rebel44 on 01/08/2018 08:51 pm
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/the-zuma-satellite-launched-by-spacex-may-be-lost-sources-tell-ars/

"According to one source, the payload fell back to Earth along with the spent upper stage of the Falcon 9 rocket."

Could this be possible?

Based on SpaceX quote (no anomaly with F9) payload was delivered to correct orbit and separated from the 2nd stage - so the only thing that would make sense for payload deorbiting is IMO screwup with satellite propulsion (satellites propulsion firing in the wrong direction) that would result in deorbiting it.

I am also not sure if in that case payload would be cataloged.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 01/08/2018 08:51 pm
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/the-zuma-satellite-launched-by-spacex-may-be-lost-sources-tell-ars/

"According to one source, the payload fell back to Earth along with the spent upper stage of the Falcon 9 rocket."

Could this be possible?

Bottom line, yes. Especially if, for whatever reason, the upper stage did not get Zuma into a stable initial parking orbit (by accident or design).

Which does not follow SpaceX saying that Falcon 9 functioned without issue.  If the rocket didn't achieve orbital velocity, SpaceX would not publicly be saying the rocket had no issues.  Not achieving orbital velocity for a rocket on a mission to insert a satellite into orbit is a failure.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Michael Baylor on 01/08/2018 08:57 pm
Quote
According to one source, the payload fell back to Earth along with the spent upper stage of the Falcon 9 rocket.

Not sure why this was included in the article. There are no reports that seem to back this up. Most of them are saying "dead in orbit" which means that Zuma is still in orbit. Additionally, SpaceX would almost certainly know if Zuma was put into the wrong orbit. This is not to mention that Zuma has also been catalogued.

That claim does not seem to be backed up with common sense at this point. Most likely scenario based on combining reports is that Zuma had a technical malfunction of some sort and is in orbit but not responding.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 01/08/2018 08:58 pm
If I may speculate, I think that we can safely say that something is wrong with Zuma. However, no-one with actual knowledge is talking (as one would expect). I suspect that what Eric and Peter are hearing is second-hand speculation of people who know people in the post-failure investigation team. These people have mentioned parts of some aspects of early working theories about what has happened to the spacecraft (theories constrained and hobbled by the fact that the last anyone saw of it was the Falcon 9 upper stage payload camera showing the vehicle separate and drift clear in some 'black' MCC somewhere in Langley, Virginia or The Pentagon).

Bottom line, yes. Especially if, for whatever reason, the upper stage did not get Zuma into a stable initial parking orbit (by accident or design).

Which does not follow SpaceX saying that Falcon 9 functioned without issue.  If the rocket didn't achieve orbital velocity, SpaceX would not publicly be saying the rocket had no issues.  Not achieving orbital velocity for a rocket on a mission to insert a satellite into orbit is a failure.

That's why I mentioned 'by accident or design', referring to my earlier speculation about a suborbital initial trajectory to conserve dV for a second upper stage burn.

However, the more I think about it, the less I'm buying the 'fell into the ocean with the upper stage' claim. That would require either an under-boost (which seemingly contradicts the planned de-orbit burn) or a separation failure, both of which would definitely be launch vehicle failures.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Yellowstone10 on 01/08/2018 08:59 pm
Marco Langbroek over at satobs.org posted that he checked with the pilot who spotted the potential S2 deorbit burn, and confirmed that the previously reported time of 0218 UTC was indeed in error:

http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Jan-2018/0066.html

This puts S2 over east Africa within minutes of when Mr. Langbroek predicted - suggests no issue with F9.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Brovane on 01/08/2018 08:59 pm

Which does not follow SpaceX saying that Falcon 9 functioned without issue.  If the rocket didn't achieve orbital velocity, SpaceX would not publicly be saying the rocket had no issues.  Not achieving orbital velocity for a rocket on a mission to insert a satellite into orbit is a failure.

I agree 100% with this based on the information we have.  The most likely scenario at this point based on the information we know is that the satellite failed in orbit.  SpaceX wouldn't be announcing that the F9 had no anomalies if some type of issue occurred.  Also we can judge by the fact that SpaceX is moving along with the next planned flights.  A failure of some type would have resulted in a stand-down until the failure had been completely investigated. 

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 01/08/2018 09:01 pm
Ooops, posted in updates:

Eric Berger’s write-up:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/the-zuma-satellite-launched-by-spacex-may-be-lost-sources-tell-ars/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/the-zuma-satellite-launched-by-spacex-may-be-lost-sources-tell-ars/)

Edit to add:

Article includes:

Quote
According to one source, the payload fell back to Earth along with the spent upper stage of the Falcon 9 rocket.

Eric also gives same quote as in Chris G’s post above.

Not to be a skeptic, but how much extra propellant would be needed to de-orbit the upper-stage with the extra mass of a payload still attached? Yet, everything SpaceX has said is nominal vehicle performance.

Wonder, deliberate indirection? Payload was in charge of raising it's own orbit, aka Polyus?

Do we need to wait for Northrup Grumman's financial quarterly statement to come out, I suspect the customer will not pay if this is the case and that should show up as a loss or write-off.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: rcoppola on 01/08/2018 09:07 pm
NG used their own payload processing facilities as well as their own designed stage/bus adapter. I wonder if that was something SpaceX advised against? Or was uncomfortable with for any reason?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: docmordrid on 01/08/2018 09:08 pm
What if this was some kind of reentry vehicle test? Not necessarily a warhead but something like IXV, an X-37B follow-on prototype, etc.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 01/08/2018 09:08 pm
These things are paid for before they even launch. Failures are for the insurance companies to deal with (unless it is not insured like most government payloads, then it is just a loss for the customer.)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: AncientU on 01/08/2018 09:11 pm
Quote
I'm afraid we are operating in a vacuum when it comes to information about the Zuma spacecraft.

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/950488919195488256
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: nacnud on 01/08/2018 09:13 pm
Quote
I'm afraid we are operating in a vacuum when it comes to information about the Zuma spacecraft.

I just hope Zuma is too. (operating in a vacuum that is)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: cscott on 01/08/2018 09:14 pm
I think it's a little early to conclude even that it has failed.  Although rumors are getting reported by two different space reporters, they could well be sharing the same source... directly or indirectly.  This could just be the telephone game played with the crazy rumors started on Reddit or wherever, which get repeated often enough to be "looked into"... but can't be disproven because no one can speak on the record about the payload.

We probably won't know more unless (a) there was a real problem, traced to SpaceX, and the failure investigation has visible effects, (b) the amateur satellite watchers not only find the bird, but observe it actively change orbit (assuming it's designed to manuveur and not designed to deliberately re-enter), or (c) the capabilities of the new satellite get leaked or publicly announced (for deterrence?). 
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: AncientU on 01/08/2018 09:15 pm
Quote
Adding to the intrigue surrounding Zuma: Reports that Musk has told his team that this is the company's most important/expensive payload ever launched.
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/950490705507569666
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 01/08/2018 09:17 pm
NG used their own payload processing facilities as well as their own designed stage/bus adapter. I wonder if that was something SpaceX advised against? Or was uncomfortable with for any reason?

The payload processing part shouldn't be that big of a deal, plenty of experienced alternative providers at the Cape. Where is the source of NG using their own adapter?

Ultimately we won't know what happened until NG releases a statement.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 01/08/2018 09:18 pm
I suppose we have to wait to see if any new orbital objects get reported over the next few weeks. Then we'll have more data as to whether the spacecraft reached orbit.

One scenario I can think of is that Zuma suffered a MMOD collision at some point post-PLF separation and was disabled. As there is no link between the Falcon 9 and its payload in these types of missions, unless properly-cleared technicians at Hawthorne were monitoring footage from the prow camera on the upper stage, there would not necessarily any data SpaceX would have regarding the problem. All NG would know is that the spacecraft never signalled them post-separation.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: AncientU on 01/08/2018 09:20 pm
I suppose we have to wait to see if any new orbital objects get reported over the next few weeks. Then we'll have more data as to whether the spacecraft reached orbit.

One scenario I can think of is that Zuma suffered a MMOD collision at some point post-PLF separation and was disabled. As there is no link between the Falcon 9 and its payload in these types of missions, unless properly-cleared technicians at Hawthorne were monitoring footage from the prow camera on the upper stage, there would not necessarily any data SpaceX would have regarding the problem. All NG would know is that the spacecraft never signalled them post-separation.

Just before stage separation, the camera control was handed off to someone... never heard that call before, so probably associated with payload secrecy.  SpaceX may not have had (or still doesn't have) any indication of what happened after spacecraft release.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 01/08/2018 09:21 pm
I suppose we have to wait to see if any new orbital objects get reported over the next few weeks. Then we'll have more data as to whether the spacecraft reached orbit.

One scenario I can think of is that Zuma suffered a MMOD collision at some point post-PLF separation and was disabled. As there is no link between the Falcon 9 and its payload in these types of missions, unless properly-cleared technicians at Hawthorne were monitoring footage from the prow camera on the upper stage, there would not necessarily any data SpaceX would have regarding the problem. All NG would know is that the spacecraft never signalled them post-separation.
Assuming a decoy wasn't used and the actual payload is cataloged as DEBRIS... (aka Misty 2)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: dmgaba on 01/08/2018 09:22 pm
Is it at all possible that because of the nature of the payload its separation mechanism was provided by the payload manufacturer rather than by SpaceX, and that ZUMA remained attached to S2 even though all electronic or mechanical actions by SpaceX's S2 are KNOWN via telemetry/video to have worked properly?  If that were the case then SpaceX could be confident of no anomaly of Falcon 9 yet it could still be the case that ZUMA re-entered with S2 after it's deorbit burn...???   In the absence of solid info. everything we speculate is... purely conjecture...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 01/08/2018 09:24 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 01/08/2018 09:25 pm
Quote
Adding to the intrigue surrounding Zuma: Reports that Musk has told his team that this is the company's most important/expensive payload ever launched.
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/950490705507569666
This what I was referring to when I posted "Personally, I would be cautious using words like “obviously” in L2, especially with such a  mysterious and apparently insanely valuable payload like Zuma."

Not meaning that the payload was specifically so expensive (who knows?), but that it was of extreme importance to Musk.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43994.msg1767345#msg1767345

To further that, it's also my assumption that Zuma was what Elon was referring to in the Rolling Stone article when he said, ""If you say anything about what you're about to see, it would cost us billions," he says, rising from his desk. "And you would be put in jail."

Of course - it could have nothing to do with SpaceX and everything to do with Tesla (new Roadster / Semi / ...), but nothing on the Tesla side struck me as that secret, nor that sensitive.

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/elon-musk-inventors-plans-for-outer-space-cars-finding-love-w511747

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: cscott on 01/08/2018 09:26 pm
Quote
Adding to the intrigue surrounding Zuma: Reports that Musk has told his team that this is the company's most important/expensive payload ever launched.
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/950490705507569666
Just to put some cold water on this: that's a "report" sourced from Reddit, some months ago.

Now, it may be accurate, who knows.  But it's not new information or heavily sourced.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: 0x32 on 01/08/2018 09:35 pm
Could the payload have been a hypersonic reentry vehicle?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Falcon_Project
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: cscott on 01/08/2018 09:38 pm
Hypersonic tests have a history of being short and not-entirely-successful.

But previously they've been smaller scale payloads on smaller rockets, often air-launched, and not nearly as secretive as Zuma.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 01/08/2018 09:39 pm
Could the payload have been a hypersonic reentry vehicle?

It could explain many things.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ames on 01/08/2018 09:41 pm
A Zoomer!
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: andrewsdanj on 01/08/2018 09:47 pm
Hypersonic tests have a history of being short and not-entirely-successful.

But previously they've been smaller scale payloads on smaller rockets, often air-launched, and not nearly as secretive as Zuma.

NG are involved in the XS-1. And to add a true conspiracy twist, 'Zuma' is a song by the band 'Hypersonic'...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biTmszuYyWo
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: FutureMartian97 on 01/08/2018 09:52 pm
Hypersonic tests have a history of being short and not-entirely-successful.

But previously they've been smaller scale payloads on smaller rockets, often air-launched, and not nearly as secretive as Zuma.

NG are involved in the XS-1. And to add a true conspiracy twist, 'Zuma' is a song by the band 'Hypersonic'...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biTmszuYyWo

It could make sense that it really is a test vehicle. USLaunchReport saw SECO at t+7:15, that's to short of a burn to achieve orbit, but get quite a bit of speed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK4dELV4b9Q&t=10s
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 01/08/2018 09:57 pm
Or is this doing a Misty.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3077830/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/spy-satellites-rise-faked-fall/

If there’s one thing NG know a lot about it’s stealth.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 01/08/2018 10:03 pm
If I may speculate,.....

No
Please don’t
With what part of “secret” are people having difficulty?

We have photographic evidence of launch, staging, second stage ignition, even fairing separation. (Look for it)
We see the second stage flying until it goes behind clouds way down range.
SpaceX said there was no problem with the rocket.
We have a sighting of what could be the second stage deorbit burn.
An object in orbit has been catalogued.

The unidentified secret customer has failed to PM you. 😉
People have said that people have said stuff.
That does not constitute evidence.
We have no good basis for speculation.
Please give it a rest.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: russianhalo117 on 01/08/2018 10:08 pm
If this speculation continues out of control like a derailed train mods may have to lock this and the update thread until people calm down..
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 01/08/2018 10:09 pm
SpaceX will be paid in full and the customer will be back for more, that's all that matters.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 01/08/2018 10:15 pm
If this speculation continues out of control like a derailed train mods may have to lock this and the update thread until people calm down..

Speculation is the inevitable response of the enthusiast in the absence of official news. Frankly, I haven't seen anything that is unreasonable or unwarranted; there is certainly no silly hand-waving. In any case, given the nature of the payload, speculation is likely all we'll ever have.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Surfdaddy on 01/08/2018 10:29 pm
If I may speculate,.....

No
Please don’t
With what part of “secret” are people having difficulty?

We have photographic evidence of launch, staging, second stage ignition, even fairing separation. (Look for it)
We see the second stage flying until it goes behind clouds way down range.
SpaceX said there was no problem with the rocket.
We have a sighting of what could be the second stage deorbit burn.
An object in orbit has been catalogued.

The unidentified secret customer has failed to PM you. 😉
People have said that people have said stuff.
That does not constitute evidence.
We have no good basis for speculation.
Please give it a rest.



I agree with everything but the bolded statements.
That's what we do, we're curious, and we float ideas. It's a discussion forum.
However that doesn't mean we're ever going to know, either.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Sam Ho on 01/08/2018 10:30 pm
To further that, it's also my assumption that Zuma was what Elon was referring to in the Rolling Stone article when he said, ""If you say anything about what you're about to see, it would cost us billions," he says, rising from his desk. "And you would be put in jail."

Of course - it could have nothing to do with SpaceX and everything to do with Tesla (new Roadster / Semi / ...), but nothing on the Tesla side struck me as that secret, nor that sensitive.

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/elon-musk-inventors-plans-for-outer-space-cars-finding-love-w511747
The Rolling Stone article specifically says it was the Tesla Semi.  Besides which, Elon doesn't have the authority to show classified material to a reporter, threats of jail time or not.
Quote
For the next 20 minutes, Musk examines the Tesla Truck. He comments first on the technical details, even ones as granular as the drawbacks and advantages of different types of welding. He then moves on to the design, specifically a driver-comfort feature that cannot be specified here, due to said threatened jail time.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: aero on 01/08/2018 10:33 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lar on 01/08/2018 10:33 pm
If this speculation continues out of control like a derailed train mods may have to lock this and the update thread until people calm down..
We appreciate self modding. But handicapping what we are going to do? Not so much.

My personal view: (not vetted with other mods yet...)

Go ahead and speculate if your speculations are well founded, within the realm of physical possibility, and are not repeats of stuff already said, that is, they add value.

Go ahead and deconstruct speculations if you can do so collegially and can add value and learnings by doing so.

"Aliens abducted it" probably goes in the party thread.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Rocket Science on 01/08/2018 10:50 pm
Did the USAF comment about the deployment of X-37B? I don't recall so (please correct me) so my assumption is the spacecraft functioned/is functioning as required until proven otherwise. (I usually stay way from reddit)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lee Jay on 01/08/2018 11:00 pm
Go ahead and speculate if your speculations are well founded, within the realm of physical possibility, and are not repeats of stuff already said, that is, they add value.

My (I believe) well-founded speculation is that those in-the-know aren't talking and everyone else is, by definition, not in-the-know.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: quagmire on 01/08/2018 11:10 pm
If the Falcon 9 was the cause of this rumored loss of Zuma, we wouldn't be seeing continued preparations for the Falcon Heavy WDR, static fire, and launch campaign.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: pb2000 on 01/08/2018 11:50 pm
If the Falcon 9 was the cause of this rumored loss of Zuma, we wouldn't be seeing continued preparations for the Falcon Heavy WDR, static fire, and launch campaign.
Unless the mission is so highly classified that SpaceX is contractually obligated to continue on as if nothing ever happened, even if the second stage turned into a sperm whale and the payload into a bowl of petunias.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 01/08/2018 11:51 pm
From the start this one has been an intentional enigma. With a high touch, highly pampered payload. Historically they are the worst to get a straight answer on.

Yet many are used to, if not obsessed with, every last dribble of rumor, as if they can get blood from a stone. Humorous.

The moment the video was cut post stage sep you could tell that was the point at which you'd not know. Clearly the customer did not want you to know anything further. (And suggest that you should distrust everything anyone says past that point, even in the future. Because it's a guarantee that things will be missing in the supposed "full telling".)

To those who it mattered it is certain they know what they need to know at this time.

For SX is is an accomplished mission and they are on to the next. (The customer clearly, intimately knew all aspect's of the mission's launch, even requiring extensive payload / launcher interventions.)

As to payload separation, Falcon has the most benign separation mechanism possible. If they got neurotic over fairing sep, its hard to imagine they'd not also go over details of that as well. Flat out don't buy anything launch vehicle related here.

Also, payloads get considerable scrutiny long before they ever see the LV. And hidden issues communicate themselves a bit later in the timeline.

Note that the disposal went much like expected. So likely did the rest of the mission. End of credible story.

As for what might be, the amateur sat sleuths might/might not inform more. Every now and then they surprise.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: quagmire on 01/08/2018 11:56 pm
If the Falcon 9 was the cause of this rumored loss of Zuma, we wouldn't be seeing continued preparations for the Falcon Heavy WDR, static fire, and launch campaign.
Unless the mission is so highly classified that SpaceX is contractually obligated to continue on as if nothing ever happened, even if the second stage turned into a sperm whale and the payload into a bowl of petunias.

That would be one absurd contract to not allow a company to stand down to investigate a failure.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 01/09/2018 12:12 am
Speaking of historical precedence, does anyone remember how the fact of the loss of USA-193/NROL-21 was gradually called out and eventually officially acknowledged back then?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Stan-1967 on 01/09/2018 12:15 am
If the Falcon 9 was the cause of this rumored loss of Zuma, we wouldn't be seeing continued preparations for the Falcon Heavy WDR, static fire, and launch campaign.
Unless the mission is so highly classified that SpaceX is contractually obligated to continue on as if nothing ever happened, even if the second stage turned into a sperm whale and the payload into a bowl of petunias.

This line of reasoning get beat down regularly in the "General SETI Thread".
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: paolozamparutti on 01/09/2018 12:22 am
well, after the rumors, Spacex publishes photos on flickr. This seems to me to be a confirmation that the mission is ok.

this mission is so heavly classified, that the exit of rumors seems to me to be unreliable
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: cscott on 01/09/2018 12:24 am
Unless the mission is so highly classified that SpaceX is contractually obligated to continue on as if nothing ever happened, even if the second stage turned into a sperm whale and the payload into a bowl of petunias.

It's much more likely that a classified problem would have a cover story for the stand down, rather than have to refuse to permit a stand down.

For example, the fairing problem that requires the Zuma delay.  That's the sort of thinly-sourced story I'd expect --- we never got any more detailed info other than "it was a fairing issue with some pre-production fairing" and "Iridium is not affected".  Convenient that the problem was off in some vague pre-production facility, not something that could be directly verified---if in fact you did have access to a preflight fairing to check, one could easily be told the problem was in some *other* pre-production fairing.  Plausible cover stories are much easier to maintain than total information blackouts.  Think Glomar Explorer, etc.

If I were to wear my tinfoil hat, in fact, I'd say that the November "fairing issue" was much more likely to be a classified issue with the Zuma payload.  If there was a problem with Zuma's F9, I'd expect to shortly hear of some vague but plausible issue on the test stand in McGregor which necessitates a stand down, or something like that.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: IanH84 on 01/09/2018 12:36 am
Why would faking a fairing issue be better than simply saying the customer requested that the launch date be moved back for unspecified reasons?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: speedevil on 01/09/2018 12:40 am
Why would faking a fairing issue be better than simply saying the customer requested that the launch date be moved back for unspecified reasons?

Because that is an information release when they don't have to release information.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/09/2018 12:43 am
could the second stage "hover" instead of entering orbit?

Tentative yes.

It's got a high T/W ratio for a second stage. So in theory it could do a lofting 'boostback'. 2000+ km apogee would bring it down around T+25min, close as you like to the coast.

Maybe a launch was the ultimate cover for a readiness review mission  8).

no.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/09/2018 12:43 am

If I were to wear my tinfoil hat, in fact, I'd say that the November "fairing issue" was much more likely to be a classified issue with the Zuma payload.

Except that launch vehicle providers typically do not like to be blamed publicly (or privately, for that matter) for the payload's pre-launch issues, even if it is a classified mission. SpaceX has other commercial customers who don't have insight into classified missions and who SpaceX probably would not want to rattle with rumors of more potential fairing issues, especially if it's an untrue cover story for someone else's (ie payload's) screw-up.

If it were in fact a payload issue, the customer could simply have said nothing. It's a classified mission with no need to invent cover stories that in effect unfairly blame your launch vehicle provider for a launch slip he didn't cause.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: lonestriker on 01/09/2018 12:44 am
Occam's Razor: SpaceX posted pictures of the launch and landing on Flickr; Elon posted John Kraus' picture on Instagram/Twitter; SpaceX replied saying "F9 was nomimal".  All these signs point to the most likely scenario of a properly functioning launch vehicle and delivery to contracted orbit.  So, regardless of what happened with the payload itself, SpaceX appears to have fulfilled their obligations.

As Space Ghost 1962 says, those in the know are keeping quiet.  So all the other noise you hear is just rumor and speculation.

Although as a US citizen and taxpayer I would be disappointed that a very valuable payload may have been lost, the space and SpaceX fan in me is happy that by all accounts, SpaceX is continuing their steamroller.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/09/2018 12:49 am
NG used their own payload processing facilities

They have none
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Andy Bandy on 01/09/2018 01:11 am
If the Falcon 9 was the cause of this rumored loss of Zuma, we wouldn't be seeing continued preparations for the Falcon Heavy WDR, static fire, and launch campaign.
Unless the mission is so highly classified that SpaceX is contractually obligated to continue on as if nothing ever happened, even if the second stage turned into a sperm whale and the payload into a bowl of petunias.

That would be one absurd contract to not allow a company to stand down to investigate a failure.

What exactly has SpaceX done since the launch. Rolled out the Falcon Heavy for a static fire. They have to do that anyway. And it involves the first stage engines. By all appearances there were no problems with the first stage. So, even if there was a problem with the upper stage (which I am NOT assuming based on SpaceX's statement), there would be no reason to delay the test. 
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris Bergin on 01/09/2018 01:14 am
I know this spacecraft is attracting new people with wacky theories, but they won't stand here. Go on Twitter and make your claims, not here. Thanks :)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: cscott on 01/09/2018 01:25 am
If it were in fact a payload issue, the customer could simply have said nothing. It's a classified mission with no need to invent cover stories that in effect unfairly blame your launch vehicle provider for a launch slip he didn't cause.

Sure. I'm just saying that a plausible cover story which can't be easily checked is much more likely than forcing-someone-to-carry-on-and-keep-quiet.  As you point out, there's a hierarchy of plausibilty for these scenarios.  Saying "weather issue" is not so good, since lots of independent meteorologists could fact check that essentially public info.  Some plausible explanation that doesn't put blame on SpaceX is best; one which points the finger at experimental hardware that's not yet on any commercial customer's rocket (which is essentially the story we were told about the Zuma fairing and "fairing 2.0") is not quite as good but could be acceptable; one which makes Elon look like a stud (in the way the Glomar Explorer cover story played up Howard Hughes) would be win-win for both sides.

I don't think it's worth trying too hard to defend any particular scenario, in the known absence of direct information, but at least we can evaluate plausibilty and confine our fruitless speculation to ideas which are not outright crazy. ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: cscott on 01/09/2018 01:28 am
China has actually launched several satellites demonstrating quantum encryption:

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/china-s-quantum-satellite-achieves-spooky-action-record-distance

But the research here has been academic and open; no need for zuma-level secrecy.  The secret is in the bits that are communicated, not in how that is done. (That's the point of encryption: it's secure even if everyone knows the algorithms, so long as they don't know the key.)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Inoeth on 01/09/2018 01:42 am
So i'm a little confused as to whether or not SpaceX is at fault, and what happened. the WSJ https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-spy-satellite-believed-lost-after-spacex-mission-fails-1515462479 repeat the "zuma failed to detach and fell" line, while others have said that it reach the correct orbit and that S2 worked just fine, but that Zuma was dead/nonresponsive... So much conflicting information... 

SpaceX tweeting out and posting launch photos literally at the same time as we get these new articles about the failed launch and saying that the launch was 'nominal' and continuing on with FH prep, but no details is weird- and does point to SpaceX being not at fault, tho the articles coming out are hitting SpaceX pretty hard. 
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: AirmanPika on 01/09/2018 01:48 am
If the Falcon 9 was the cause of this rumored loss of Zuma, we wouldn't be seeing continued preparations for the Falcon Heavy WDR, static fire, and launch campaign.
Unless the mission is so highly classified that SpaceX is contractually obligated to continue on as if nothing ever happened, even if the second stage turned into a sperm whale and the payload into a bowl of petunias.

Oh no...not again...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Flying Beaver on 01/09/2018 01:49 am
tho the articles coming out are hitting SpaceX pretty hard.

This part is completely wrong:

Quote
Notably, the Pentagon’s Strategic Command, which keeps track of all commercial, scientific and national-security satellites along with space debris, hadn’t updated its catalog of objects to reflect a new satellite circling the planet.

ZUMA is cataloged as USA 280, S2 deorbited.

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 01/09/2018 01:51 am
Well, if this launch was so valuable for SpaceX - as has been bandied about quite a bit - and if SpaceX fully delivered on its contracted requirement, then tho it sucks to get bad press, even more so if it’s inaccurately placed, ultimately it’s a huge win for SpaceX.

So on that vein, congratulations to SpaceX!
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: CJ on 01/09/2018 01:55 am
My personal view: (not vetted with other mods yet...)

Go ahead and speculate if your speculations are well founded, within the realm of physical possibility, and are not repeats of stuff already said, that is, they add value.

Go ahead and deconstruct speculations if you can do so collegially and can add value and learnings by doing so.

My personal hunch is that these failure rumors are incredibly convenient if the sat is some sort of recon or SIGINT bird. They might even go so far as to slow-tumble it in orbit to simulate a failure - or mimic that effect (short period repeating luminosity change). Or, it might even completely vanish if it's some sort of stealthed bird, as have been rumored for a long time (such as "Misty").

I find the initial orbital inclination of about 51 degrees (if true) to be interesting. It's very close to ISS orbital inclination, just like NROL-76. That's not all that useful an orbit for a photo-recon bird though; too many places of interest would be beyond its ground path. (such as most of Russia). Same goes for SIGINT in LEO.

My SWAG as to what it is is a technology testbed of some sort, and I think we may well learn more from the satellite-watchers over time.
 
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ArbitraryConstant on 01/09/2018 02:00 am
Seems like SpaceX could justify a stand down even with a completely successful mission, as it is easily possible for anomalies to require investigation even if they didn't cause a failure.

I don't see any real point second guessing this. If there's no stand down it's because the likelihood of subsequent missions succeeding would not be importantly improved by a stand down.

tho the articles coming out are hitting SpaceX pretty hard.

It's the Wall Street Journal, aka the Bezo's News Service.
No, that's the Washington Post.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: JimO on 01/09/2018 02:08 am
When we worked DoD shuttle payloads [if I told you which I'd have to... you know the rest], the key concealment issue was advance knowledge of  WHERE/WHEN the orbit raise burns would occur, since an accurate measurement of burn time could, with ground tracking of delta-V observed, give insight into payload mass.  The narrower an observing focus by a Russian missile-watching satellite [programmed pre-launch to stare at the expected burn location], the crisper the timing of burn start/stop that could be achieved. The wider [in time and space] the necessary search field-of-view, the less frequent the area scan, and thus the lower the precise timing of the engine burn duration. Concealment was focused on increasing the area and time an adversary would have to program his missile-watch payloads to observe, thus degrading the achievable precision of burn durations. At least, that was how it was explained to me.   
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: docmordrid on 01/09/2018 02:18 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/09/2018 02:40 am
So i'm a little confused as to whether or not SpaceX is at fault, and what happened. the WSJ https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-spy-satellite-believed-lost-after-spacex-mission-fails-1515462479 repeat the "zuma failed to detach and fell" line, while others have said that it reach the correct orbit and that S2 worked just fine, but that Zuma was dead/nonresponsive... So much conflicting information... 

Given Andy Pasztor's anti-SpaceX agenda, I look forward to him being proved wrong about the purported failure to separate, which would be SpaceX's fault since payload sep is the responsibility of the LV. Unfortunately, SpaceX is constrained by what they can say publicly, while people like Pasztor can peddle whatever rumors they choose to believe until some definitive truth comes out. Which I expect will vindicate SpaceX.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Nomadd on 01/09/2018 02:41 am
 Gettin a little reddity in here.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: OnWithTheShow on 01/09/2018 02:51 am
There are also several other reasons to simulate/leak a failure:

To try to get the owner/operator to reveal themselves by saying the satellite is healthy

To find a suspected leaker

To test the security in place around this mission
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: old_sellsword on 01/09/2018 02:51 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: cscott on 01/09/2018 02:52 am
"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.

Perhaps the leaked statement is explained by some problem during separation which succeeded in detaching the payload but left it tumbling or damaged in some way.  Makes sense for S2 to deorbit afterwards.  But again... why would the payload then deorbit and "burn up"?

The given statement only really makes sense if the fairing failed to separate.  That would prevent the payload from separating and cause underperformance which would lead to not achieving stable orbit.  Perhaps you'd also vent the S2 propellant tanks before the inevitable re-entry in this scenario, which would explain the S2 observations over Sudan.  But this explanation is directly contradicted by the SpaceX statement. They can't talk about the payload, but they could presumably talk about the performance of their fairing if that was at issue.

Something about all this doesn't add up.

It seems plausible that the delay in confirming fairing separation (perhaps caused by the fact that S2 operations were classified and firewalled from the public broadcast, or an uncorrelated telemetry dropout from S2) was spun into a rumor of fairing failure.  Someone's explanation of what would happen *if* the fairing failed to separate got turned into a whisper that that's what actually happened.  Such a whisper found its way to ready ears.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/09/2018 02:55 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: IanH84 on 01/09/2018 02:57 am
My personal hunch is that these failure rumors are incredibly convenient if the sat is some sort of recon or SIGINT bird.
I don't buy into conspiracy theories, but I think that there are cases where military and intelligence agencies have encouraged them to keep more realistic guesses from catching on and becoming the accepted explanation. With a few weeks until we should be able to see visible passes in the northern hemisphere if it's in the predicted orbit, that's plenty of time for rumors to run wild and make it more difficult to be certain of what "facts" originated where.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: docmordrid on 01/09/2018 03:13 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.

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.
>
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: sewebster on 01/09/2018 03:19 am
The fact that S2 deorbited seems to indicate that separation was achieved.

Isn't that pre-programmed?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: MaxPower on 01/09/2018 03:21 am
"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.

I was just about to use my first post to ask that very question. I'm not an expert but I was under the impression S2 achieves the desired orbit, lets go of the payload and then fires its engine to deorbit. If that's the case, I fail to see why S2 would be deorbited as planned if the payload failed to detach as WSJ reported.

As for the theory this is some sort of "cover up" to hide that the payload was successfully deployed... perhaps its just me but I can't see SpaceX or NG agreeing to participate in such a scheme. Right now, it looks like one of them is responsible for losing an extremely expensive and very sensitive government satellite. That doesn't look good and could have a direct impact on the company responsible or both companies if nothing more concrete comes out about what exactly happened. Not to mention, wouldn't it be strange when neither company stands down or launches an investigation if we're being told one of them lost a really expensive taxpayer funded payload? That theory just seems a little tinfoil hat-ish to me.   

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: jcm on 01/09/2018 03:21 am
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.

Ben, do we know if the S2 deorbit burn is always done with live telemetry, as opposed to just happening under
onboard computer control while out of tracking range?
Also, even if they did note the issue, possible their ability to command at that stage is limited
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: lcs on 01/09/2018 03:22 am
https://twitter.com/Marco_Langbroek/status/950509102970621957

https://twitter.com/NecromanceRaven/status/950500422032265216
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/09/2018 03:24 am
The fact that S2 deorbited seems to indicate that separation was achieved.

Isn't that pre-programmed?

Yes, but on a typical launch vehicle the flight computer waits for confirmation of successful sep from microswitches on the payload adapter before doing a collision/contamination avoidance maneuver and then de-orbiting. If it doesn't get confirmation of sep, it wouldn't continue the sequence.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: dansoton on 01/09/2018 03:27 am
Quote
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.

Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-09/spacex-launched-satellite-isn-t-seen-in-orbit-pentagon-says (emphasis above added).

I thought this was worth posting, even though I agree about 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 simply 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/09/2018 03:33 am
If it was a separation failure, a congressional aide isn't necessarily 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: yokem55 on 01/09/2018 03:34 am
Quote
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.

Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-09/spacex-launched-satellite-isn-t-seen-in-orbit-pentagon-says

I 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.
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?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: dansoton on 01/09/2018 03:38 am
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.

Exactly, and that's my current thinking of what's happened based on trying to triangulate all the reported and sourced information to date, and not just our discussions here. New reports can easily change things however.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/09/2018 03:41 am
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?

It was a typical non-answer. He said, "We have nothing to add to the satellite catalog at this time," which isn't what was asked. It allows the possibility that USA 280 was added to the catalog earlier, (then deleted ?), and thus "there is nothing to add at this time."
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: docmordrid on 01/09/2018 03:47 am
>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?

Well - this guy is an astronomer at Harvard-Smithsonian, so FWIW....

https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/950559247959494657

Jonathan McDowell ✔ @planet4589
Space-Track has cataloged the Zuma payload as USA 280, international designation 2018-001A. Catalog number 43098.
No orbit details given. No reentry date given, but for a secret payload it might not be. Implication is Space-Track thinks it completed at least one orbit
9:45 PM - Jan 8, 2018
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Bubbinski on 01/09/2018 03:50 am
Congratulations to SpaceX for the Zuma launch and first stage landing. Let’s see if any further sightings or TLE’s show up of USA 280 before we bury this mission. If there were indeed a serious issue that happened with the Falcon 9 rocket itself I’d think we’d be hearing about a stand down or delay in subsequent missions, haven’t seen that so far.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: TripD on 01/09/2018 03:51 am
All of this brings up a question.  Allowing for this worst case scenario, how in the world would a 2nd stage burn even manage to guide the 'satelite' and 2nd stage into the atmosphere?  Wouldn't the rocket just spin about the new center of gravity?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: aero on 01/09/2018 03:51 am
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.

Looks like I was wrong, in part, or maybe the confirmations of loss don't count as official. Still, the spacecraft is fast disappearing as though it were never launched. That is very close to being the same as the blanket of secrecy that has wrapped Zuma since it first appeared on the manifest. Conspiracy, sure. Or maybe disinformation, or maybe the truth. Whatever, it seems that Zuma is no longer on the table.

If it is hiding somewhere in space how will we ever know? A maneuvering spacecraft with an unknown fuel supply could go to a lot of places.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: dansoton on 01/09/2018 03:54 am
Well - this guy is an astronomer at Harvard-Smithsonian, so FWIW....

Well in that case if he's got good standing, he posted these interesting further tweets:

Quote
To recap: Normally when you buy a rocket launch, you've paid for "the payload adapter on the rocket final stage pops the satellite off at the end". But on this mission the customer provided its own payload adapter, so separation may be its problem and not SpaceX's problem

Source: https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/950574302910402561

Quote
Recap 2: Assume satellite catalog entry is not an error. Still doesn't mean USA 280 is still in orbit, or that it separated from stage 2. Suggests that payload/stage 2 remained attached and completed 1.5 orbits (winning it a catalog entry), then performed deorbit

Source: https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/950574866020884480

Quote
Recap 3: Stage 2 was going to deorbit after 1.5 orbits anyway. Probably it had no way of knowing that the payload was still attached!

Source: https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/950575244099670016

Edit: Tweets seem pretty speculative to me, but he seems to know what he's talking about, and he happens to come to the same conclusion as me ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: psionedge on 01/09/2018 03:55 am
All of this brings up a question.  Allowing for this worst case scenario, how in the world would a 2nd stage burn even manage to guide the 'satelite' and 2nd stage into the atmosphere?  Wouldn't the rocket just spin about the new center of gravity?
The same way it does any other de-orbit burn.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/09/2018 03:57 am
All of this brings up a question.  Allowing for this worst case scenario, how in the world would a 2nd stage burn even manage to guide the 'satelite' and 2nd stage into the atmosphere?  Wouldn't the rocket just spin about the new center of gravity?

What" new" center of gravity?. If the spacecraft never separated, then the CG never changed
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: rockets4life97 on 01/09/2018 03:59 am
How would stage separation fail? What are the common methods for separating payloads? Which might NG have used?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/09/2018 04:00 am
Well - this guy is an astronomer at Harvard-Smithsonian, so FWIW....

Well in that case if he's got good standing, he posted these interesting further tweets:...
...he's an astronomer, not an expert in classified missions.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: TripD on 01/09/2018 04:01 am
All of this brings up a question.  Allowing for this worst case scenario, how in the world would a 2nd stage burn even manage to guide the 'satelite' and 2nd stage into the atmosphere?  Wouldn't the rocket just spin about the new center of gravity?

What" new" center of gravity?. If the spacecraft never separated, then the CG never changed

That is the point though.  The 2nd stage was meant to de-orbit itself.  Is navigation with a payload still attached even possible?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/09/2018 04:01 am
How would stage separation fail? What are the common methods for separating payloads? Which might NG have used?

Miswired, bad ordnance, bad command, etc
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: quagmire on 01/09/2018 04:03 am
If the Falcon 9 was the cause of this rumored loss of Zuma, we wouldn't be seeing continued preparations for the Falcon Heavy WDR, static fire, and launch campaign.
Unless the mission is so highly classified that SpaceX is contractually obligated to continue on as if nothing ever happened, even if the second stage turned into a sperm whale and the payload into a bowl of petunias.

That would be one absurd contract to not allow a company to stand down to investigate a failure.

What exactly has SpaceX done since the launch. Rolled out the Falcon Heavy for a static fire. They have to do that anyway. And it involves the first stage engines. By all appearances there were no problems with the first stage. So, even if there was a problem with the upper stage (which I am NOT assuming based on SpaceX's statement), there would be no reason to delay the test.

 Even though the 2nd stage isn't fired in a static fire test( and likely a WDR), it is still fueled and prepped like it was an actual launch. SpaceX would not risk 39A/vehicle itself if the failure point that supposedly occurred is present during launch preparations. If a failure occurred, there would be a stand down and FH would still be in the HIF.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: dnavas on 01/09/2018 04:04 am
I'm pretty sure someone stated here that you don't realize how fast the first stage is coming in until you see it in person.  I'm sorry I can't find it amidst the ... uhh ... "speculation".  I just wanted to say that, maybe that's true, but I'm absolutely terrified every time I watch the altitude and speed numbers as the 1st stage comes in.  Remember how the shuttle was the flying brick... ?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: dansoton on 01/09/2018 04:05 am
Well - this guy is an astronomer at Harvard-Smithsonian, so FWIW....

Well in that case if he's got good standing, he posted these interesting further tweets:...
...he's an astronomer, not an expert in classified missions.

Sure. The interesting part to me at least was his statement that the satellite can fail to deploy correctly and still be cataloged if it orbits 1.5 times. So again that would line up with the earlier cataloging even if it did fail.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: rockets4life97 on 01/09/2018 04:06 am
How would stage separation fail? What are the common methods for separating payloads? Which might NG have used?

Miswired, bad ordnance, bad command, etc

Thanks. How often do customers use their own payload adaptor as NG is reported to have done?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars-J on 01/09/2018 04:08 am
All of this brings up a question.  Allowing for this worst case scenario, how in the world would a 2nd stage burn even manage to guide the 'satelite' and 2nd stage into the atmosphere?  Wouldn't the rocket just spin about the new center of gravity?

What" new" center of gravity?. If the spacecraft never separated, then the CG never changed

That is the point though.  The 2nd stage was meant to de-orbit itself.  Is navigation with a payload still attached even possible?

Yes, why not? The upper stage can still turn itself with the attitude thrusters, it just takes a bit more effort. The deorbit burn is done with the big engine, which already is in line with the CG, with or without payload. There would be no problem for it to deorbit with a payload, if that is what happened.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/09/2018 04:08 am
How would stage separation fail? What are the common methods for separating payloads? Which might NG have used?

Miswired, bad ordnance, bad command, etc

Unfortunately, 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 on orbit, despite numerous preflight  fit checks, tests, etc, on the ground.

This is why launch vehicle providers prefer to furnish their own payload adapters, because they have full control of the hardware and can do end-to-end verification testing without relying on the payload.

Launch vehicles typically use a Marman clamp (or ring) for payload separation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marman_clamp
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/09/2018 04:17 am
It could be that SpaceX *insisted* on a Northrop Grumman payload adapter if they wouldn't be able to confirm successful separation due to it being classified.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 01/09/2018 04:19 am
For those who haven't noticed, the oft-mentioned astronomer Jonathan McDowell is user jcm here  ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Michael Baylor on 01/09/2018 04:19 am
According to TechCrunch SpaceX is at fault for the failure.

However, this is TechCrunch. Do they have a source to backup their claim? No. Of course they don't.

I get it, journalists can make mistakes. However, this is really inexcusable. A complete disregard of the facts. Doesn't even mention the SpaceX statement which was sent to numerous publications. Really unfortunate how misinformed the general public end up after events like this.

I am not linking the article because they don't deserve the clicks.

Edit: Oh and apparently AMOS-6 was worth over a billion as well. Pretty sure it was ~$200 million, but whatever floats their boat.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Inoeth on 01/09/2018 04:21 am
How would stage separation fail? What are the common methods for separating payloads? Which might NG have used?

Miswired, bad ordnance, bad command, etc

Unfortunately, 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 further


On the Tech Crunch thing- they're owned by AOL... so it's probably down to quick lazy journalism...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/09/2018 04:22 am
It could be that SpaceX *insisted* on a Northrop Grumman payload adapter if they wouldn't be able to confirm successful separation due to it being classified.

That could explain why S2 could re-enter with the payload still attached. On the upper stage I'm familiar with (TOS), IIRC we had microswitches at the sep plane to confirm successful payload sep, without which the flight computer would not continue with C/CAM, etc.

I don't know how classified payloads work, but if the rule is that the LV cannot get confirmation of separation of a classified payload, then that would explain why S2 would go ahead and deorbit even with the payload attached.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lar on 01/09/2018 04:24 am
So i'm a little confused as to whether or not SpaceX is at fault, and what happened. the WSJ https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-spy-satellite-believed-lost-after-spacex-mission-fails-1515462479 repeat the "zuma failed to detach and fell" line, while others have said that it reach the correct orbit and that S2 worked just fine, but that Zuma was dead/nonresponsive... So much conflicting information... 

Given Andy Pasztor's anti-SpaceX agenda, I look forward to him being proved wrong about the purported failure to separate, which would be SpaceX's fault since payload sep is the responsibility of the LV. Unfortunately, SpaceX is constrained by what they can say publicly, while people like Pasztor can peddle whatever rumors they choose to believe until some definitive truth comes out. Which I expect will vindicate SpaceX.

You might be waiting a while for any admission on his part that he was mistaken. My read of his journalistic integrity is zero. Admitting he's wrong about anything SpaceX? Highly unlikely.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: the_other_Doug on 01/09/2018 04:26 am
Hmmmm...  I wonder if there is any behind-the-scenes finger pointing going on between SpaceX and NG over this?

I can imagine, just knowing what we do know (or at least have been told), for example, the following set of confidential statements back and forth:

SpaceX:  It was your payload adapter and separation mechanism.  If it failed, we had nothing to do with it.

NG:  You made us un-encapsulate and re-encapsulate the payload when you had to make changes to the payload fairing.  We think you damaged our payload adapter in the process.

It would explain why people at NG might be telling Congress that SpaceX messed up, and SpaceX is going about its business as if every aspect of their systems worked perfectly on this launch.

Also, hey, you never know -- maybe the fairing issue had something to do with some kind of intermittent reception of the separation signal by the PAM from the Falcon S2, and NG insisted it had to have been a problem with the interface wiring harness -- perhaps, they thought, associated with fairing recovery equipment that had been added to the fairing system after the payload and PAM had been designed and developed.

Instead of going into such details, I could see SpaceX just offering to replace the fairing and S2 harness.  Maybe it tested out fine, but, despite NG's confidence, the problem ended up being in their PAM and not in SpaceX's fairing or harness, and it ultimately failed on-orbit.

It could be an amusing and/or entertaining "dialogue" to follow in the Twittersphere on a non-secret payload.  But, if such a thing is happening, I'm pretty confident we'll never be told.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/09/2018 04:27 am
I have seen zero evidence of finger pointing. SpaceX can't even say if there WAS a problem with the payload, as that part is classified. Same for NG!
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/09/2018 04:30 am
Hmmmm...  I wonder if there is any behind-the-scenes finger pointing going on between SpaceX and NG over this?

I can imagine, just knowing what we do know (or at least have been told), for example, the following set of confidential statements back and forth:

SpaceX:  It was your payload adapter and separation mechanism.  If it failed, we had nothing to do with it.

NG:  You made us un-encapsulate and re-encapsulate the payload when you had to make changes to the payload fairing.  We think you damaged our payload adapter in the process.

It would explain why people at NG might be telling Congress that SpaceX messed up, and SpaceX is going about its business as if every aspect of their systems worked perfectly on this launch.

Also, hey, you never know -- maybe the fairing issue had something to do with some kind of intermittent reception of the separation signal by the PAM from the Falcon S2, and NG insisted it had to have been a problem with the interface wiring harness -- perhaps, they thought, associated with fairing recovery equipment that had been added to the fairing system after the payload and PAM had been designed and developed.

Instead of going into such details, I could see SpaceX just offering to replace the fairing and S2 harness.  Maybe it tested out fine, but, despite NG's confidence, the problem ended up being in their PAM and not in SpaceX's fairing or harness, and it ultimately failed on-orbit.

It could be an amusing and/or entertaining "dialogue" to follow in the Twittersphere on a non-secret payload.  But, if such a thing is happening, I'm pretty confident we'll never be told.

Actually, it may be fairly easy for SpaceX to demonstrate F9 was not at fault. Since NG reportedly supplied the payload adapter/sep system, all SpaceX would be required to do is provide a separation command, which is easily verified by telemetry.

And you can bet your bottom dollar that SpaceX did an end-to-end preflight test showing that they got 12 volts (or whatever) at the separation ordnance connector before it mated to NG's hardware.

So it may be as simple as SpaceX showing their telemetry stream with a good separation command. Anything downstream of that is the payload's responsibility.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/09/2018 04:37 am
So i'm a little confused as to whether or not SpaceX is at fault, and what happened. the WSJ https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-spy-satellite-believed-lost-after-spacex-mission-fails-1515462479 repeat the "zuma failed to detach and fell" line, while others have said that it reach the correct orbit and that S2 worked just fine, but that Zuma was dead/nonresponsive... So much conflicting information... 

Given Andy Pasztor's anti-SpaceX agenda, I look forward to him being proved wrong about the purported failure to separate, which would be SpaceX's fault since payload sep is the responsibility of the LV. Unfortunately, SpaceX is constrained by what they can say publicly, while people like Pasztor can peddle whatever rumors they choose to believe until some definitive truth comes out. Which I expect will vindicate SpaceX.

You might be waiting a while for any admission on his part that he was mistaken. My read of his journalistic integrity is zero. Admitting he's wrong about anything SpaceX? Highly unlikely.

Note that I didn't say I expected him to admit he was wrong. I only expect him to be *proved* wrong.  ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: kdhilliard on 01/09/2018 04:38 am
What do we make of the pretty pictures from Sudan?  (See here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44175.msg1768947#msg1768947) and here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44175.msg1768955#msg1768955).)  Is this expected F9 S2 behavior?  Has it been seen before?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: RonM on 01/09/2018 04:40 am
I've read several pages of this and I'm still wondering where's the evidence that there was a problem with the payload? All seems like rumors to me.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: dansoton on 01/09/2018 04:45 am
I've read several pages of this and I'm still wondering where's the evidence that there was a problem with the payload? All seems like rumors to me.

Triangulating several independent and sourced reports of a failure - here's another one from Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-satellite/u-s-spy-satellite-believed-destroyed-after-failing-to-reach-orbit-officials-idUSKBN1EY087) indicating:

Quote
The classified intelligence satellite, built by Northrop Grumman Corp, failed to separate from the second stage of the Falcon 9 rocket and is assumed to have broken up or plunged into the sea, said the two officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

(emphasis added)

Along with SpaceX stating "As of right now reviews of the data indicate Falcon 9 performed nominally."

Is there currently any other plausable explanation?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: the_other_Doug on 01/09/2018 04:47 am
I have seen zero evidence of finger pointing. SpaceX can't even say if there WAS a problem with the payload, as that part is classified. Same for NG!

I get what you're saying.  But there are obviously at least two different versions of the failed-sep story being leaked, one blaming NG's PAM and the other blaming SpaceX's Falcon second stage.  That leads me to believe the story can't be coming from just one source (like NRO or CIA or DoD or whoever was actually supposed to use the thing).

That's what makes me wonder if NG might be, at least initially, trying to put the responsibility onto SpaceX by getting "not-NG's-fault" stories out there into the leaked mess of partial information.  Since nothing will likely ever be officially stated about it, maybe they figure their bluff can't be called publicly...?

I'd love it if SpaceX went ahead and released the telemetry data, just to prove their systems did their part correctly.  After all, that one piece of telemetry would say nothing meaningful about the payload or mission, right?  But would put to rest any public questions about it.  At the very least, I bet everyone with payloads on their manifest would be shown that data, even if we never get to see any confirmation of it.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: RotoSequence on 01/09/2018 04:50 am
I have seen zero evidence of finger pointing. SpaceX can't even say if there WAS a problem with the payload, as that part is classified. Same for NG!

I get what you're saying.  But there are obviously at least two different versions of the failed-sep story being leaked, one blaming NG's PAM and the other blaming SpaceX's Falcon second stage.  That leads me to believe the story can't be coming from just one source (like NRO or CIA or DoD or whoever was actually supposed to use the thing).

That's what makes me wonder if NG might be, at least initially, trying to put the responsibility onto SpaceX by getting "not-NG's-fault" stories out there into the leaked mess of partial information.  Since nothing will likely ever be officially stated about it, maybe they figure their bluff can't be called publicly...?

I'd love it if SpaceX went ahead and released the telemetry data, just to prove their systems did their part correctly.  After all, that one piece of telemetry would say nothing meaningful about the payload or mission, right?  But would put to rest any public questions about it.  At the very least, I bet everyone with payloads on their manifest would be shown that data, even if we never get to see any confirmation of it.

Too likely to spill some of the beans on the mass of the payload.

All told, if the goal was to lead the press and public into thinking this mission has failed, they've pulled it off spectacularly, and even if we call them out on it, we'll probably go the rest of our lives being none the wiser.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/09/2018 04:52 am
It could be that SpaceX *insisted* on a Northrop Grumman payload adapter if they wouldn't be able to confirm successful separation due to it being classified.

I don't know what the standard practice is with classified payloads. Seems to me if you're the classified payload, you would want the upper stage to be able to confirm separation (via contact switches at the sep plane) as a pre-condition before doing C/CAM and de-orbit, otherwise you risk splashing the payload prematurely in case of failed separation.

You don't have to release any information publicly about separation, but wouldn't you at least want the upper stage to be able to detect proper separation and not de-orbit prematurely in case separation failed?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/09/2018 04:54 am
I've read several pages of this and I'm still wondering where's the evidence that there was a problem with the payload? All seems like rumors to me.

Triangulating several independent and sourced reports of a failure - here's another one from Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-satellite/u-s-spy-satellite-believed-destroyed-after-failing-to-reach-orbit-officials-idUSKBN1EY087) indicating:

Quote
The classified intelligence satellite, built by Northrop Grumman Corp, failed to separate from the second stage of the Falcon 9 rocket and is assumed to have broken up or plunged into the sea, said the two officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

(emphasis added)

Along with SpaceX stating "As of right now reviews of the data indicate Falcon 9 performed nominally."

Is there currently any other plausable explanation?
What I want to know is what officials would intentionally leak classified information like that and risk jail time. The only plausible explanations I know is that they weren't actually given classified information (and thus are perhaps making a guess) or that they're deliberately being misleading, therefore not leaking classified information.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: dansoton on 01/09/2018 04:56 am
For those not wanting to read through all the recent comments, and even for those who have, Loren Grush just wrote up what I think is a pretty good summary of current understanding:

https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/9/16866806/spacex-zuma-mission-failure-northrop-grumman-classified-falcon-9-rocket
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 01/09/2018 04:59 am
Completely pointless... carry on.  ::)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: darkenfast on 01/09/2018 05:00 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/09/2018 05:03 am
For those not wanting to read through all the recent comments, and even for those who have, Loren Grush just wrote up what I think is a pretty good summary of current understanding:

https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/9/16866806/spacex-zuma-mission-failure-northrop-grumman-classified-falcon-9-rocket

Kudos to Loren Grush for clearly explaining the payload adapter issue, which could explain why SpaceX could claim F9 functioned nominally even if the payload failed to separate:

Quote
Typically, SpaceX uses its own hardware on top of its rocket to send a satellite into orbit, what is known as a payload adapter. It’s an apparatus that physically separates the satellite from the upper part of the rocket and sends it into orbit. However, a previous report from Wired noted that Northrop Grumman provided its own payload adapter for this mission. And if that payload adapter failed, it would have left the satellite still attached to the upper portion of the rocket. That’s certainly a mission failure, but it wouldn’t necessarily be the fault of the Falcon 9.

Quote
a payload adapter failure would explain a lot: it would mean the spacecraft and the rocket’s upper stage made it to orbit still attached, where they were picked up by Strategic Command’s tracking. Then the two somehow de-orbited,
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 01/09/2018 05:08 am
Classified means no public information. Thus infinite parade of nonsense.

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars-J on 01/09/2018 05:08 am
I'd love it if SpaceX went ahead and released the telemetry data, just to prove their systems did their part correctly.  After all, that one piece of telemetry would say nothing meaningful about the payload or mission, right?  But would put to rest any public questions about it.  At the very least, I bet everyone with payloads on their manifest would be shown that data, even if we never get to see any confirmation of it.

That would be a terrible idea. Say goodbye to any future classified payloads if that happens.

No, whomever ordered this (and is a possible future customer) certainly has a lot more insight and can place the proper blame.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: the_other_Doug on 01/09/2018 05:09 am
It could be that SpaceX *insisted* on a Northrop Grumman payload adapter if they wouldn't be able to confirm successful separation due to it being classified.

I don't know what the standard practice is with classified payloads. Seems to me if you're the classified payload, you would want the upper stage to be able to confirm separation (via contact switches at the sep plane) as a pre-condition before doing C/CAM and de-orbit, otherwise you risk splashing the payload prematurely in case of failed separation.

You don't have to release any information publicly about separation, but wouldn't you at least want the upper stage to be able to detect proper separation and not de-orbit prematurely in case separation failed?

Sure.  But since we've been told on many, many occasions that SpaceX does not *ever* send control inputs to the Falcons in-flight, *and* since they (supposedly) had no telemetry from the other side of the PAM for any confirmations of anything, seeing as SpaceX was not allowed to see any of the payload's telemetry (again per a lot of speculation here), then it's at least possible that the S2 literally could not be told to alter its pre-programmed sequence.

And, if all SpaceX could see on their telemetry was that the sep signal had been sent, they may not even have had a clue that the payload had not, in fact, separated.  Especially if they were not allowed to access any payload-viewing cameras -- which, to be honest, since SpaceX didn't build the PAM, there might not even have been one.  Or, if there were, it could have been something that could not communicate in any way back to SpaceX.

One last minor nit -- fairing separation confirmation on the SpaceX webcast came something like three minutes after the fact.  Any possibility that this could have been somehow related to the reported separation failure?  After all, the fairing is electrically connected to S2 through the PAM, right?  So, if the PAM was not relaying signals properly, maybe the fairing sep indicators acting up could be related to the failure of the sep signal to reach the payload?

Or maybe the Black Control Center that took over monitoring S2 after MECO and staging just didn't have good communications lines back to the webcast people... there's just no way to know.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: dansoton on 01/09/2018 05:15 am
Classified means no public information. Thus infinite parade of nonsense.

It doesn't though. Controlled and intentional leaks - for propaganda or other purposes - or uncontrolled leaks (less likely IMHO) can, and according to multiple sources of different journalists, have, gone into the public domain adding new information.

The only thing that's kept my attention tbh is more and more accredited sources providing information, rather than speculation here.

My curiosity is trying to fit the jigsaw together from credible reports, but I take your point that we've likely reached a dead end for now. But most current analysis lead to the conclusion of a payload separation issue that's not SpaceX's fault - all summarized quite excellently by Loren using different sources. So I think it's been a worthwhile exercise.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/09/2018 05:15 am
Quote
One last minor nit -- fairing separation confirmation on the SpaceX webcast came something like three minutes after the fact.  Any possibility that this could have been somehow related to the reported separation failure?  After all, the fairing is electrically connected to S2 through the PAM, right?  So, if the PAM was not relaying signals properly, maybe the fairing sep indicators acting up could be related to the failure of the sep signal to reach the payload?

Fairing sep and payload sep are typically wired independently to prevent any such failure cascade.

More likely is that, as someone else suggested, the webcast report of fairing sep was made well after the fact in order not to give away exact timing cues that would help narrow down potential payload orbits.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/09/2018 05:19 am
What do we make of the pretty pictures from Sudan?  (See here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44175.msg1768947#msg1768947) and here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44175.msg1768955#msg1768955).)  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?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars-J on 01/09/2018 05:25 am
What do we make of the pretty pictures from Sudan?  (See here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44175.msg1768947#msg1768947) and here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44175.msg1768955#msg1768955).)  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

Yes, and this is post re-entry burn, so there is no longer any need for maintaining a proper attitude.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: RoboGoofers on 01/09/2018 05:26 am
Even if symmetric, they might spin a bit to even out variances.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: the_other_Doug on 01/09/2018 05:30 am
What do we make of the pretty pictures from Sudan?  (See here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44175.msg1768947#msg1768947) and here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44175.msg1768955#msg1768955).)  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

Yes, and this is post re-entry burn, so there is no longer any need for maintaining a proper attitude.

I'm assuming that, seeing as the S2 seems to have de-orbited successfully, that it would not have been able to get into the proper attitude for its de-orbit burn if it had lost roll control before payload sep had been attempted...?

Of course, that would have been glaringly obvious to SpaceX's "first look at the data" which led them to announce that the Falcon operated nominally.  And since one of SpaceX's virtues is that they always own up to their failures, one way or another, I can't see them lying about that kind of thing...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: AC in NC on 01/09/2018 05:32 am
What I want to know is what officials would intentionally leak classified information like that and risk jail time. The only plausible explanations I know is that they weren't actually given classified information (and thus are perhaps making a guess) or that they're deliberately being misleading, therefore not leaking classified information.

Leaking classified information is practically a job requirement for "officials".  Risking jail time is only for some low-level submariner with some stray photographs they forgot about.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: the_other_Doug on 01/09/2018 05:34 am
What I want to know is what officials would intentionally leak classified information like that and risk jail time. The only plausible explanations I know is that they weren't actually given classified information (and thus are perhaps making a guess) or that they're deliberately being misleading, therefore not leaking classified information.

Leaking classified information is practically a job requirement for "officials".  Risking jail time is only for some low-level submariner with some stray photographs they forgot about.

Everyone knows the fastest way to get classified information leaked is to brief the Congressional leadership about it.  Party makes no difference, it's been this way for at least the 62 years I've been on the planet, and probably for a good century before that...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 01/09/2018 05:48 am
Notice that all of the reports about failure to separate use the anonymous-passive "is assumed" phrasing.

"Assumed"?  By whom?  Who assumed?  The reporter?  A Reddit poster?

I'd like to see a report that says "XXX is assuming that the payload failed to separate from S2", for some credible value of XXX - before I even consider the report worth more than exactly zero.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: IanH84 on 01/09/2018 05:49 am
It could be that SpaceX *insisted* on a Northrop Grumman payload adapter if they wouldn't be able to confirm successful separation due to it being classified.

I don't know what the standard practice is with classified payloads. Seems to me if you're the classified payload, you would want the upper stage to be able to confirm separation (via contact switches at the sep plane) as a pre-condition before doing C/CAM and de-orbit, otherwise you risk splashing the payload prematurely in case of failed separation.

You don't have to release any information publicly about separation, but wouldn't you at least want the upper stage to be able to detect proper separation and not de-orbit prematurely in case separation failed?

Sure.  But since we've been told on many, many occasions that SpaceX does not *ever* send control inputs to the Falcons in-flight, *and* since they (supposedly) had no telemetry from the other side of the PAM for any confirmations of anything, seeing as SpaceX was not allowed to see any of the payload's telemetry (again per a lot of speculation here), then it's at least possible that the S2 literally could not be told to alter its pre-programmed sequence.

And, if all SpaceX could see on their telemetry was that the sep signal had been sent, they may not even have had a clue that the payload had not, in fact, separated.  Especially if they were not allowed to access any payload-viewing cameras -- which, to be honest, since SpaceX didn't build the PAM, there might not even have been one.  Or, if there were, it could have been something that could not communicate in any way back to SpaceX.

One last minor nit -- fairing separation confirmation on the SpaceX webcast came something like three minutes after the fact.  Any possibility that this could have been somehow related to the reported separation failure?  After all, the fairing is electrically connected to S2 through the PAM, right?  So, if the PAM was not relaying signals properly, maybe the fairing sep indicators acting up could be related to the failure of the sep signal to reach the payload?

Or maybe the Black Control Center that took over monitoring S2 after MECO and staging just didn't have good communications lines back to the webcast people... there's just no way to know.
On the US Launch Report video, fairing separation is visible
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK4dELV4b9Q&t=198s
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 01/09/2018 06:06 am
Marco Langbroek notes in New Zuma orbit estimates (http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Jan-2018/0068.html)
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: nacnud on 01/09/2018 06:16 am
On the US Launch Report video, fairing separation is visible
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK4dELV4b9Q&t=198s

At 3:24?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Rangertech1 on 01/09/2018 06:22 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?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/09/2018 06:29 am
On the US Launch Report video, fairing separation is visible
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK4dELV4b9Q&t=198s

At 3:24?

Looks like 3:24 is indeed the time the fairing comes off. We can hear the announcer right then saying "fairing separation any second now..."
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 01/09/2018 06:43 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.

Zuma separated nominally after the upper stage completed putting it on its suborbital trajectory towards the Pacific Test Range (hence the independently-measured shorter-than-normal upper stage burn). The upper stage then fired a braking burn so it would come down well away from Zuma and not interfere with the vehicle tracking during EDL. The STRATCOM trace (USA 280?) was Zuma on its sub-orbital hop towards the area around Kwaljalein Atoll. Purely by coincidence, the faster Zuma reached its re-entry interface at the same time as the upper stage. Someone mentioned this to someone, hence the 're-entered with the upper stage' rumour.

DARPA would never tell anyone about the results of what would clearly have to be a large, expensive and sensitive bit of equipment so we'll never know whether this possibility is true.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: FinalFrontier on 01/09/2018 07:01 am
FWIW here. NBC is reporting spacecraft loss due to failure to separate from the second stage. They are also reporting the vehicle fell into the sea, which is making me question the entire report because I am not sure the second stage has even re entered yet. Do we know whether it has or not?

To me this is a critical point here. If the failure was separation related it could be the fault of SpaceX. If the spacecraft separated but then failed to work it's not their fault. Big distinction here.

NBC report: https://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/u-s-spy-satellite-believed-destroyed-after-launch-officials-say-n835976
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: docmordrid on 01/09/2018 07:08 am
FWIW here.
>
To me this is a critical point here. If the failure was separation related it could be the fault of SpaceX.
>
NBC report: https://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/u-s-spy-satellite-believed-destroyed-after-launch-officials-say-n835976

Not if the payload adapter failed. It  was provided by Northrop-Grumman,  not SpaceX.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: FinalFrontier on 01/09/2018 07:19 am
FWIW here.
>
To me this is a critical point here. If the failure was separation related it could be the fault of SpaceX.
>
NBC report: https://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/u-s-spy-satellite-believed-destroyed-after-launch-officials-say-n835976

Not if the payload adapter failed. It  was provided by Northrop-Grumman,  not SpaceX.

Was just about to post again regarding this. Here's the thing, I had heard prior to launch that SpaceX never even actually processed this spacecraft, they were just sent the vehicle and the payload adapter possibly with the fairing already on.

What extent did SpaceX have in processing, and is there any chance a problem with the adapter could be related to attachment to the second stage?

From what the most reliable sources have said the only thing we have is "Falcon 9 performed nominally" which would tend to suggest the failure was with the adapter or the spacecraft and SpaceX is not liable.

I know they probably won't comment about this but it's really a big deal. If this bird was really as expensive as rumor suggests then liability for the failure is huge because it determines who has to pay for it.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: yokem55 on 01/09/2018 07:23 am
FWIW here.
>
To me this is a critical point here. If the failure was separation related it could be the fault of SpaceX.
>
NBC report: https://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/u-s-spy-satellite-believed-destroyed-after-launch-officials-say-n835976

Not if the payload adapter failed. It  was provided by Northrop-Grumman,  not SpaceX.

Was just about to post again regarding this. Here's the thing, I had heard prior to launch that SpaceX never even actually processed this spacecraft, they were just sent the vehicle and the payload adapter possibly with the fairing already on.

What extent did SpaceX have in processing, and is there any chance a problem with the adapter could be related to attachment to the second stage?

From what the most reliable sources have said the only thing we have is "Falcon 9 performed nominally" which would tend to suggest the failure was with the adapter or the spacecraft and SpaceX is not liable.

I know they probably won't comment about this but it's really a big deal. If this bird was really as expensive as rumor suggests then liability for the failure is huge because it determines who has to pay for it.
Liability for loss of the payload is strictly the customer's. That is why commercial folks buy insurance policies to cover launch mishaps. The government always self insures thier payloads, and NG, as large as they are, would likely have self insured it as well.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: jimbowman on 01/09/2018 07:24 am
I know they probably won't comment about this but it's really a big deal. If this bird was really as expensive as rumor suggests then liability for the failure is huge because it determines who has to pay for it.

U.S taxpayers
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/09/2018 07:29 am
Here are screen grabs of the fairing separation. Note that the vehicle is moving to the right from the perspective of the viewer. We can clearly see a fairing separate from the top. However, the bottom fairing appears as a bright blob right next to the exhaust. Not sure if this is due to the viewing angle.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: FinalFrontier on 01/09/2018 07:30 am
FWIW here.
>
To me this is a critical point here. If the failure was separation related it could be the fault of SpaceX.
>
NBC report: https://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/u-s-spy-satellite-believed-destroyed-after-launch-officials-say-n835976

Not if the payload adapter failed. It  was provided by Northrop-Grumman,  not SpaceX.

Was just about to post again regarding this. Here's the thing, I had heard prior to launch that SpaceX never even actually processed this spacecraft, they were just sent the vehicle and the payload adapter possibly with the fairing already on.

What extent did SpaceX have in processing, and is there any chance a problem with the adapter could be related to attachment to the second stage?

From what the most reliable sources have said the only thing we have is "Falcon 9 performed nominally" which would tend to suggest the failure was with the adapter or the spacecraft and SpaceX is not liable.

I know they probably won't comment about this but it's really a big deal. If this bird was really as expensive as rumor suggests then liability for the failure is huge because it determines who has to pay for it.
Liability for loss of the payload is strictly the customer's. That is why commercial folks buy insurance policies to cover launch mishaps. The government always self insures thier payloads, and NG, as large as they are, would likely have self insured it as well.

Still a big deal because if it's the fault of SpaceX it will affect their ability to get future government payloads.

But, given the fact they have not stood down flows for other missions it doesn't seem like it was their hardware.

Interestingly, WSJ/bloomberg, two of the most ill repute publications around, are both contradicting everyone else and saying the second stage itself failed. That is where most of the conflicting rumors are coming from.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: docmordrid on 01/09/2018 07:39 am
Most other such stories referenced Andy Pasztor's WSJ/Dow Jones story, so I'd give them a lower demerit count. Slightly.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: FinalFrontier 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Steven Pietrobon 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Surfdaddy 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?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: saliva_sweet 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: nacnud 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 .
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Rocket Science 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...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 01/09/2018 08:06 am
What do we make of the pretty pictures from Sudan?  (See here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44175.msg1768947#msg1768947) and here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44175.msg1768955#msg1768955).)  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.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 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 (http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/zumapresskit_2018.pdf) 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: DJPledger 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Semmel on 01/09/2018 08:51 am
Marco Langbroek notes in New Zuma orbit estimates (http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Jan-2018/0068.html)
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: vanoord 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jet Black on 01/09/2018 09:42 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: vanoord 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 ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Katana 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 01/09/2018 10:27 am
Aviation Week’s take on the matter.

http://m.aviationweek.com/space/fate-classified-zuma-mission-unknown
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Katana 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: jaredgalen 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: jgoldader 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: SimonFD on 01/09/2018 11:37 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.

I think the main limitation for on-orbit operations is the battery condition of the upper stage. I don't think it lasts very long (see discussion of FH demo mission).
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Norm38 on 01/09/2018 11:53 am
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/loses that tug of war? Does that explain any of the observations we have, such as the "spiral"?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: FutureMartian97 on 01/09/2018 11:55 am
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
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: tvg98 on 01/09/2018 11:58 am
We know that NOTAMs are provided for areas where the second stage is supposed to brake up on re-entry. Does that mean that SpaceX must attempt re-entry at that specific space? Or could they choose to leave the second stage in orbit at that point?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/09/2018 12:19 pm
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"?

Excellent question. Some of the answer depends on things we don't know. Usually the spacecraft has an electrical means of knowing it has separated (eg contact switch at the sep interface) which tells it to "wake up" and begin its mission. That is typically done in order to prevent the payload from mistakenly/prematurely trying to do its own thing while still attached to the upper stage.

But if separation doesn't occur and the contact switch at the sep plane doesn't open/close, the payload doesn't sense sep and doesn't "wake up" and try to begin on-orbit maneuvers. Assuming ZUMA is designed like a typical payload in that regard.

On the other side, the upper stage is typically pre-programmed to do a collision/contamination avoidance maneuver after payload sep, then deorbit itself. The only way this wouldn't happen is if the upper stage has its own (independent of payload's) separation indicator/sensor and a branch of flight computer instructions that gets chosen in case separation is not sensed. But that assumes there are any good alternative options available in case of failed separation. It's possible there aren't and that the upper stage is designed to issue a sep command and then continue on blindly with C/CAM and deorbit regardless.

In which case it's conceivable the payload remains attached and "dead" because it didn't receive its wake-up call from the separation indicator switch, while the upper stage continues its pre-programmed routine with the payload attached.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: sghill on 01/09/2018 12:26 pm
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.

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/09/2018 12:34 pm
How would stage separation fail? What are the common methods for separating payloads? Which might NG have used?

Miswired, bad ordnance, bad command, etc

Unfortunately, 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 further


On the Tech Crunch thing- they're owned by AOL... so it's probably down to quick lazy journalism...

Actual separation is never tested.  The signals to separate can be tested during WDR if there is something to record it.

Don't understand your point
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/09/2018 12:37 pm
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.

Those cameras would not be used on these missions
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 01/09/2018 12:40 pm
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.



Not that I go along with your suggestion but it would be one explanation why NG furnished the payload adapter.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/09/2018 12:44 pm
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.

No, wrong takeaway. 
SpaceX will always provide the PAF, the black cone that interfaces with the fairing.  The Payload Adaptor ( the cone that goes between the PAF and spacecraft) can be provided by SpaceX or the payload.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: su27k on 01/09/2018 12:45 pm
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.

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?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/09/2018 12:46 pm
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?

There might not be any deployable solar arrays
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/09/2018 12:48 pm
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

can't say that
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Paul_G on 01/09/2018 12:48 pm
A good point on why NG came with their own payload adapter, but there was a callout at T+2.07 for someone to relinquish control of the camera(s). Was this referring to ground based cameras that would have shown stage sep, or rocket / payload adaptor based cameras that on other missions show the payload.

Paul
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Orbiter on 01/09/2018 12:49 pm
On the US Launch Report video, fairing separation is visible

At 3:24?

Yes, and it is right on time.

Press kit (http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/zumapresskit_2018.pdf) 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.

FWIW, I was tracking the launch in my 6" telescope in Tampa and I saw at least one fairing come off.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/09/2018 12:49 pm
FYI, payload separation is usually detected by breakwires.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: MaxTeranous on 01/09/2018 12:50 pm
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.

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?

No, because it calls into question the methods and processes which led to the use and installation of that special adaptor, methods and processes that are used on every flight regardless of payload.

Effectively if SpaceX carries on like nothing happened then the Zuma F9 performed correctly. There's no other explanation without full blown tinfoil hattery.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 01/09/2018 12:51 pm
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...

Actual separation is never tested.  The signals to separate can be tested during WDR if there is something to record it.

To expand on Jim's usual terse post...
Spacecraft separation from a launch vehicle usually involves pyrotechnics.
You can't test pyrotechnics prior to launch. Testing them would set them off which would require replacement of the pyrotechnics.

It is the one reason why SpaceX primarily uses pneumatics for separation events, such as stage separation and fairing release.
However, the launcher-to-spacecraft separation plane is, per industry standard, usually equipped with a pyrotechnically-driven separation system.

But, failures of space-rated pyrotechnic devices are exceedingly rare.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: M.E.T. on 01/09/2018 12:51 pm
What would SpaceX's disclosure rights be 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?

And if pressed, would they be allowed to specify why they are confident of that assertion? Or is the potential reputational damage associated with the current speculation a price SpaceX has to pay in exchange for top secret government contracts?

Surely there is a right to protect the company's image that should be balanced with the classified nature of the mission?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 01/09/2018 12:52 pm
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?

They already did that via their public statement.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: MaxTeranous on 01/09/2018 12:54 pm
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?

They already did that via their public statement.

I'd expect there'll be more of a statement at some stage. A one off msg to an individual reporter doesn't have the impact a press conference for example would. Even if all you said in that press conference was "F9 was fine" and "you have to ask NG that" over and over again.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/09/2018 12:56 pm
Having a press conference about a classified mission sounds exactly like something you shouldn't do for a classified mission.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/09/2018 12:58 pm
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.

such a payload would have been tested on the west coast like the other similar vehicles
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: M.E.T. on 01/09/2018 12:59 pm
Having a press conference about a classified mission sounds exactly like something you shouldn't do for a classified mission.

I guess the question is, would for example the head of Iridium, or some other SpaceX client, be given more detail about the performance of the F9 on this mission than the general public would receive? Especially if the current speculation has such an individual reconsidering the risk associated with a planned launch contract with SpaceX?

Edited to add:

Even something as mundane as a quoted success percentage for historical F9 launches would be affected by whether this launch is considered a success or not. And that in itself would be more information than is currently confirmed.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: MaxTeranous on 01/09/2018 01:01 pm
Having a press conference about a classified mission sounds exactly like something you shouldn't do for a classified mission.

The fact that there was a launch isn't classified, they can talk about that plenty. Hard to classify ~ 900kN of thrust in Florida  ;D
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: AbuSimbel on 01/09/2018 01:05 pm
We now have an official statement from Gwynne Shotwell:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DTGrIxfUMAEJHbl.jpg:large)
https://twitter.com/nova_road/status/950729181897347073
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/09/2018 01:07 pm
The following statement is from Gwynne Shotwell, President and COO of SpaceX:
 
“For clarity: after review of all data to date, Falcon 9 did everything correctly on Sunday night. If we or others find otherwise based on further review, we will report it immediately. Information published that is contrary to this statement is categorically false. Due to the classified nature of the payload, no further comment is possible. 

“Since the data reviewed so far indicates that no design, operational or other changes are needed, we do not anticipate any impact on the upcoming launch schedule. Falcon Heavy has been rolled out to launchpad LC-39A for a static fire later this week, to be followed shortly thereafter by its maiden flight. We are also preparing for an F9 launch for SES and the Luxembourg Government from SLC-40 in three weeks.”
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: phantomdj on 01/09/2018 01:17 pm
According to AmericaSpace, ZUMA Presumed a 'Total Loss' After Falling Into Ocean, Say Officials.

http://www.americaspace.com/2018/01/09/zuma-presumed-a-total-loss-after-falling-into-ocean-say-officials/

"Two anonymous government officials familiar with the classified ZUMA mission, launched by SpaceX on Jan 7, declare the payload a “total loss” after falling into the Atlantic Ocean. The satellite, which reportedly cost upwards of $1 billion or more, is believed to have failed to reach orbit after not separating from the Falcon 9 rocket’s second stage. Northrop also reportedly made the payload adaptor for ZUMA, but will not comment on classified missions. SpaceX however says their rocket performed just as it was supposed to, with “data indicating Falcon 9 performed nominally”, said a spokesperson with the company. Suggesting anything that may have happened was the fault of Northrop."
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Paul_G on 01/09/2018 01:24 pm
According to AmericaSpace, ZUMA Presumed a 'Total Loss' After Falling Into Ocean, Say Officials.

http://www.americaspace.com/2018/01/09/zuma-presumed-a-total-loss-after-falling-into-ocean-say-officials/

"Two anonymous government officials familiar with the classified ZUMA mission, launched by SpaceX on Jan 7, declare the payload a “total loss” after falling into the Atlantic Ocean. The satellite, which reportedly cost upwards of $1 billion or more, is believed to have failed to reach orbit after not separating from the Falcon 9 rocket’s second stage. Northrop also reportedly made the payload adaptor for ZUMA, but will not comment on classified missions. SpaceX however says their rocket performed just as it was supposed to, with “data indicating Falcon 9 performed nominally”, said a spokesperson with the company. Suggesting anything that may have happened was the fault of Northrop."

Emphasis mine. How is this possible? The NOTAM for this launch stated that the 2nd stage would re-enter near Australia, and there seems to be photographic evidence of the stage venting over Africa after its de-orbit burn to re-enter in the notified area.

If the satellite didn't separate from the stage, surely it went into the Pacific, not Atlantic?

Paul

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: DigitalMan on 01/09/2018 01:26 pm
Here are screen grabs of the fairing separation. Not that the vehicle is moving to the right from the perspective of the viewer. We can clearly see a fairing separate from the top. However, the bottom fairing appears as a bright blob right next to the exhaust. Not sure if this is due to the viewing angle.

Thanks, that confirms what I thought I saw with my binoculars
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/09/2018 01:28 pm
According to AmericaSpace, ZUMA Presumed a 'Total Loss' After Falling Into Ocean, Say Officials.

http://www.americaspace.com/2018/01/09/zuma-presumed-a-total-loss-after-falling-into-ocean-say-officials/

"Two anonymous government officials familiar with the classified ZUMA mission, launched by SpaceX on Jan 7, declare the payload a “total loss” after falling into the Atlantic Ocean. The satellite, which reportedly cost upwards of $1 billion or more, is believed to have failed to reach orbit after not separating from the Falcon 9 rocket’s second stage. Northrop also reportedly made the payload adaptor for ZUMA, but will not comment on classified missions. SpaceX however says their rocket performed just as it was supposed to, with “data indicating Falcon 9 performed nominally”, said a spokesperson with the company. Suggesting anything that may have happened was the fault of Northrop."

Emphasis mine. How is this possible? The NOTAM for this launch stated that the 2nd stage would re-enter near Australia, and there seems to be photographic evidence of the stage venting over Africa after its de-orbit burn to re-enter in the notified area.

If the satellite didn't separate from the stage, surely it went into the Pacific, not Atlantic?

Paul
Because the people writing these articles don't know crap, and the anonymous "officials" may be lying.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: inventodoc on 01/09/2018 01:28 pm
Wait a second here, how does such a lightweight payload cost over $1 Billion if it is just a satellite?????     This was a light payload and 1st stage boostback return was possible.     That hints to the fact that Zuma was something very new and different; space maneuvering vehicle, advanced testbed, hypersonic craft, stealth satellite, etc....

We have confirmation from Gwynne that the rocket performed correctly.  When she makes a statement, I believe her.     That leaves speculation as to whether the mission really failed or not (I don't know) and if so, how..... (I don't know and neither do you).  Maybe time will tell....
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: AirmanPika on 01/09/2018 01:34 pm
Unfortunately this is literally Zuma (just water vs ground)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qrv9c-udCrg?t=50s

That is all.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/09/2018 01:42 pm
According to AmericaSpace, ZUMA Presumed a 'Total Loss' After Falling Into Ocean, Say Officials.

http://www.americaspace.com/2018/01/09/zuma-presumed-a-total-loss-after-falling-into-ocean-say-officials/

"Two anonymous government officials familiar with the classified ZUMA mission, launched by SpaceX on Jan 7, declare the payload a “total loss” after falling into the Atlantic Ocean. The satellite, which reportedly cost upwards of $1 billion or more, is believed to have failed to reach orbit after not separating from the Falcon 9 rocket’s second stage. Northrop also reportedly made the payload adaptor for ZUMA, but will not comment on classified missions. SpaceX however says their rocket performed just as it was supposed to, with “data indicating Falcon 9 performed nominally”, said a spokesperson with the company. Suggesting anything that may have happened was the fault of Northrop."

Emphasis mine. How is this possible? The NOTAM for this launch stated that the 2nd stage would re-enter near Australia, and there seems to be photographic evidence of the stage venting over Africa after its de-orbit burn to re-enter in the notified area.

If the satellite didn't separate from the stage, surely it went into the Pacific, not Atlantic?

Paul

Change the word "Atlantic"  and the report is plausible. Not surprising that a minor (!) error would creep into a report written by (or sourced from) someone probably not an expert on the subject.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ValmirGP on 01/09/2018 01:45 pm
Unfortunately this is literally Zuma (just water vs ground)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qrv9c-udCrg?t=50s

That is all.

Well. Maybe not this, but by the goings of the speculation about it, certainly she had the "The infinite improbability drive".
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: paolozamparutti on 01/09/2018 01:46 pm
finally we have an official statement.
obviously the most important thing is the confirmation of the static fire followed quickly by the launch of the FH
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/950738807221080064
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 01/09/2018 01:48 pm
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...

Actual separation is never tested.  The signals to separate can be tested during WDR if there is something to record it.

To expand on Jim's usual terse post...
Spacecraft separation from a launch vehicle usually involves pyrotechnics.
You can't test pyrotechnics prior to launch. Testing them would set them off which would require replacement of the pyrotechnics.

It is the one reason why SpaceX primarily uses pneumatics for separation events, such as stage separation and fairing release.
However, the launcher-to-spacecraft separation plane is, per industry standard, usually equipped with a pyrotechnically-driven separation system.

But, failures of space-rated pyrotechnic devices are exceedingly rare.

Yet this is exactly what appears to have happened on a PSLV launch last year.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/09/2018 01:49 pm
We now have an official statement from Gwynne Shotwell:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DTGrIxfUMAEJHbl.jpg:large)
https://twitter.com/nova_road/status/950729181897347073

Note that SpaceX is being so careful, the statement doesn't even include the word "ZUMA."
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 01/09/2018 01:50 pm
We now have an official statement from Gwynne Shotwell:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DTGrIxfUMAEJHbl.jpg:large)
https://twitter.com/nova_road/status/950729181897347073

Note that SpaceX is being so careful, the statement doesn't even include the word "ZUMA."

In other words blame NG not us.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 01/09/2018 01:55 pm
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...

Actual separation is never tested.  The signals to separate can be tested during WDR if there is something to record it.

To expand on Jim's usual terse post...
Spacecraft separation from a launch vehicle usually involves pyrotechnics.
You can't test pyrotechnics prior to launch. Testing them would set them off which would require replacement of the pyrotechnics.

It is the one reason why SpaceX primarily uses pneumatics for separation events, such as stage separation and fairing release.
However, the launcher-to-spacecraft separation plane is, per industry standard, usually equipped with a pyrotechnically-driven separation system.

But, failures of space-rated pyrotechnic devices are exceedingly rare.
I might point out that one PAF / payload separation system manufacturer that SpaceX uses is Planetary Systems, who makes spring loaded, motor driven separation systems such as http://www.planetarysystemscorp.com/?post_type=product&p=449
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/09/2018 01:55 pm
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.

such a payload would have been tested on the west coast like the other similar vehicles

We don't know enough to state that.

Wrong,  we know enough that hypersonic vehicles are better tested from the west coast.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ricmsmith on 01/09/2018 02:02 pm
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.

such a payload would have been tested on the west coast like the other similar vehicles

We don't know enough to state that.

Wrong,  we know enough that hypersonic vehicles are better tested from the west coast.

Hi Jim, I know it's slightly off topic but I'd be genuinely interested to know why that is?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 01/09/2018 02:03 pm
According to AmericaSpace, ZUMA Presumed a 'Total Loss' After Falling Into Ocean, Say Officials.

http://www.americaspace.com/2018/01/09/zuma-presumed-a-total-loss-after-falling-into-ocean-say-officials/

"Two anonymous government officials familiar with the classified ZUMA mission, launched by SpaceX on Jan 7, declare the payload a “total loss” after falling into the Atlantic Ocean. The satellite, which reportedly cost upwards of $1 billion or more, is believed to have failed to reach orbit after not separating from the Falcon 9 rocket’s second stage. Northrop also reportedly made the payload adaptor for ZUMA, but will not comment on classified missions. SpaceX however says their rocket performed just as it was supposed to, with “data indicating Falcon 9 performed nominally”, said a spokesperson with the company. Suggesting anything that may have happened was the fault of Northrop."

Emphasis mine. How is this possible? The NOTAM for this launch stated that the 2nd stage would re-enter near Australia, and there seems to be photographic evidence of the stage venting over Africa after its de-orbit burn to re-enter in the notified area.

If the satellite didn't separate from the stage, surely it went into the Pacific, not Atlantic?

Paul

Change the word "Atlantic"  and the report is plausible. Not surprising that a minor (!) error would creep into a report written by (or sourced from) someone probably not an expert on the subject.

If a "failure" actually occurred and the the satellite did separate, which allows SpaceX to say what it has said, and it did reenter due to some sort of propulsion error (Think Polyus failure where the satellite was oriented 180 degrees off and thus reentered instead of being boosted to a higher orbit) the event could have occurred at a later time and it could have reentered over the Atlantic.

That said, it could have also thought, Oh No, Not Again....
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/09/2018 02:04 pm
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...

Actual separation is never tested.  The signals to separate can be tested during WDR if there is something to record it.

To expand on Jim's usual terse post...
Spacecraft separation from a launch vehicle usually involves pyrotechnics.
You can't test pyrotechnics prior to launch. Testing them would set them off which would require replacement of the pyrotechnics.

It is the one reason why SpaceX primarily uses pneumatics for separation events, such as stage separation and fairing release.
However, the launcher-to-spacecraft separation plane is, per industry standard, usually equipped with a pyrotechnically-driven separation system.

But, failures of space-rated pyrotechnic devices are exceedingly rare.
I might point out that one PAF / payload separation system manufacturer that SpaceX uses is Planetary Systems, who makes spring loaded, motor driven separation systems such as http://www.planetarysystemscorp.com/?post_type=product&p=449

Yes, but that is a small sep system for small payloads. Inert mass of systems like that (redundant drive motors, etc) increase with payload mass, which is what makes pyro-driven sep systems more attractive for bigger payloads, ie minimum inert mass.

But this missions could turn out to be another example of why SpaceX does not like untestable (ie one-shot pyro) sep systems.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/09/2018 02:08 pm


If a "failure" actually occurred and the the satellite did separate, which allows SpaceX to say what it has said...

To be clear, SpaceX's statement can be entirely correct even if the payload did  not separate. Since NG supplied the payload adapter/sep system, F9 is only required to issue a sep command, which SpaceX is implying it did correctly. If the sep system did not function properly after receiving the sep command, that's a payload failure, not an F9 failure.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Katana on 01/09/2018 02:08 pm
According to AmericaSpace, ZUMA Presumed a 'Total Loss' After Falling Into Ocean, Say Officials.

http://www.americaspace.com/2018/01/09/zuma-presumed-a-total-loss-after-falling-into-ocean-say-officials/

"Two anonymous government officials familiar with the classified ZUMA mission, launched by SpaceX on Jan 7, declare the payload a “total loss” after falling into the Atlantic Ocean. The satellite, which reportedly cost upwards of $1 billion or more, is believed to have failed to reach orbit after not separating from the Falcon 9 rocket’s second stage. Northrop also reportedly made the payload adaptor for ZUMA, but will not comment on classified missions. SpaceX however says their rocket performed just as it was supposed to, with “data indicating Falcon 9 performed nominally”, said a spokesperson with the company. Suggesting anything that may have happened was the fault of Northrop."

Emphasis mine. How is this possible? The NOTAM for this launch stated that the 2nd stage would re-enter near Australia, and there seems to be photographic evidence of the stage venting over Africa after its de-orbit burn to re-enter in the notified area.

If the satellite didn't separate from the stage, surely it went into the Pacific, not Atlantic?

Paul

Change the word "Atlantic"  and the report is plausible. Not surprising that a minor (!) error would creep into a report written by (or sourced from) someone probably not an expert on the subject.

If a "failure" actually occurred and the the satellite did separate, which allows SpaceX to say what it has said, and it did reenter due to some sort of propulsion error (Think Polyus failure where the satellite was oriented 180 degrees off and thus reentered instead of being boosted to a higher orbit) the event could have occurred at a later time and it could have reentered over the Atlantic.

That said, it could have also thought, Oh No, Not Again....
If the satellite does got boosted to a higher orbit, could anybody identify it?
News up to now are all concerning about the initial orbit.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: sghill on 01/09/2018 02:11 pm
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.

such a payload would have been tested on the west coast like the other similar vehicles

We don't know enough to state that.

Wrong,  we know enough that hypersonic vehicles are better tested from the west coast.

Sure, if you want to advertise that it's a hypersonic vehicle test....
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Katana on 01/09/2018 02:11 pm
According to AmericaSpace, ZUMA Presumed a 'Total Loss' After Falling Into Ocean, Say Officials.

http://www.americaspace.com/2018/01/09/zuma-presumed-a-total-loss-after-falling-into-ocean-say-officials/

"Two anonymous government officials familiar with the classified ZUMA mission, launched by SpaceX on Jan 7, declare the payload a “total loss” after falling into the Atlantic Ocean. The satellite, which reportedly cost upwards of $1 billion or more, is believed to have failed to reach orbit after not separating from the Falcon 9 rocket’s second stage. Northrop also reportedly made the payload adaptor for ZUMA, but will not comment on classified missions. SpaceX however says their rocket performed just as it was supposed to, with “data indicating Falcon 9 performed nominally”, said a spokesperson with the company. Suggesting anything that may have happened was the fault of Northrop."

Emphasis mine. How is this possible? The NOTAM for this launch stated that the 2nd stage would re-enter near Australia, and there seems to be photographic evidence of the stage venting over Africa after its de-orbit burn to re-enter in the notified area.

If the satellite didn't separate from the stage, surely it went into the Pacific, not Atlantic?

Paul

Change the word "Atlantic"  and the report is plausible. Not surprising that a minor (!) error would creep into a report written by (or sourced from) someone probably not an expert on the subject.

If a "failure" actually occurred and the the satellite did separate, which allows SpaceX to say what it has said...

To be clear, SpaceX's statement can be entirely correct even if the payload did not separate. Since NG supplied the payload adapter/sep system, F9 is only required to issue a sep command, which SpaceX is implying it did correctly. If the sep system did not function properly after receivng the sep command, that's a paylod failure, not an F9 failure.

If the payload did not separate, F9 S2 deorbiting with heavy payload should have much less acceleration than normal.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Katana on 01/09/2018 02:12 pm
SpaceX will always provide the PAF, the black cone that interfaces with the fairing.  The Payload Adaptor ( the cone that goes between the PAF and spacecraft) can be provided by SpaceX or the payload.
I've been wondering, based on the report that NG provided the adapter, if Zuma was a multi-satellite mission.  Do satellite builders provide adapters on missions with only one big satellite?

If there was more than one satellite ...

 - Ed Kyle
5 stars on the mission logo
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Rocket Science on 01/09/2018 02:13 pm
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.
Evey time I see that pic my mind goes wistfully back to the X-20 Dyna-soar...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/09/2018 02:14 pm
SpaceX will always provide the PAF, the black cone that interfaces with the fairing.  The Payload Adaptor ( the cone that goes between the PAF and spacecraft) can be provided by SpaceX or the payload.
I've been wondering, based on the report that NG provided the adapter, if Zuma was a multi-satellite mission.  Do satellite builders provide adapters on missions with only one big satellite?


Yes
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 01/09/2018 02:15 pm
If the payload did not separate, F9 S2 deorbiting with heavy payload should have much less acceleration than normal.

Doesn't really matter much. The deorbit burn would also be a guidance commanded shutdown based on a predetermined delta-V braking. It's unlikely Zuma is(was?) a very heavy payload based on MECO time, so let's call it comparable to the second stage dry mass.

Deorbit burns are not very large and it's almost guaranteed that the stage would have had more than enough propellant margin to deorbit even the *combined* stack.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/09/2018 02:17 pm
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.

such a payload would have been tested on the west coast like the other similar vehicles

We don't know enough to state that.

Wrong,  we know enough that hypersonic vehicles are better tested from the west coast.

Sure, if you want to advertise that it's a hypersonic vehicle test....

There are no  facilities on the east coast to support such tests.  It went northernly, no radars, imaging or test sensors.

And it went into orbit, hence not a hypersonic test.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: vanoord on 01/09/2018 02:19 pm
Change the word "Atlantic"  and the report is plausible. Not surprising that a minor (!) error would creep into a report written by (or sourced from) someone probably not an expert on the subject.

Indeed.

There is a probable sighting of S2 over Sudan approx 2:15 after launch, which seems to fit with it having crossed the Atlantic twice and the Pacific once - and being on the way to a de-orbit burn into the Pacific.

*If* Zuma was still attached to the S2 (and presumably there would be some way of knowing that), then is there really not a contingency whereby the stage can be commanded not to undertake its de-orbit burn pending resolution of the non-separated satellite?

And *if* that was the case, surely the 'rumours' would have been a bit more clearly aligned that the satellite had not separated and a resolution was being attempted - ie leave the two attached until power / control was lost?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: guckyfan on 01/09/2018 02:25 pm
The second stage would send a release signal to the payload adapter after reaching the target orbit. Would there be a handshake with a deployed signal coming back to enable the deorbit sequence?

I would expect it to work that way.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: JonathanD on 01/09/2018 02:27 pm
Indeed.

There is a probable sighting of S2 over Sudan approx 2:15 after launch, which seems to fit with it having crossed the Atlantic twice and the Pacific once - and being on the way to a de-orbit burn into the Pacific.

*If* Zuma was still attached to the S2 (and presumably there would be some way of knowing that), then is there really not a contingency whereby the stage can be commanded not to undertake its de-orbit burn pending resolution of the non-separated satellite?

And *if* that was the case, surely the 'rumours' would have been a bit more clearly aligned that the satellite had not separated and a resolution was being attempted - ie leave the two attached until power / control was lost?

This is the best summary of the Sudan sighting I have seen:

http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Jan-2018/0074.html

My WAG based on the above is that the Northrop Grumman-supplied payload adapter failed to separate the spacecraft, and the order was given to deorbit the second stage with the payload attached while it still had the power to do so.  The spacecraft, even if operational, almost certainly would not have been able to complete its mission with a second stage attached to it so they would have no other choice but to ditch the whole kit and kaboodle.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jester on 01/09/2018 02:27 pm
Sorry if this was already answered, however, was this the first time a customer provide the payload adapter for an F9 launch ?

and just for ref. that payload adapter information came from a "document acquired by wired" -> https://www.wired.com/story/spacexs-top-secret-zuma-mission-launches-today/
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: MaxTeranous on 01/09/2018 02:30 pm
The second stage would send a release signal to the payload adapter after reaching the target orbit. Would there be a handshake with a deployed signal coming back to enable the deorbit sequence?

I would expect it to work that way.

There's no point to that. If a payload doesn't separate it's not like the 2nd stage can wait for a mechanic to come and hit it with a spanner. Adding that loop only adds a failure case to the deorbit burn, it doesn't allow any recovery case if there is no separation anyway.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: jebbo on 01/09/2018 02:30 pm
There are no  facilities on the east coast to support such tests.  It went northernly, no radars, imaging or test sensors.

And it went into orbit, hence not a hypersonic test.

A related speculation I've heard (and don't think is likely, and doubtless Jim can tell me why it doesn't work), would be an X37B/OTV-like vehicle which de-orbited to land at Edwards ... as I understand it, the 2nd stage orbit wasn't *too* far from that.

--- Tony
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: yokem55 on 01/09/2018 02:31 pm
Sorry if this was already answered, however, was this the first time a customer provide the payload adapter for an F9 launch ?

and just for ref. that payload adapter information came from a "document acquired by wired" -> https://www.wired.com/story/spacexs-top-secret-zuma-mission-launches-today/
I think the X-37B launch last fall needed a custom payload adapter as supposedly the craft needed a special AC line for internal use.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/09/2018 02:32 pm
Indeed.

There is a probable sighting of S2 over Sudan approx 2:15 after launch, which seems to fit with it having crossed the Atlantic twice and the Pacific once - and being on the way to a de-orbit burn into the Pacific.

*If* Zuma was still attached to the S2 (and presumably there would be some way of knowing that), then is there really not a contingency whereby the stage can be commanded not to undertake its de-orbit burn pending resolution of the non-separated satellite?

And *if* that was the case, surely the 'rumours' would have been a bit more clearly aligned that the satellite had not separated and a resolution was being attempted - ie leave the two attached until power / control was lost?

This is the best summary of the Sudan sighting I have seen:

http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Jan-2018/0074.html

My WAG based on the above is that the Northrop Grumman-supplied payload adapter failed to separate the spacecraft, and the order was given to deorbit the second stage with the payload attached while it still had the power to do so.  The spacecraft, even if operational, almost certainly would not have been able to complete its mission with a second stage attached to it so they would have no other choice but to ditch the whole kit and kaboodle.

In case someone doesn't click through to the second link, this is the one that describes the Sudan sighting:

https://sattrackcam.blogspot.nl/2018/01/fuel-dump-of-zumas-falcon-9-upper-stage.html
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: douglas100 on 01/09/2018 02:35 pm
The second stage would send a release signal to the payload adapter after reaching the target orbit. Would there be a handshake with a deployed signal coming back to enable the deorbit sequence?

I would expect it to work that way.

I doubt that. It's been stated many times, and by SpaceX themselves, that the F9 acts autonomously. The de-orbit sequence would operate whether the payload separated or not. There's no reason for an external signal to trigger the de-orbit. If the payload fails to separate then it's automatically LOM and what happens afterwards doesn't matter.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 01/09/2018 02:37 pm
Change the word "Atlantic"  and the report is plausible. Not surprising that a minor (!) error would creep into a report written by (or sourced from) someone probably not an expert on the subject.

Indeed.

There is a probable sighting of S2 over Sudan approx 2:15 after launch, which seems to fit with it having crossed the Atlantic twice and the Pacific once - and being on the way to a de-orbit burn into the Pacific.

*If* Zuma was still attached to the S2 (and presumably there would be some way of knowing that), then is there really not a contingency whereby the stage can be commanded not to undertake its de-orbit burn pending resolution of the non-separated satellite?

And *if* that was the case, surely the 'rumours' would have been a bit more clearly aligned that the satellite had not separated and a resolution was being attempted - ie leave the two attached until power / control was lost?

Having witnessed a few Centaur blow down events, (the east coast NOSS launches, MMS) The satellite if separated will be visible, especially if you train a good pair of binoculars (or larger optics on it). Depending on the quality of the images coming out of Sudan, you might be able to inspect them and find Zuma. Though, I am not holding out much hope.

Interesting quote from Marco on his blog post;
Quote
The sighting points to a somewhat higher orbital altitude for Zuma than I had anticipated before the launch: with hindsight, I had too much of an idée-fixe that the orbital altitude would be similar to that of USA 276. The Falcon 9 sighting over East Africa suggests an altitude over double as high, in the order of 900-1000 km rather than my original 400 km estimate.
https://sattrackcam.blogspot.nl/2018/01/fuel-dump-of-zumas-falcon-9-upper-stage.html

(my money is still on decoy)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: cscott on 01/09/2018 02:38 pm
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.

Zuma separated nominally after the upper stage completed putting it on its suborbital trajectory towards the Pacific Test Range (hence the independently-measured shorter-than-normal upper stage burn).

The Sudan sighting proves the upper stage made it to orbit (not a suborbital trajectory). In order for it to have been seen there at that time it needed to have done an orbit and a half around the earth.

Wrt hypersonic tests and the west coast: if you're launching in a suborbital trajectory you need a large amount of clear space for your vehicle to fly over, since it could (in theory) come down anywhere along that path if things go south.  There's a lot more clear space on the Pacific ocean side ... and we happen to have good tracking radars all along that side too because of who's on the other side of that ocean.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 01/09/2018 02:40 pm
The second stage would send a release signal to the payload adapter after reaching the target orbit. Would there be a handshake with a deployed signal coming back to enable the deorbit sequence?

I would expect it to work that way.

As I understand it, most payload interfaces have a small thin-gauge electrical wire connecting the launch vehicle to the spacecraft. When the payload separates, the wire snaps, causing the circuit to break, informing the LV that the payload has been deployed. However, there have been one or two cases where, due to processing errors, the payload is hard-connected to the interface, the wire breaks and the spacecraft just dangles on the end of the deployed separation structure but still secured to it by tags, clips or bolts that should have been removed before encapsulation.

This scenario is very rare but it is possible; it only takes one error to go undetected during the payload processing phase.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/09/2018 02:41 pm
Change the word "Atlantic"  and the report is plausible. Not surprising that a minor (!) error would creep into a report written by (or sourced from) someone probably not an expert on the subject.

Indeed.

There is a probable sighting of S2 over Sudan approx 2:15 after launch, which seems to fit with it having crossed the Atlantic twice and the Pacific once - and being on the way to a de-orbit burn into the Pacific.

*If* Zuma was still attached to the S2 (and presumably there would be some way of knowing that), then is there really not a contingency whereby the stage can be commanded not to undertake its de-orbit burn pending resolution of the non-separated satellite?

And *if* that was the case, surely the 'rumours' would have been a bit more clearly aligned that the satellite had not separated and a resolution was being attempted - ie leave the two attached until power / control was lost?

Having witnessed a few Centaur blow down events, (the east coast NOSS launches, MMS) The satellite if separated will be visible...

I think you meant "The satellite if not separated will be visible..."
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/09/2018 02:42 pm
How many times does this have to be stated?
Launch vehicles do not receive commands after launch
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jester on 01/09/2018 02:45 pm
How many times does this have to be stated?
Launch vehicles do not receive commands after launch

if nominal ;-)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: cscott on 01/09/2018 02:47 pm


Wait a second here, how does such a lightweight payload cost over $1 Billion if it is just a satellite?????     This was a light payload and 1st stage boostback return was possible. 

In informal scaremongering of this sort, it's common to include all r&d costs onto the quoted figure.  So it could cost significantly less than $1B to make a replacement flight vehicle, but if you add up all of the program costs to date, includng previous tests, all staff salaries, etc, you get $1B.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/09/2018 02:49 pm


Wait a second here, how does such a lightweight payload cost over $1 Billion if it is just a satellite?????     This was a light payload and 1st stage boostback return was possible. 

In informal scaremongering of this sort, it's common to include all r&d costs onto the quoted figure.  So it could cost significantly less than $1B to make a replacement flight vehicle, but if you add up all of the program costs to date, includng previous tests, all staff salaries, etc, you get $1B.

Not to mention that the "mission cost," including that of the launch vehicle, sometimes gets reported/interpreted incorrectly as "payload cost."
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Rocket Science on 01/09/2018 02:57 pm
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.

such a payload would have been tested on the west coast like the other similar vehicles

We don't know enough to state that.

Wrong,  we know enough that hypersonic vehicles are better tested from the west coast.

Sure, if you want to advertise that it's a hypersonic vehicle test....

There are no  facilities on the east coast to support such tests.  It went northernly, no radars, imaging or test sensors.

And it went into orbit, hence not a hypersonic test.
Question Jim, what if this was an orbital entry test and not just a hypersonic atmospheric test. The X-23 PRIME although launched from Vandy and the vehicle was accelerated to a sub-orbital entry velocity over the pacific. Would not 1-2 1/2 revs and then end over the west coast be not possible with assets there as mentioned. The X-23 Prime did not need conditioned air for flight under it's faring as far as I can recall. ASSET was similar in testing...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDAPjumZA1s&t=310s
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Zach Swena on 01/09/2018 03:28 pm
What about a stealth sat test?  I know it is a bit of a long shot, but if they did figure out a way to hind a bird from tracking, this would be how the PR would be handled...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: JonathanD on 01/09/2018 03:33 pm
What about a stealth sat test?  I know it is a bit of a long shot, but if they did figure out a way to hind a bird from tracking, this would be how the PR would be handled...

You are giving them too much credit imho.  They could have just clammed up about it like they would any NROL launch and that would be it.  It's interesting that members of Congress have been briefed, certainly deepens the intrigue of who this belonged to.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ArbitraryConstant on 01/09/2018 03:36 pm
The speculation is getting ridiculous.

The customer values their privacy and as far as I'm concerned they are welcome to it.

And whatever SpaceX is or isn't allowed to say, the communication that matters is no stand down.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Rocket Science on 01/09/2018 03:51 pm
The speculation is getting ridiculous.

The customer values their privacy and as far as I'm concerned they are welcome to it.

And whatever SpaceX is or isn't allowed to say, the communication that matters is no stand down.
Speculation keeps the kids from going out and playing on the road...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 01/09/2018 03:52 pm
Here are screen grabs of the fairing separation. Not that the vehicle is moving to the right from the perspective of the viewer. We can clearly see a fairing separate from the top. However, the bottom fairing appears as a bright blob right next to the exhaust. Not sure if this is due to the viewing angle.

The rocket is also moving "downwards" from the user perspective.

And the bright plume is the very large over-expanded vacuum plume...

I'm surprised the fairing is even visible at all.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: wolfpack on 01/09/2018 03:59 pm
The second stage "knows" if the payload separated or not, true? Or is it "open loop" in that the sep command is sent and that's it? Breakwire status seems an easy thing to check.

What do launch vehicles do if S/C sep fails? Would S2 continue on as if nothing happened or would it inhibit the de-orbit sequence? I know F9 is a proprietary design, but lots of folks here know what other LV's would do.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Oli on 01/09/2018 04:02 pm
What about a stealth sat test?  I know it is a bit of a long shot, but if they did figure out a way to hind a bird from tracking, this would be how the PR would be handled...

There Ain't No Stealth In Space.

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewardetect.php
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 01/09/2018 04:02 pm


Wait a second here, how does such a lightweight payload cost over $1 Billion if it is just a satellite?????     This was a light payload and 1st stage boostback return was possible. 

In informal scaremongering of this sort, it's common to include all r&d costs onto the quoted figure.  So it could cost significantly less than $1B to make a replacement flight vehicle, but if you add up all of the program costs to date, includng previous tests, all staff salaries, etc, you get $1B.

Not really that surprised with this kind of payload. Misty cost something like $9.5 billion with all the stealth adaptations that’s why it was a controversial program. If this has similar characteristics I could imagine even a relatively small payload seeing ballooning costs.

What about a stealth sat test?  I know it is a bit of a long shot, but if they did figure out a way to hind a bird from tracking, this would be how the PR would be handled...

There Ain't No Stealth In Space.

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewardetect.php

Yes there is.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misty_(satellite)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: NGCHunter on 01/09/2018 04:05 pm
Incredible footage of stage sep and the boostback burn.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjQ41VIaL3Q
Thanks!  That was my video. I'm hoping at some point other launch regulars who do tracking shots start to adopt my setup and software for their shots as well.  The software is very experimental, but it's freely available.  Computer, joystick, and telescope not included, of course.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Phillip Clark on 01/09/2018 04:08 pm
So, if the Falcon-9 successfully orbited Zuma, but then Zuma failed to separate, is this the first time that an upper stage successfully de-orbits itself and also accidentally brings back the satellite with it?   I cannot remember this failure mode before.

Another "first" for SpaceX?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: hoku on 01/09/2018 04:10 pm
A possible sequence of events based on the various articles and discussions:

step 1: Nominal Falcon9 launch, leading to S2+ZUMA achieving release orbit
step 2: S2 sends release signal to payload adapter
step 3: ZUMA stays attached to S2+payload adapter
step 4: after completion of 1st orbit, event timer on S2 issues de-orbit command, which is the preferred option considering the limited lifetime of S2, and the fact that in case anything goes wrong, a controlled de-orbit of a classified payload is always preferable to an uncontrolled re-entry with bits&pieces spread over, e.g., Russia or China.

The cause of "step 3" might be an interface problem, related to, e.g., hardware (crossed/broken wire or connector, ...), communications protocol (wrong parity bit, ...), SW error on the payload adapter side, processing/close-out issue before launch, etc. NG and SpaceX probably already have some clues on where the chain of events for ZUMA release got interrupted.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Oli on 01/09/2018 04:15 pm
Yes there is.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misty_(satellite)

If you know the launch trajectory you also know the orbit, looks rather pointless to me.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: whitelancer64 on 01/09/2018 04:19 pm
So, if the Falcon-9 successfully orbited Zuma, but then Zuma failed to separate, is this the first time that an upper stage successfully de-orbits itself and also accidentally brings back the satellite with it?   I cannot remember this failure mode before.

Another "first" for SpaceX?

It has happened before. In 2015, a Russian military sat failed to separate from an upper stage.

http://spaceflight101.com/orbital-data-for-soyuz-2-1v-launch-with-kanopus-st/

"Usually" if a satellite fails to separate from a rocket it's because the fairings did not deploy. That has happened several times.

Also, there's the unusual instance where the satellite DID deploy, but the fairings did not, which happened last year on India's PSLV launch.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Sam Ho on 01/09/2018 04:40 pm
So, if the Falcon-9 successfully orbited Zuma, but then Zuma failed to separate, is this the first time that an upper stage successfully de-orbits itself and also accidentally brings back the satellite with it?   I cannot remember this failure mode before.

Another "first" for SpaceX?

It has happened before. In 2015, a Russian military sat failed to separate from an upper stage.

http://spaceflight101.com/orbital-data-for-soyuz-2-1v-launch-with-kanopus-st/

"Usually" if a satellite fails to separate from a rocket it's because the fairings did not deploy. That has happened several times.

Also, there's the unusual instance where the satellite DID deploy, but the fairings did not, which happened last year on India's PSLV launch.
To be precise, Kanopus-ST wasn't fully deorbited.  The Volga deorbit burn dropped it into a very short-lived orbit.
There are three new elsets for 41098, but the earliest one is incorrectly assigned to 41100.
It indicates the Volga depletion burn may have occurred  during a pass over Baykonur around 0200 UTC Dec 6, about 10 hours after the
failure to separate. Presumably the extra mass of the attached payload meant there was not enough prop to
entirely deorbit the spacecraft, leaving it with the low perigee. Should reenter in a few days.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Norm38 on 01/09/2018 04:44 pm
If there's a failure of SpaceX's mission assurance protocol that leads to some failure, then they would likely halt all launches to figure out what contributed to that failure and why the normal procedures (which goes beyond just one system) didn't catch the problem.

Post from the FH thread, replying here.  A quick thought on this:  Due to the secretive nature of the Zuma payload, isn't it likely that the normal SpaceX procedures could not be followed because the full team did not have access to the hardware and/or data?
In my electronics industry experience, I have seen instances where secretive/encrypted systems were worked on by a small sub-team and their work was NOT reviewed by the full team and the reviews did not go through normal procedures.  There were fewer pairs of eyes in the reviews, and things got missed.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: SLC on 01/09/2018 04:47 pm
<snip>
I've been wondering, based on the report that NG provided the adapter, if Zuma was a multi-satellite mission.  Do satellite builders provide adapters on missions with only one big satellite?

If there was more than one satellite ...

 - Ed Kyle
5 stars on the mission logo
Yes, why are we all assuming that Zuma is just one satellite?  What if it's actually a swarm of small stealthy satellites, dispensed during the first complete orbit, leaving the empty dispenser to be de-orbited with the S2 over Sudan and end up in the southern Indian Ocean exactly as planned in the NOTAMs issued back in November?  This would explain several things:

1) The not-even-one-glimpse secrecy.  A cluster of matt-black polyhedra mounted round a central stalk (guessing wildly here) would be a dead giveaway.  And the dispensing stalk adapter would obviously have to be a NG one-off.

2) The billion-dollar price-tag for a comparatively low mass, easier to account for if there are many units.

3) The ISS-like orbit.  They can sneak up on the ISS just like NROL-76.

4) The contractor.  NG know all about stealth.

... and a general point:  this is the way the military want to go -  away from huge, single, expensive, vulnerable assets and towards larger numbers of less conspicuous intercommunicating units that can survive better on a space battlefield (if it ever comes to that, which we all hope it won't).

Thoughts, anyone?


Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jeff Lerner on 01/09/2018 04:48 pm
This mission for me was ...just....off...

something weird...the whole thing..from the time we found out about it...seemed to happen so quickly....the secrecy...it's flying soon...it's not flying soon...it's delayed...the fairing investigation....the static fire..then the WDR..then talk of  another one....I don't know...the flow, the rhythm...

Seriously doubt we will ever find out what happened....until such time Zuma gets declassified, if ever..all we seem to know to date is that Spacex doesn't feel anything is wrong with their rocket...so nothing to see here...move along...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Hauerg on 01/09/2018 04:56 pm
Cui bono.
OK, so you have an incredibly secret sat to launch.
Would not the best thing that could happen to you be the public thinking the launch failed.
/taking tinfoil hat off
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: the_other_Doug on 01/09/2018 04:57 pm
In re giving a roll rate to a stage that is entering the atmosphere shortly -- in Apollo, after the CM separated from the SM, event timers were set up within the SM to burn its RCS to give the SM a roll rate.  This was supposed to stabilize its atmospheric entry and keep it, or pieces of it as it disintegrated, from getting any untoward lift vectors going, and possibly recontacting the CM.

The funny part of it is, the SM always got off in severe coning angles due to CG issues, and never actually entered in the desired spin state.  It would have required a full control system, with at least strap-down accelerometers if not an inertial platform, to have been installed in the SM just to manage the spin-up properly, which was a non-starter.

So, setting a stage or a spacecraft spinning before entry is not unheard-of as a control strategy.  In fact, the idea goes back more than half a century...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 01/09/2018 05:17 pm

Having witnessed a few Centaur blow down events, (the east coast NOSS launches, MMS) The satellite if separated will be visible...

I think you meant "The satellite if not separated will be visible..."
If not seperated you will only see the combo as one dot, if separated you will see two dots.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 01/09/2018 05:21 pm
Also, FWIW, there was a 2007 CBO discussion of notional "space radar satellites" in 1,000 km x 53 deg orbits.  It was titled "Alternatives for Military Space Radar".  The discussion described a constellation of such satellites.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7691/01-03-spaceradar.pdf

A lot of people keep assuming all spy satellites need to be in polar orbits, but if you have more than one that's not true.  Lots of the new constellations, both communications and imaging, use a variety a polar (or near polar) and non-polar inclinations to provide both full coverage and higher revisit rates over more populated areas.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: JonathanD on 01/09/2018 05:22 pm
Cui bono.
OK, so you have an incredibly secret sat to launch.
Would not the best thing that could happen to you be the public thinking the launch failed.
/taking tinfoil hat off

Problem is there are no shortage of amateur satellite trackers out there that would find it.  It's hard to hide a rocket launch and the direction it is headed, and thus the orbit, not to mention telegraphing the final inclination with a visible S2 de-orbit.  As much as we'd like this to be some secret cloak and dagger success, I'm afraid Occam's razor applies here; the simplest explanation that requires the fewest assumptions and is consistent with observed and reported events is that Stage 2 successfully made orbit, the payload failed to separate, and both burned up in the atmosphere together when Stage 2 initiated its normal de-orbit procedure.  We'll likely never know what Zuma was, at least not any time soon, and that is certainly frustrating, but at least it does not appear to be slowing down SpaceX despite some of the truly absurd media headlines surrounding these events.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Patchouli on 01/09/2018 05:31 pm
<snip>
I've been wondering, based on the report that NG provided the adapter, if Zuma was a multi-satellite mission.  Do satellite builders provide adapters on missions with only one big satellite?

If there was more than one satellite ...

 - Ed Kyle
5 stars on the mission logo
Yes, why are we all assuming that Zuma is just one satellite?  What if it's actually a swarm of small stealthy satellites, dispensed during the first complete orbit, leaving the empty dispenser to be de-orbited with the S2 over Sudan and end up in the southern Indian Ocean exactly as planned in the NOTAMs issued back in November?  This would explain several things:

1) The not-even-one-glimpse secrecy.  A cluster of matt-black polyhedra mounted round a central stalk (guessing wildly here) would be a dead giveaway.  And the dispensing stalk adapter would obviously have to be a NG one-off.

2) The billion-dollar price-tag for a comparatively low mass, easier to account for if there are many units.

3) The ISS-like orbit.  They can sneak up on the ISS just like NROL-76.

4) The contractor.  NG know all about stealth.

... and a general point:  this is the way the military want to go -  away from huge, single, expensive, vulnerable assets and towards larger numbers of less conspicuous intercommunicating units that can survive better on a space battlefield (if it ever comes to that, which we all hope it won't).

Thoughts, anyone?




Another crazy ideal it was actually a test for a reentry vehicle.
Are there any naval ships near the reentry point?
Though it's steerable it could end up as much as a 1000 miles or more from the ballistic trajectory.

Though it was a destacked one it's possible something got knocked loose on the payload adapter during those operations.
It's probably a proprietary NG part and Spacex has nothing to do with it.
In that case they would have commanded S2 to dispose of the payload so the Russians and Chinese can't get anything to examine.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: JonathanD on 01/09/2018 05:33 pm
In that case they would have commanded S2 to dispose of the payload so the Russians and Chinese can't get anything to examine.

As has been noted they don't command S2 to do anything, it's autonomous.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 01/09/2018 05:35 pm
Another crazy ideal it was actually a test for a reentry vehicle.

Nope, not another crazy idea, that's the same crazy idea a half dozen other people have posted.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: schaban on 01/09/2018 05:35 pm
Until nrol 76 is located I think we shouldn’t assume that this one is lost if not located by amateurs
And we know much more about nrol 76 then this one
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: envy887 on 01/09/2018 05:43 pm
Until nrol 76 is located I think we shouldn’t assume that this one is lost if not located by amateurs
And we know much more about nrol 76 then this one

NROL 76 is lost?

http://spaceflight101.com/satellite-trackers-spot-classified-nrol-76-usa-276-satellite-in-low-earth-orbit/
http://www.n2yo.com/?s=42689
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/06/a-spy-satellite-buzzed-the-space-station-this-month-and-no-one-knows-why/
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: IntoTheVoid on 01/09/2018 05:45 pm
As much as we'd like this to be some secret cloak and dagger success, I'm afraid Occam's razor applies here; the simplest explanation that requires the fewest assumptions and is consistent with observed and reported events is that Stage 2 successfully made orbit, the payload failed to separate, and both burned up in the atmosphere together when Stage 2 initiated its normal de-orbit procedure.  We'll likely never know what Zuma was, at least not any time soon...

I disagree; "the simplest explanation that requires the fewest assumptions and is consistent with observed and reported events is that Stage 2 successfully made orbit" and the payload was properly deployed.

The rumor mill got started with a lack of confirmation of success, which is not indicative of anything for a highly classified payload, coupled with the uncommon sighting of the stage deorbiting. Then, as is typical, WSJ wrote a hit piece based on the rumors. Some later articles reported that some unidentified officials were informed of the mission failure, but it's not at all clear if they were "informed" by anything other than the WSJ article, it's author, or the rumors in general.

It's been reported that a successful deployment will not be observable for 1-3 weeks. The simplest explanation is that everything is fine and the operator see no benefit in declaring success.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Nomadd on 01/09/2018 05:46 pm
In that case they would have commanded S2 to dispose of the payload so the Russians and Chinese can't get anything to examine.

As has been noted they don't command S2 to do anything, it's autonomous.
It's normally autonomous. That doesn't mean they're incapable of sending commands in unusual circumstances, either some sort of safe mode or unique mission requirements.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Zach Swena on 01/09/2018 05:50 pm
For all that are jumping on my stealth comment, you do realize that even the stealth aircraft aren't invisible like in science fiction...  Even birds can show up on radar, but are filtered out most of the time to reduce noise.  Stealth aircraft simply have radar signatures that misrepresent the size and shape of the aircraft to a single or small collection of detectors to the point where it normally gets filtered out.  Not sure if manuvering burns even from small sats would go undetected unless designed to look like something normal.

I agree that some type of anomaly seems likely.  If this was a reentry test, it seems that would be visible also.  The ultimate stealth probably would exist as a hosted payload on a sat lite withe a different stated purpose...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars-J on 01/09/2018 05:50 pm
As much as we'd like this to be some secret cloak and dagger success, I'm afraid Occam's razor applies here; the simplest explanation that requires the fewest assumptions and is consistent with observed and reported events is that Stage 2 successfully made orbit, the payload failed to separate, and both burned up in the atmosphere together when Stage 2 initiated its normal de-orbit procedure.  We'll likely never know what Zuma was, at least not any time soon...

I disagree; "the simplest explanation that requires the fewest assumptions and is consistent with observed and reported events is that Stage 2 successfully made orbit" and the payload was properly deployed.

The rumor mill got started with a lack of confirmation of success, which is not indicative of anything for a highly classified payload, coupled with the uncommon sighting of the stage deorbiting. Then, as is typical, WSJ wrote a hit piece based on the rumors. Some later articles reported that some unidentified officials were informed of the mission failure, but it's not at all clear if they were "informed" by anything other than the WSJ article, it's author, or the rumors in general.

It's been reported that a successful deployment will not be observable for 1-3 weeks. The simplest explanation is that everything is fine and the operator see no benefit in declaring success.

I don't think you understand what the "simplest explanation" means. The simplest conspiracy theory perhaps, but it makes no sense at all. This is not exactly the first ever classified launch. People don't jeopardize their careers and departments to declare failure when they actually had a success. That is unheard of.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: mme on 01/09/2018 05:51 pm
Incredible footage of stage sep and the boostback burn.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjQ41VIaL3Q
Thanks!  That was my video. I'm hoping at some point other launch regulars who do tracking shots start to adopt my setup and software for their shots as well.  The software is very experimental, but it's freely available.  Computer, joystick, and telescope not included, of course.
This is so cool.  Is the source code in a publicly available repository? Not sure when I'd get to it but I'd love to use it for some VAFB missions if I can get the equipment together.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: IntoTheVoid on 01/09/2018 05:55 pm
As much as we'd like this to be some secret cloak and dagger success, I'm afraid Occam's razor applies here; the simplest explanation that requires the fewest assumptions and is consistent with observed and reported events is that Stage 2 successfully made orbit, the payload failed to separate, and both burned up in the atmosphere together when Stage 2 initiated its normal de-orbit procedure.  We'll likely never know what Zuma was, at least not any time soon...

I disagree; "the simplest explanation that requires the fewest assumptions and is consistent with observed and reported events is that Stage 2 successfully made orbit" and the payload was properly deployed.

The rumor mill got started with a lack of confirmation of success, which is not indicative of anything for a highly classified payload, coupled with the uncommon sighting of the stage deorbiting. Then, as is typical, WSJ wrote a hit piece based on the rumors. Some later articles reported that some unidentified officials were informed of the mission failure, but it's not at all clear if they were "informed" by anything other than the WSJ article, it's author, or the rumors in general.

It's been reported that a successful deployment will not be observable for 1-3 weeks. The simplest explanation is that everything is fine and the operator see no benefit in declaring success.

I don't think you understand what the "simplest explanation" means. The simplest conspiracy theory perhaps, but it makes no sense at all. This is not exactly the first ever classified launch. People don't jeopardize their careers and departments to declare failure when they actually had a success. That is unheard of.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 01/09/2018 06:00 pm
Northrop Grumman got what they wanted from SX. Whether they got all they wanted from the mission they did with SX is the question they have told all of you they won't answer.

Can we stop now?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: JonathanD on 01/09/2018 06:00 pm

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.

Things like this don't happen if everything has gone to plan: https://twitter.com/SpaceBrendan/status/950802453213130754
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 01/09/2018 06:07 pm
This thread has become comical/boring.
 I'm not a fan of "there's info in L2" posts but if ever a thread needed such a post, it's this one.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: mn on 01/09/2018 06:10 pm
Question: when SpaceX says everything was nominal that presumably includes confirmation that the sep command was sent.

Would there typically be another independent sensor at the adapter interface which can tell the S2 computer that the sep command was in fact received?

Suppose SpaceX says we sent the sep command and NG says we never got it, would spacex have any way to KNOW one way or another? Just because the computer 'sent' it doesn't guarantee that it was received at the payload adapter interface (what happens within the adapter mechanism is another story but not relevant to my question).

And another note: To those who posted congratulations to SpaceX regardless of what happened to the payload. Sorry but this is NOT good for SpaceX any way you cut it. Remember the old adage 'Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM'. 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars-J on 01/09/2018 06:11 pm
This thread has become comical/boring.
 I'm not a fan of "there's info in L2" posts but if ever a thread needed such a post, it's this one.

Agreed. And if there ever was a case for a "zuma conspiracy theory padded room" thread, this is it.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 01/09/2018 06:21 pm
Question: when SpaceX says everything was nominal that presumably includes confirmation that the sep command was sent.

Would there typically be another independent sensor at the adapter interface which can tell the S2 computer that the sep command was in fact received?

Suppose SpaceX says we sent the sep command and NG says we never got it, would spacex have any way to KNOW one way or another? Just because the computer 'sent' it doesn't guarantee that it was received at the payload adapter interface (what happens within the adapter mechanism is another story but not relevant to my question).

There's an interface to the payload that passes SC health/status to incorporate into the telemetry frames such that SX customer knows what is happening with the SC during launch.

There is limited information on the encapsulated SC that SX "knows" up til release.  And, the LV's GNC "knows" when the payload shifts/comes off because it does not "fly" as expected.

So irrespective of actual explicit "yes we're screwed" signals from the SC, the provider knows WTF is going on.

And they've agreed years ago not to say even one word about.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: mme on 01/09/2018 06:29 pm
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.
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
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: pb2000 on 01/09/2018 06:31 pm

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.

Things like this don't happen if everything has gone to plan: https://twitter.com/SpaceBrendan/status/950802453213130754
Everyone 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: schaban on 01/09/2018 06:31 pm
Until nrol 76 is located I think we shouldn’t assume that this one is lost if not located by amateurs
And we know much more about nrol 76 then this one

NROL 76 is lost?

http://spaceflight101.com/satellite-trackers-spot-classified-nrol-76-usa-276-satellite-in-low-earth-orbit/
http://www.n2yo.com/?s=42689
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/06/a-spy-satellite-buzzed-the-space-station-this-month-and-no-one-knows-why/
Sorry meant otv5 as far as I recall that one only has estimated or it but no one yet to see spacecraft yet
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: mn on 01/09/2018 06:32 pm
Question: when SpaceX says everything was nominal that presumably includes confirmation that the sep command was sent.

Would there typically be another independent sensor at the adapter interface which can tell the S2 computer that the sep command was in fact received?

Suppose SpaceX says we sent the sep command and NG says we never got it, would spacex have any way to KNOW one way or another? Just because the computer 'sent' it doesn't guarantee that it was received at the payload adapter interface (what happens within the adapter mechanism is another story but not relevant to my question).

There's an interface to the payload that passes SC health/status to incorporate into the telemetry frames such that SX customer knows what is happening with the SC during launch.

There is limited information on the encapsulated SC that SX "knows" up til release.  And, the LV's GNC "knows" when the payload shifts/comes off because it does not "fly" as expected.

So irrespective of actual explicit "yes we're screwed" signals from the SC, the provider knows WTF is going on.

And they've agreed years ago not to say even one word about.

Thanks you actually answered a couple of other questions I was wondering about.

But my question now is about the sep command not the actual separation, in simple terms just because the computer turned on the light switch doesn't mean the light went on unless there is another sensor monitoring that.

So my question is can spacex know with certainty whether or not the sep command was received at the payload interface? (whether they tell us or not is another unrelated question).

I'm just wondering out loud, how this is typically done? (typically the SC will in fact separate and that will be confirmation that the signal was sent, but in the rare event that it does not separate you would want to know at what point in the chain did this fail) (of course we don't know in fact that it failed here, just speculation)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 01/09/2018 06:39 pm
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...

Actual separation is never tested.  The signals to separate can be tested during WDR if there is something to record it.

To expand on Jim's usual terse post...
Spacecraft separation from a launch vehicle usually involves pyrotechnics.
You can't test pyrotechnics prior to launch. Testing them would set them off which would require replacement of the pyrotechnics.

It is the one reason why SpaceX primarily uses pneumatics for separation events, such as stage separation and fairing release.
However, the launcher-to-spacecraft separation plane is, per industry standard, usually equipped with a pyrotechnically-driven separation system.

But, failures of space-rated pyrotechnic devices are exceedingly rare.

Yet this is exactly what appears to have happened on a PSLV launch last year.

"Exceedingly rare" does not equal "never happen".
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Rocket Science on 01/09/2018 06:47 pm
My issue with a planned entry test would be a NOTAM release...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/09/2018 06:55 pm

There's an interface to the payload that passes SC health/status to incorporate into the telemetry frames such that SX customer knows what is happening with the SC during launch.


Not used less than used.  And required the LV to be transit transmitting to a tracking site real time.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/09/2018 07:07 pm
Addressing the failicies of the rumors.

1- Since the US was spotted at its nominal position after the scheduled reentry burn the payload successfully deployed. If the payload was still attached it would not have done the reentry burn at all and waited to see if the problem could be resolved and sat deployed on a later orbit.

2- These "Black" sats mostly do not radiate (RF and optical[laser]) toward the ground at all. They have been doing this since the 1960's. They transmit up to a Military comm sat in bursts. This is so that there is nothing to indicate the health status of the sat detectable from Earth. Meaning they look from observers on the ground as dead when they are not.

So there is nothing observable that can be used to determine the sat health status.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: CyndyC on 01/09/2018 07:09 pm
Unfortunately, it's common that failures happen at the physical/electrical interface of two components supplied by different contractors...

One happened just last month due to incompatibility between Russian & French standards, in that case later resolved remotely, being discussed at https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42981.msg1765942#msg1765942.

And just the month before, a Russian launch failed completely because it was programmed with coordinates to launch from Baikonur when the launch was from Vostochny, being discussed at https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32723.msg1765631#msg1765631.

So it may be as simple as SpaceX showing their telemetry stream with a good separation command. Anything downstream of that is the payload's responsibility.

But the payload sep command from the 2nd stage is based solely on timing and not on position, and there would be no one "correct" position anyway, only a desirable range, and the sat takes it from there, no? So the sat IS engineered to gauge & act according to its position, and we have at least one expert sat watcher saying the altitude was more than twice what he originally expected.

I'm starting to wonder if the coordinates programmed into the satellite were the problem, ie it was programmed to self-destruct by going down with the 2nd stage if its position exceeded a certain range upon receiving the separation signal.

Hopefully if the coordinates needed to be changed to launch from pad 40 instead of 39A, they were, or else had nothing to do with an extended position range that might have played a role.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 01/09/2018 07:13 pm

There's an interface to the payload that passes SC health/status to incorporate into the telemetry frames such that SX customer knows what is happening with the SC during launch.


Not used less than used.  And required the LV to be transit transmitting to a tracking site real time.

Yes less used.

You can pick it up with a one meter dish hand tracked. Done it myself with off the shelf stuff.

Part of the reason why there's little use (easily intercepted), and a good additional reason in the reverse to a) avoid commanding (plus drop outs), b) shut down FTS post range, and c) go with AFTS?

Nice to talk about real stuff on this thread for a change.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: rockets4life97 on 01/09/2018 07:13 pm
Hopefully if the coordinates to launch from pad 40 instead of 39A needed to be changed, they were, and had nothing to do with an excessive position range that might be partly to blame.

That would fall under a non-nominal launch from SpaceX's perspective. Shotwell confirmed a nominal launch. This speculation is baseless.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Negan on 01/09/2018 07:28 pm
To bad BFR isn't around yet. If this is truly a failed separation, the payload could possibly have been brought back home to try again.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: russianhalo117 on 01/09/2018 07:29 pm
Addressing the failicies of the rumors.

1- Since the US was spotted at its nominal position after the scheduled reentry burn the payload successfully deployed. If the payload was still attached it would not have done the reentry burn at all and waited to see if the problem could be resolved and sat deployed on a later orbit.

2- These "Black" sats mostly do not radiate (RF and optical[laser]) toward the ground at all. They have been doing this since the 1960's. They transmit up to a Military comm sat in bursts. This is so that there is nothing to indicate the health status of the sat detectable from Earth. Meaning they look from observers on the ground as dead when they are not.

So there is nothing observable that can be used to determine the sat health status.

To add a point that my father said who used work in the field is that at separation they do not broadcast a carrier signal until specified time whereas commercial sats start broadcasting at the moment of sep.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: CyndyC on 01/09/2018 07:32 pm
Hopefully if the coordinates to launch from pad 40 instead of 39A needed to be changed, they were, and had nothing to do with an excessive position range that might be partly to blame.

That would fall under a non-nominal launch from SpaceX's perspective. Shotwell confirmed a nominal launch. This speculation is baseless.

I wasn't saying the coordinates definitely needed to be changed and weren't, or that the launch wasn't within an acceptable range, only implying that the satellite's programming might have been overly limiting.

Just changed the word "excessive" to "extended" in my original post

And "partly to blame" to "might have played a role"
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 01/09/2018 07:37 pm
I anticipate a "Zuma 2" (may not actually use that name) at some point, once the investigating is complete.  Maybe even a Zuma 3 and 4, etc. 

 - Ed Kyle

Just keep an eye out for a patch with six stars, or five stars and a shooting star ;-)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: whitelancer64 on 01/09/2018 07:37 pm
Unfortunately, it's common that failures happen at the physical/electrical interface of two components supplied by different contractors...

One happened just last month due to incompatibility between Russian & French standards, in that case later resolved remotely, being discussed at https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42981.msg1765942#msg1765942.

And just the month before, a Russian launch failed completely because it was programmed with coordinates to launch from Baikonur when the launch was from Vostochny, being discussed at https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32723.msg1765631#msg1765631.

So it may be as simple as SpaceX showing their telemetry stream with a good separation command. Anything downstream of that is the payload's responsibility.

But the payload sep command from the 2nd stage is based solely on timing and not on position, and there would be no one "correct" position anyway, only a desirable range, and the sat takes it from there, no? So the sat IS engineered to gauge & act according to its position, and we have at least one expert sat watcher saying the altitude was more than twice what he originally expected.

I'm starting to wonder if the coordinates programmed into the satellite were the problem, ie it was programmed to self-destruct by going down with the 2nd stage if its position exceeded a certain range upon receiving the separation signal.

Hopefully if the coordinates to launch from pad 40 instead of 39A needed to be changed, they were, and had nothing to do with an excessive position range that might be partly to blame.

SLC-40 and LC39A are about 4 miles apart.

Vostochny and Baikonur are about 2,809 miles apart.

A much more massive error.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Chasm on 01/09/2018 07:41 pm
Schrödinger's Rocket Launch

Is it or is it not?
If so, who was it?

We do know this: If you are allowed to look you can not talk about it. If you talk you obviously are not allowed to look.  ;D

Fun times. Another ~2 weeks to go until the usual amateur observers may to see something on orbit.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: CyndyC on 01/09/2018 07:51 pm

SLC-40 and LC39A are about 4 miles apart.

Vostochny and Baikonur are about 2,809 miles apart.

A much more massive error.

That's why I questioned the necessity of changing the coordinates for Zuma, but was too lazy to look up the distances, so thanks for illustrating
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: MechE31 on 01/09/2018 08:12 pm
Addressing the failicies of the rumors.

1- Since the US was spotted at its nominal position after the scheduled reentry burn the payload successfully deployed. If the payload was still attached it would not have done the reentry burn at all and waited to see if the problem could be resolved and sat deployed on a later orbit.

2- These "Black" sats mostly do not radiate (RF and optical[laser]) toward the ground at all. They have been doing this since the 1960's. They transmit up to a Military comm sat in bursts. This is so that there is nothing to indicate the health status of the sat detectable from Earth. Meaning they look from observers on the ground as dead when they are not.

So there is nothing observable that can be used to determine the sat health status.

To add a point that my father said who used work in the field is that at separation they do not broadcast a carrier signal until specified time whereas commercial sats start broadcasting at the moment of sep.

To add a little to this, it is typical that the vehicle would get a signal showing satellite deployment. These are typically very simple systems that could indicate a partial sep where the sat left its resting place but got stuck on something else as sep.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/09/2018 08:12 pm

There's an interface to the payload that passes SC health/status to incorporate into the telemetry frames such that SX customer knows what is happening with the SC during launch.


Not used less than used.  And required the LV to be transit transmitting to a tracking site real time.

Yes less used.

You can pick it up with a one meter dish hand tracked. Done it myself with off the shelf stuff.

Part of the reason why there's little use (easily intercepted), and a good additional reason in the reverse to a) avoid commanding (plus drop outs), b) shut down FTS post range, and c) go with AFTS?

Nice to talk about real stuff on this thread for a change.

Usually not a tracking site around when you need one
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: RedSky on 01/09/2018 08:13 pm
With talk about past failures due to differing launch locations,  programming error, or an upside down part install.  Maybe some oversight was made in going from Atlas to SX in the NG adapter.

Does the S2 send the signal via hard wire connector to the adapter to separate the s/c?  Could there have been some oversight such as the NG adapter was basically configured for Atlas.  Say, the Atlas signal is 12 volts, but SX uses 6 volts. Thus, the signal was not what was expected to initiate sep?  Something silly like that.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: LM13 on 01/09/2018 08:20 pm
How badly would a failure-to-separate impact the upper stage's reentry location?  If the payload remained attached, one would expect the upper stage to reenter somewhat down-range of the planned location, right?  Did the second stage reenter where/when planned? 
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 01/09/2018 08:27 pm
Putting all this speculation aide for a moment (and I say let the speculation fly - if you don’t want it simply skip this thread)...

But let’s go with face value - F9 did everything it had to do just fine, NG supplies the PLA along with the payload, NG separation system failed...

I wonder in this instance if there is still some shouting across the aisle, because SpaceX would claim full success of their LV (true), but NG could argue that issue caused by the demating required after fairing stand down. Both sides have a point. So I wonder if this DID hurt SpaceX’s future prospects for more of these launches.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 01/09/2018 08:30 pm
All national and local news are reporting this as a SpaceX failure this morning in my area SF, CA so SpaceX's comments are not having much impact as yet.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: IntoTheVoid on 01/09/2018 08:35 pm
I wonder in this instance if there is still some shouting across the aisle, because SpaceX would claim full success of their LV (true), but NG could argue that issue caused by the demating required after fairing stand down. Both sides have a point. So I wonder if this DID hurt SpaceX’s future prospects for more of these launches.

The biggest argument against this, and for proper separation, is Gywnn's statement. "Falcon 9 did everything correctly on Sunday night. If we or others find otherwise based on further review, we will report it immediately". This says to me that NG is not claiming an F9 issue, even in argument. So either NG has accepted that it's their fault or it separated. (Neither of which says anything about it's ultimate functionality)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: lonestriker on 01/09/2018 08:35 pm

SLC-40 and LC39A are about 4 miles apart.

Vostochny and Baikonur are about 2,809 miles apart.

A much more massive error.

That's why I questioned the necessity of changing the coordinates for Zuma, but was too lazy to look up the distances, so thanks for illustrating

The payload won't care where it got launched from whether it's SLC-40 or 39A. The F9 will deliver it to the proscribed orbit before release. Gwynne has already said that F9 did its job.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Brovane on 01/09/2018 08:43 pm
Partial retraction by Pasztor.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/spacex-indicates-its-rocket-didnt-cause-loss-of-spy-satellite-1515530259 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/spacex-indicates-its-rocket-didnt-cause-loss-of-spy-satellite-1515530259)

Quote
paceX Indicates Its Rocket Didn’t Cause Loss of Spy Satellite
Company suggests unspecified problems beyond booster performance led to botched deployment of highly classified spacecraf
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: CyndyC on 01/09/2018 08:44 pm
With talk about past failures due to differing launch locations,  programming error, or an upside down part install.  Maybe some oversight was made in going from Atlas to SX in the NG adapter.

Does the S2 send the signal via hard wire connector to the adapter to separate the s/c?  Could there have been some oversight such as the NG adapter was basically configured for Atlas.  Say, the Atlas signal is 12 volts, but SX uses 6 volts. Thus, the signal was not what was expected to initiate sep?  Something silly like that.

Kabloona addressed this in his middle paragraph below, and if you look up his profile and his other posts in this thread, you'll find a lot of other highly knowledgeable and useful input


Actually, it may be fairly easy for SpaceX to demonstrate F9 was not at fault. Since NG reportedly supplied the payload adapter/sep system, all SpaceX would be required to do is provide a separation command, which is easily verified by telemetry.

And you can bet your bottom dollar that SpaceX did an end-to-end preflight test showing that they got 12 volts (or whatever) at the separation ordnance connector before it mated to NG's hardware.

So it may be as simple as SpaceX showing their telemetry stream with a good separation command. Anything downstream of that is the payload's responsibility.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: intrepidpursuit on 01/09/2018 08:44 pm

SLC-40 and LC39A are about 4 miles apart.

Vostochny and Baikonur are about 2,809 miles apart.

A much more massive error.

That's why I questioned the necessity of changing the coordinates for Zuma, but was too lazy to look up the distances, so thanks for illustrating

The payload won't care where it got launched from whether it's SLC-40 or 39A. The F9 will deliver it to the proscribed orbit before release. Gwynne has already said that F9 did its job.

With they AFTS in use the rocket would have blown up above the pad if the coordinates were wrong. Russian and SpaceX rockets are about as different as they could be. There is no commonality between the failures.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: CyndyC on 01/09/2018 09:00 pm
How badly would a failure-to-separate impact the upper stage's reentry location?  If the payload remained attached, one would expect the upper stage to reenter somewhat down-range of the planned location, right?  Did the second stage reenter where/when planned?

With the payload still attached, that would mean greater mass than preprogrammed, so not farther downrange, but it did reenter within the projected hazard area, according to an expert satellite tracker at https://sattrackcam.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/fuel-dump-of-zumas-falcon-9-upper-stage.html
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: mn on 01/09/2018 09:16 pm
Partial retraction by Pasztor.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/spacex-indicates-its-rocket-didnt-cause-loss-of-spy-satellite-1515530259 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/spacex-indicates-its-rocket-didnt-cause-loss-of-spy-satellite-1515530259)

Quote
SpaceX Indicates Its Rocket Didn’t Cause Loss of Spy Satellite
Company suggests unspecified problems beyond booster performance led to botched deployment of highly classified spacecraft

Still not correct: SpaceX is not suggesting anything about a problem let alone where the problem may have occurred. "Our rocket did it's part, payload? what payload?"
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: LM13 on 01/09/2018 09:19 pm


With the payload still attached, that would mean greater mass than preprogrammed, so not farther downrange, but it did reenter within the projected hazard area, according to an expert satellite tracker at https://sattrackcam.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/fuel-dump-of-zumas-falcon-9-upper-stage.html

But if the mass is greater and the de-orbit burn is the same duration (I assume), then the delta-v imparted to the combined US-payload is less than planned, so the combined stack should fly further before entering, right?

The link says where the hazard zone was, and that a post-burn vent did take place, but does not confirm reentry of the US in that zone.  Nor does it provide evidence for not reentering in that zone, of course.  The only way to be sure would be to see if anyone was watching the skies over the southern Indian Ocean. 
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Semmel on 01/09/2018 09:26 pm
This thread has become comical/boring.
 I'm not a fan of "there's info in L2" posts but if ever a thread needed such a post, it's this one.

Absolutely not. L2 is not for leaking information, much less classified information. L2 is public information legally. If there was L2 information on this, it would mean someone had released classified information which would put that person into jail and Chris into trouble for hosting it. So I sincerely hope nothing comes out on L2.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/09/2018 09:36 pm
As for where this information came from that there was a problem is a real question. That one of the spoofs using disinformation that was done in the late 1960's was leaking FALSE INFORMATION that the sat was dead when it was perfectly fine in order for those it would "spy" on would discount/ignore its fly over.

The official sources are saying there was no problem or are not making any comment of any kind. Any information about the health of the sat is classified other than a LV failure which is a non-classified hardware system which must be reported as to success or failure.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: hplan on 01/09/2018 09:50 pm
I anticipate a "Zuma 2" (may not actually use that name) at some point, once the investigating is complete.  Maybe even a Zuma 3 and 4, etc. 

 - Ed Kyle

Just keep an eye out for a patch with six stars, or five stars and a shooting star ;-)

But will Zuma 2 launch on Falcon 9 or Atlas V?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 01/09/2018 10:08 pm
As for where this information came from that there was a problem is a real question. That one of the spoofs using disinformation that was done in the late 1960's was leaking FALSE INFORMATION that the sat was dead when it was perfectly fine in order for those it would "spy" on would discount/ignore its fly over.

The official sources are saying there was no problem or are not making any comment of any kind. Any information about the health of the sat is classified other than a LV failure which is a non-classified hardware system which must be reported as to success or failure.

The only problem with idea that is we aren’t in the sixties any more and I suspect you have to work a lot, lot harder to hide a satellite from your opponents these days.

For example just because amateur observers are struggling to find OTV-5 doesn’t mean that other countries haven’t located it in orbit.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: speedevil on 01/09/2018 10:11 pm
My issue with a planned entry test would be a NOTAM release...
Can't this plausibly be in the same area as the second stage entry?
If it is, good footage of the reentry would presumably reveal it easily.
Stealth satellites are arguably sort of possible somewhat.

Stealth reentries rather less so.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: fthomassy on 01/09/2018 10:22 pm


With the payload still attached, that would mean greater mass than preprogrammed, so not farther downrange, but it did reenter within the projected hazard area, according to an expert satellite tracker at https://sattrackcam.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/fuel-dump-of-zumas-falcon-9-upper-stage.html

But if the mass is greater and the de-orbit burn is the same duration (I assume), then the delta-v imparted to the combined US-payload is less than planned, so the combined stack should fly further before entering, right?

The link says where the hazard zone was, and that a post-burn vent did take place, but does not confirm reentry of the US in that zone.  Nor does it provide evidence for not reentering in that zone, of course.  The only way to be sure would be to see if anyone was watching the skies over the southern Indian Ocean.
It was explained up-thread that the S2 guidance system and fuel reserve should easily accommodate the added mass to the planned reentry point.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Nomadd on 01/09/2018 10:25 pm
 I ran down a problem sort of like a separation failure once, back when dinosaurs ruled the earth. Early RS-232 days. One unit sent a command but the other didn't pick it up. Both manufacturers claims their end met voltage/impedance specs and never would admit fault.
 Point being, if the stage sent the sep command, but the adapter didn't get it, it might be a while before somebody accepts blame.
 It seems hard to believe all that wouldn't have been tested, but as the Mars Polar Lander will testify, dumb things happen.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: andrewsdanj on 01/09/2018 10:35 pm
I ran down a problem sort of like a separation failure once, back when dinosaurs ruled the earth. Early RS-232 days. One unit sent a command but the other didn't pick it up. Both manufacturers claims their end met voltage/impedance specs and never would admit fault.
 Point being, if the stage sent the sep command, but the adapter didn't get it, it might be a while before somebody accepts blame.
 It seems hard to believe all that wouldn't have been tested, but as the Mars Polar Lander will testify, dumb things happen.

Indeed, sometimes stuff just happens. I'm thinking of Beagle 2 sitting looking pretty on Mars with a semi-deployed solar panel masking the antenna; the Philae landing harpoons (both of them) failing to notice smacking into a comet at 1 m/s, that sort of thing. It took 12 years to find Beagle, and several months to find Philae despite knowing pretty accurately where it was on a 4 km body, and that was for the people with access to all available information.

I fear speculation may be all we have to go on for a while!

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/09/2018 10:42 pm
I ran down a problem sort of like a separation failure once, back when dinosaurs ruled the earth. Early RS-232 days. One unit sent a command but the other didn't pick it up. Both manufacturers claims their end met voltage/impedance specs and never would admit fault.
 Point being, if the stage sent the sep command, but the adapter didn't get it, it might be a while before somebody accepts blame.
 It seems hard to believe all that wouldn't have been tested, but as the Mars Polar Lander will testify, dumb things happen.

Because of the unusual program structure and responsibilities (payload provides separation system rather than the launch vehicle; payload does their own encapsulation then hands off encapsulated payload to LV; extremely valuable & sensitive payload), SpaceX would have recognized from the beginning the potential for just such an event, ie problem at the interface between hardware supplied by the payload, especially the sep system which is mission-critical, and taken steps to ensure that in case of such an anomaly they would be able to provide clear proof that F9 did everything required of it, including initiating the sep event on the customer's payload.

It's a classic system engineer's nightmare that I guarantee someone on SpaceX's side laid awake worrying about and solved (if it wasn't already built into F9 avionics) to enable SpaceX to prove their ICD requirements at the payload interface were met to the letter, with no ambiguity about whose hardware/software failed.

So I take SpaceX's statement that F9 performed nominally to mean they know for certain that the sep command was issued and reached the correct interface/connector, at which point everything downstream is the payload's responsibility.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/09/2018 10:45 pm
Where was it ever stated that the spacecraft performed its own encapsulation?  That doesn't happen with launch services
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/09/2018 10:49 pm
Where was it ever stated that the spacecraft performed its own encapsulation?  That doesn't happen with launch services

There was some previous post about how/where/by whom the encapsulation was done, and maybe I misread/misinterpreted. Willing to be corrected if you know different. I know that's not the way it's usually done, which is why I mentioned it as "unusual."

Edit: I may have misinterpreted this post:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43976.msg1768894#msg1768894
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 01/09/2018 10:53 pm
Where was it ever stated that the spacecraft performed its own encapsulation?  That doesn't happen with launch services

There was some previous post about how/where/by whom the encapsulation was done, and maybe I misread/misinterpreted. Willing to be corrected if you know different. I know that's not the way it's usually done, which is why I mentioned it as "unusual."
Perhaps what you meant to say is that the payload was encapsulated at a non-SX facility?

Very likely SX was there. With equipment and actively involved.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/09/2018 10:55 pm
Where was it ever stated that the spacecraft performed its own encapsulation?  That doesn't happen with launch services

There was some previous post about how/where/by whom the encapsulation was done, and maybe I misread/misinterpreted. Willing to be corrected if you know different. I know that's not the way it's usually done, which is why I mentioned it as "unusual."
Perhaps what you meant to say is that the payload was encapsulated at a non-SX facility?

Very likely SX was there. With equipment and actively involved.

Probably so, thanks for the clarification.

Original point being, especially with atypical division of responsibilities (payload supplying sep system), IMHO its highly likely that SpaceX would have covered their bases well and would have definitive proof that F9 met all its requirements up to and including delivering the sep command to the NG interface.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: SLC on 01/09/2018 11:03 pm

With the payload still attached, that would mean greater mass than preprogrammed, so not farther downrange, but it did reenter within the projected hazard area, according to an expert satellite tracker at https://sattrackcam.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/fuel-dump-of-zumas-falcon-9-upper-stage.html

But if the mass is greater and the de-orbit burn is the same duration (I assume), then the delta-v imparted to the combined US-payload is less than planned, so the combined stack should fly further before entering, right?

<my emphasis>
<snip>
Don't GNC systems usually aim for a prescribed delta-v?  So for example, if a faulty engine gives less thrust than it should, the GNC will just command it to keep burning until the proper delta-v has been achieved. 

In this case, since the mass of the combined S2 and payload would have been bigger than intended, the GNC system would compensate for the reduced acceleration by automatically lengthening the de-orbit burn until the programmed delta-v was reached, meaning the impact point would not change.  Of course this assumes that there is enough propellant in reserve for the longer burn; but if the Sudan spiral-cloud sighting really was S2 venting, then there was some left at the end of the burn.

But I may be wrong about this ...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: hoku on 01/09/2018 11:05 pm
I ran down a problem sort of like a separation failure once, back when dinosaurs ruled the earth. Early RS-232 days. One unit sent a command but the other didn't pick it up. Both manufacturers claims their end met voltage/impedance specs and never would admit fault.
 Point being, if the stage sent the sep command, but the adapter didn't get it, it might be a while before somebody accepts blame.
 It seems hard to believe all that wouldn't have been tested, but as the Mars Polar Lander will testify, dumb things happen.
Indeed - back in the days also a SMEX failed when a short voltage spike on the main power bus triggered some pyros premature. All the ground testing was of course done without the pyros being armed. Only a subsets of error conditions can be covered by ground testing.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: TorenAltair on 01/09/2018 11:14 pm
Most of you can be happy that they don't have to read German news. They are reporting all across the board that “Elon Musk and SpaceX lost a multi-billion dollar spy satellite due to a malfunctioning second stage according to official US government representatives“. Other “great“ quotes: “launch was delayed from last November due to protective shield problems and now SpaceX refuses to answer if the protective shield was the reason for the mission failure“, “kinky SpaceX-mission“, “billions of dollars dumped into space“. Btw no mentioning of Northrop Grumman in any report at all.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Brian45 on 01/09/2018 11:15 pm
I've been out of the loop since the launch and am trying to follow this discussion. One point I need clarified - has any official entity said that this launch, from lift off to deployment, was a failure? Is there any evidence that something went wrong? Please point me to that statement (s)/evidence so I can stop shaking my head thinking that we're all just chasing our own tails here.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: TorenAltair on 01/09/2018 11:17 pm
I've been out of the loop since the launch and am trying to follow this discussion. One point I need clarified - has any official entity said that this launch, from lift off to deployment, was a failure? Is there any evidence that something went wrong? Please point me to that statement (s)/evidence so I can stop shaking my head thinking that we're all just chasing our own tails here.

There's only 1 official statement: SpaceX said “Falcon performed nominally“.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/09/2018 11:18 pm
NG used their own payload processing facilities as well as their own designed stage/bus adapter. I wonder if that was something SpaceX advised against? Or was uncomfortable with for any reason?

NG doesn't have their own processing facilities
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 01/09/2018 11:19 pm

With the payload still attached, that would mean greater mass than preprogrammed, so not farther downrange, but it did reenter within the projected hazard area, according to an expert satellite tracker at https://sattrackcam.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/fuel-dump-of-zumas-falcon-9-upper-stage.html

But if the mass is greater and the de-orbit burn is the same duration (I assume), then the delta-v imparted to the combined US-payload is less than planned, so the combined stack should fly further before entering, right?

<my emphasis>
<snip>
Don't GNC systems usually aim for a prescribed delta-v?  So for example, if a faulty engine gives less thrust than it should, the GNC will just command it to keep burning until the proper delta-v has been achieved. 

In this case, since the mass of the combined S2 and payload would have been bigger than intended, the GNC system would compensate for the reduced acceleration by automatically lengthening the de-orbit burn until the programmed delta-v was reached, meaning the impact point would not change.  Of course this assumes that there is enough propellant in reserve for the longer burn; but if the Sudan spiral-cloud sighting really was S2 venting, then there was some left at the end of the burn.
GNC has to cope with performance excess/shortfall, and there's considerable margin in props.

(Note with a RD-180 shortfall in the first Cygnus on Atlas V mission, Centaur US was able to make up the deficit by consuming considerable margin on a heavy payload.)

The large amount of vented props demonstrate that the F9US for this mission had considerable margin left over, after disposal.

The GNC of a US takes into account many things, including mass changes as things are consumed/deployed.  It has alternatives for many different contingencies, with autonomous decision making to achieve it's programmed objective.

So no, doesn't matter, it'll do what it can with what it has to achieve the mission objective - that's its whole point.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/09/2018 11:21 pm
Where was it ever stated that the spacecraft performed its own encapsulation?  That doesn't happen with launch services

There was some previous post about how/where/by whom the encapsulation was done, and maybe I misread/misinterpreted. Willing to be corrected if you know different. I know that's not the way it's usually done, which is why I mentioned it as "unusual."
Perhaps what you meant to say is that the payload was encapsulated at a non-SX facility?

Very likely SX was there. With equipment and actively involved.

Probably so, thanks for the clarification.

Original point being, especially with atypical division of responsibilities (payload supplying sep system), IMHO its highly likely that SpaceX would have covered their bases well and would have definitive proof that F9 met all its requirements up to and including delivering the sep command to the NG interface.

before the use of commercial spacecraft buses, most DOD spacecraft provided their own sep system.  IUS and Titan IV didn't have sep systems
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 01/09/2018 11:24 pm

The only problem with idea that is we aren’t in the sixties any more and I suspect you have to work a lot, lot harder to hide a satellite from your opponents these days.

For example just because amateur observers are struggling to find OTV-5 doesn’t mean that other countries haven’t located it in orbit.
Depends on how good "other" radars are. The reason I say this is, the raised eyebrows caused by Russian interpretation of the last few NK ICBM launches. It raises the possibility (if no one is purposely misinterpreting the data) of a serious capability gaps in being able track stuff like this. Remember, most tracking radars are que'd. They need a search area defined for them. A 900km orbit would be above the expected height of an ICBM on an early warning radar. And outside of the now shuttered Space Fence and amateur eyeball mark 1.0's, not very many unque'd systems exist.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/09/2018 11:26 pm
Where was it ever stated that the spacecraft performed its own encapsulation?  That doesn't happen with launch services

There was some previous post about how/where/by whom the encapsulation was done, and maybe I misread/misinterpreted. Willing to be corrected if you know different. I know that's not the way it's usually done, which is why I mentioned it as "unusual."
Perhaps what you meant to say is that the payload was encapsulated at a non-SX facility?

Very likely SX was there. With equipment and actively involved.

Probably so, thanks for the clarification.

Original point being, especially with atypical division of responsibilities (payload supplying sep system), IMHO its highly likely that SpaceX would have covered their bases well and would have definitive proof that F9 met all its requirements up to and including delivering the sep command to the NG interface.

before the use of commercial spacecraft buses, most DOD spacecraft provided their own sep system.  IUS and Titan IV didn't have sep systems

Granted, but this is atypical for SpaceX F9 which normally uses its own sep system.

With the change of responsibility (from SpaceX's perspective), I think you'll agree they would have been aware of potential issues with customer furnished equipment and taken appropriate steps to ensure they could prove they met their interface requirements in a case like this one.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: biosehnsucht on 01/09/2018 11:32 pm
With they AFTS in use the rocket would have blown up above the pad if the coordinates were wrong. Russian and SpaceX rockets are about as different as they could be. There is no commonality between the failures.

Probably wouldn't even launch, but abort before then, due to wrong location. If detected location before launch is off by inches or meters, perhaps the computers assume some kind of drift and compensate and re-zero such that the detected position matches expected position, but if it's off by a few miles... surely it would refuse to launch?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/09/2018 11:59 pm
I've been out of the loop since the launch and am trying to follow this discussion. One point I need clarified - has any official entity said that this launch, from lift off to deployment, was a failure? Is there any evidence that something went wrong? Please point me to that statement (s)/evidence so I can stop shaking my head thinking that we're all just chasing our own tails here.

docmordrid just posted this link in the Updates section. ABC news quoting unnamed "US official" confirming ZUMA was lost.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/classified-satellite-fell-ocean-spacex-launch-official-confirms/story?id=52246100

Quote
A highly classified satellite launched by SpaceX this weekend ended up plummeting into the Indian Ocean, a U.S. official confirmed to ABC News.

Which would seem to confirm the failure-to-separate scenario.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: vaporcobra on 01/10/2018 12:13 am
As of 1844 Eastern ABC News is reporting a "US official" saying ZUMA fell into the sea after not maintaining orbit.

ISTM this does not exclude the failed separation scenario, it reinforces it by confirming it ended up in the Indian Ocean.

Link.... (http://abcnews.go.com/US/classified-satellite-fell-ocean-spacex-launch-official-confirms/story?id=52246100)

Quote
A highly classified satellite launched by SpaceX this weekend ended up plummeting into the Indian Ocean, a U.S. official confirmed to ABC News.

The narrative of Zuma falling back to Earth is nonsense, defies basic logic and observations of the second stage half an hour after launch.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: joek on 01/10/2018 12:25 am
The narrative of Zuma falling back to Earth is nonsense, defies basic logic and observations of the second stage half an hour after launch.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but, it either: (1) fell back to Earth; or (2)  it is in Earth orbit; or (3) it is on an Earth-escape trajectory.  I think we can discount (3).  Whether it is (1) or (2) is a guess, but current narrative suggests (1).
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 01/10/2018 12:27 am
Single source reporting at its finest.

Editor: Did you try to confirm the story?

Reporter: We sure did.

Editor: And what did you get?

Reporter: One no comment and a flat out refutation.

Editor: So... you didn't confirm that story?

Reporter: We didn't not confirm the story either.

Editor: run it.

It's just bad journalism.

(move from update thread, which seems to be attracting conversation where it shouldn't.)

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/10/2018 12:43 am
The narrative of Zuma falling back to Earth is nonsense, defies basic logic and observations of the second stage half an hour after launch.

Don't get too hung up on the word "falling," or "plummeting," for that matter. If the payload failed to separate from stage 2, it got de-orbited along with stage 2 into the Indian Ocean. For a reporter, that qualifies as "falling" or "plummeting."

They're not engineers, and neither are most of their readership.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: docmordrid on 01/10/2018 12:43 am
The weight assigned to the ABC story  depends on who the official is. If it's a congressional staffer or a lightweight, that's one thing. If it's a ranking member or chair of a committee, that's something entirely different.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: rayleighscatter on 01/10/2018 12:47 am
Since what happens between the end of launch and the beginning of operations is admittedly a big hole in my knowledge of space flight: (and being hypothetical since we don't know much about the payload beyond its name)

With a satellite of its rough size and likely trajectory, what is supposed to happen after separation?  I'd assume at engine cut-off of the second stage that it's at least pretty darn near it's final orbital path. Would the satellite use what little delta v it has to finish its insertion? Or is it already on its path and the second stage backs off?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 01/10/2018 12:51 am
The weight assigned to the ABC story  depends on who the official is. If it's a congressional staffer or a lightweight, that's one thing. If it's a ranking member or chair of a committee, that's something entirely different.

I think we've been over this a dozen times already but why not, I'll say it again: if it is anyone who knows the truth they're flirting with federal prison. What possible reason could they have for doing that? They really don't like the new Star Wars movie? As such, the "source" can only be someone who doesn't have clearance to know the truth. i.e., they heard a rumour. The ABC is reporting a rumour.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 01/10/2018 12:51 am
The narrative of Zuma falling back to Earth is nonsense, defies basic logic and observations of the second stage half an hour after launch.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but, it either: (1) fell back to Earth; or (2)  it is in Earth orbit; or (3) it is on an Earth-escape trajectory.  I think we can discount (3).  Whether it is (1) or (2) is a guess, but current narrative suggests (1).
You forgot option (4) They forgot to attach the payload and it's sitting in the warehouse, much to everyone's embarrassment.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: RonM on 01/10/2018 12:56 am
So far all these reports seem to be based on the initial rumor. Either the story will become clear in a few weeks as leaks of Congressional investigations are reported or we'll never hear a word. Remember, this mission is so secret we don't even know the agency responsible for it.

Personality, I think DARPA warp drive probe is already in orbit around Alpha Centauri. :)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: lonestriker on 01/10/2018 12:59 am
With they AFTS in use the rocket would have blown up above the pad if the coordinates were wrong. Russian and SpaceX rockets are about as different as they could be. There is no commonality between the failures.

Probably wouldn't even launch, but abort before then, due to wrong location. If detected location before launch is off by inches or meters, perhaps the computers assume some kind of drift and compensate and re-zero such that the detected position matches expected position, but if it's off by a few miles... surely it would refuse to launch?

Not only would it likely never make it to T-0:00 and get off the ground, it probably would never even enter the countdown since it would fail some bounds checks. Remember SpaceX had two scrubs at less than T-0:10 seconds because a GSE script detected some parameter(s) out of bounds. I don't recall the specific condition, something like the wind making the F9 move more than allowed. 

SpaceX is a Silicon Valley software startup masquerading as an aerospace company (in a good way).  The best practices in software engineering would include tests in development and actual launch to check, and double-check that everything behaves as expected or it throws an exception/alarm.

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: cscott on 01/10/2018 01:06 am



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.

Things like this don't happen if everything has gone to plan: https://twitter.com/SpaceBrendan/status/950802453213130754

The strongest evidence of a problem is that Congress was briefed... that would only happen if there was a problem that required a report to the oversight committee.

On the other hand:
https://twitter.com/SpaceBrendan/status/950879013362454529
seems to walk back the original "Congress was briefed" report, saying only that they *will be* briefed.

And at this point, with all the rumors sailing around, the oversight committee might have requested a briefing themselves, so that they can get their questions answered.  So a briefing at this point after all the news has flown around doesn't seem to conclusively indicate a problem, just that Congress is concerned there may have been.

I think I'll just have to sit back and wait for the Congress critters to leak whatever info they receive.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 01/10/2018 01:14 am



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.

Things like this don't happen if everything has gone to plan: https://twitter.com/SpaceBrendan/status/950802453213130754

The strongest evidence of a problem is that Congress was briefed... that would only happen if there was a problem that required a report to the oversight committee.

On the other hand:
https://twitter.com/SpaceBrendan/status/950879013362454529
seems to walk back the original "Congress was briefed" report, saying only that they *will be* briefed.

And at this point, with all the rumors sailing around, the oversight committee might have requested a briefing themselves, so that they can get their questions answered.  So a briefing at this point after all the news has flown around doesn't seem to conclusively indicate a problem, just that Congress is concerned there may have been.
Likely somebody's idea of "grandstanding" got interrupted by an inconvenient truth.

Quote
I think I'll just have to sit back and wait for the Congress critters to leak whatever info they receive.
Or continue an existing rumor so as to not look foolish.

They often don't want to get caught fumbling on national security. Even for a good "harrumph!".
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Rocket Science on 01/10/2018 01:17 am
We have Gwynne's definitive statement about Falcon's nominal performance and now we a left with ZUMA defying orbital mechanics with the statement "fell into the ocean"... ???
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Rocket Science on 01/10/2018 01:18 am



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.

Things like this don't happen if everything has gone to plan: https://twitter.com/SpaceBrendan/status/950802453213130754

The strongest evidence of a problem is that Congress was briefed... that would only happen if there was a problem that required a report to the oversight committee.

On the other hand:
https://twitter.com/SpaceBrendan/status/950879013362454529
seems to walk back the original "Congress was briefed" report, saying only that they *will be* briefed.

And at this point, with all the rumors sailing around, the oversight committee might have requested a briefing themselves, so that they can get their questions answered.  So a briefing at this point after all the news has flown around doesn't seem to conclusively indicate a problem, just that Congress is concerned there may have been.
Likely somebody's idea of "grandstanding" got interrupted by an inconvenient truth.

Quote
I think I'll just have to sit back and wait for the Congress critters to leak whatever info they receive.
Or continue an existing rumor so as to not look foolish.

They often don't want to get caught fumbling on national security. Even for a good "harrumph!".
Alternate facts??
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: docmordrid on 01/10/2018 01:25 am
The weight assigned to the ABC story  depends on who the official is. If it's a congressional staffer or a lightweight, that's one thing. If it's a ranking member or chair of a committee, that's something entirely different.

I think we've been over this a dozen times already but why not, I'll say it again: if it is anyone who knows the truth they're flirting with federal prison. >

An exception to that is if said official calls the White House for instructions. The president can declassify with a word, or delegate someone to formulate a statement for release.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: LouScheffer on 01/10/2018 01:28 am
I ran down a problem sort of like a separation failure once, back when dinosaurs ruled the earth. Early RS-232 days. One unit sent a command but the other didn't pick it up. Both manufacturers claims their end met voltage/impedance specs and never would admit fault.
 Point being, if the stage sent the sep command, but the adapter didn't get it, it might be a while before somebody accepts blame.
 It seems hard to believe all that wouldn't have been tested, but as the Mars Polar Lander will testify, dumb things happen.

Because of the unusual program structure and responsibilities (payload provides separation system rather than the launch vehicle; payload does their own encapsulation then hands off encapsulated payload to LV; extremely valuable & sensitive payload), SpaceX would have recognized from the beginning the potential for just such an event, ie problem at the interface between hardware supplied by the payload, especially the sep system which is mission-critical, and taken steps to ensure that in case of such an anomaly they would be able to provide clear proof that F9 did everything required of it, including initiating the sep event on the customer's payload.

It's a classic system engineer's nightmare that I guarantee someone on SpaceX's side laid awake worrying about and solved (if it wasn't already built into F9 avionics) to enable SpaceX to prove their ICD requirements at the payload interface were met to the letter, with no ambiguity about whose hardware/software failed.

So I take SpaceX's statement that F9 performed nominally to mean they know for certain that the sep command was issued and reached the correct interface/connector, at which point everything downstream is the payload's responsibility.

I would strongly suspect (but of course do not know) that something so critical would be verified with a loop-back connection.   So SpaceX provides the command on pin 1 (for example), the NG side connects this to pin 17 (on the other end of the connector).   Then SpaceX provides the command on pin 1, and measures pin 17.  If it sees the signal there, this means it was generated correctly, the connector was seated correctly (at least for these two pins), and the signal made it to the opposite side, as required.  Furthermore I'd suspect there would be at least 2 such connections, possibly routed through separate connectors.  If SpaceX has data indicating the command was generated, and also seen through the loopback, probably in at least 2 redundant connections, then they could be pretty sure it was not their problem.

If I were SpaceX, I'd insist on some arrangement like this, precisely for the case of the rumored problem.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: RotoSequence on 01/10/2018 01:28 am
We have Gwynne's definitive statement about Falcon's nominal performance and now we a left with ZUMA defying orbital mechanics with the statement "fell into the ocean"... ???

How so? The rocket doing exactly what it's supposed to do for the mission and taking itself, and unfortunately the payload, into the ocean seems to fit with the nominal mission parameters for SpaceX' role in this mission. Are you referencing the rumored 7:15 SECO?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Rocket Science on 01/10/2018 01:33 am
We have Gwynne's definitive statement about Falcon's nominal performance and now we a left with ZUMA defying orbital mechanics with the statement "fell into the ocean"... ???

How so? The rocket doing exactly what it's supposed to do for the mission and taking itself, and unfortunately the payload, into the ocean seems to fit with the nominal mission parameters for SpaceX' role in this mission. Are you referencing the rumored 7:15 SECO?
A controlled disposal of S2 is by definition not just falling out of the sky... Just sayin'
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: JonathanD on 01/10/2018 02:48 am
An exception to that is if said official calls the White House for instructions. The president can declassify with a word, or delegate someone to formulate a statement for release.

Or, you know, just tweet it :)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Roy_H on 01/10/2018 03:07 am
I've been out of the loop since the launch and am trying to follow this discussion. One point I need clarified - has any official entity said that this launch, from lift off to deployment, was a failure? Is there any evidence that something went wrong? Please point me to that statement (s)/evidence so I can stop shaking my head thinking that we're all just chasing our own tails here.

docmordrid just posted this link in the Updates section. ABC news quoting unnamed "US official" confirming ZUMA was lost.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/classified-satellite-fell-ocean-spacex-launch-official-confirms/story?id=52246100

Quote
A highly classified satellite launched by SpaceX this weekend ended up plummeting into the Indian Ocean, a U.S. official confirmed to ABC News.

Which would seem to confirm the failure-to-separate scenario.

Well, I have read all the arguments, and I believe it is possible the satellite was never released from  the second stage. ABC News needs to identify the "US Official" they base their report on. If he told ABC News, he should be willing to step forward. Is it possible that this official thought it would be ok to release this news, and now finds himself in trouble and has requested ABC News to keep his name out of it? If he made this request before the news broke, they would have cancelled the news item. If he asked them after, then why didn't ABC News identify their source? All this leads me to believe that whoever it was knew they were passing on classified information and asked ABC News for anonymity as part of the agreement to pass this news on to them. Why would a government official risk his career to do that? Makes no sense to me.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: RotoSequence on 01/10/2018 03:15 am
It's not uncommon for Government Officials to speak on condition of anonymity to leak information in a controlled manner to the media for political purposes, for, or against, the interests of the nation or a political party.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/10/2018 03:18 am
It's not uncommon for Government Officials to speak on condition of anonymity to leak information in a controlled manner to the media for political purposes, for, or against, the interests of the nation or a political party.
...and it's not uncommon for people willing to leak classified info like that to also be willing to lie for the same reasons. Therefore, the leaks are untrustworthy.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: FinalFrontier on 01/10/2018 03:54 am
I anticipate a "Zuma 2" (may not actually use that name) at some point, once the investigating is complete.  Maybe even a Zuma 3 and 4, etc. 

 - Ed Kyle

Just keep an eye out for a patch with six stars, or five stars and a shooting star ;-)

But will Zuma 2 launch on Falcon 9 or Atlas V?
Falcon 9.

SpaceX would not be continuing processing flows for upcoming flights if there was a problem with second stage performance, including any related to "separation commands" as has been speculated here and elsewhere. Second stage performed as designed. Fault is with Zuma itself more likely, more likely than even the payload adapter being an issue. I do not think Zuma was still attached to stage 2 when it re entered, seems more likely it separated correctly and then a loss of control occurred. Zuma would almost certainly have needed to engage in a burn of some kind using its own propulsion to circularize it's orbit or change orbits depending on what it was designed to do. If I had to guess what went wrong there was probably an issue with this or with the spacecraft powering up prior to this.

The "failed to separate" story came from the WSJ originally, as did the initial claim that stage 2 itself failed which we know from observation is false. As did some of the claims that the vehicle fell into the Atlantic which is also false.

The short version here is that most of the speculation we had on this was caused by FUD spread by the WSJ and the rest of MSM who were simply parroting the WSJ story.

Summary: Failure is all but certain to be Northrup's. Should not affect future government contracting for SpaceX, ULA does not get punished if the customer's payload doesn't work SpaceX will be no different.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: mn on 01/10/2018 04:13 am
I anticipate a "Zuma 2" (may not actually use that name) at some point, once the investigating is complete.  Maybe even a Zuma 3 and 4, etc. 

 - Ed Kyle

Just keep an eye out for a patch with six stars, or five stars and a shooting star ;-)

But will Zuma 2 launch on Falcon 9 or Atlas V?
Falcon 9.

SpaceX would not be continuing processing flows for upcoming flights if there was a problem with second stage performance, including any related to "separation commands" as has been speculated here and elsewhere. Second stage performed as designed. Fault is with Zuma itself more likely, more likely than even the payload adapter being an issue. I do not think Zuma was still attached to stage 2 when it re entered, seems more likely it separated correctly and then a loss of control occurred. Zuma would almost certainly have needed to engage in a burn of some kind using its own propulsion to circularize it's orbit or change orbits depending on what it was designed to do. If I had to guess what went wrong there was probably an issue with this or with the spacecraft powering up prior to this.

The "failed to separate" story came from the WSJ originally, as did the initial claim that stage 2 itself failed which we know from observation is false. As did some of the claims that the vehicle fell into the Atlantic which is also false.

The short version here is that most of the speculation we had on this was caused by FUD spread by the WSJ and the rest of MSM who were simply parroting the WSJ story.

Summary: Failure is all but certain to be Northrup's. Should not affect future government contracting for SpaceX, ULA does not get punished if the customer's payload doesn't work SpaceX will be no different.

If it separated it is either still in orbit or it used its own propulsion to deorbit (either planned or not). It can't be separated, failed to power up and deorbited (at least not so soon) , pick any two, but not all three.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: sewebster on 01/10/2018 06:44 am
It's not uncommon for Government Officials to speak on condition of anonymity to leak information in a controlled manner to the media for political purposes, for, or against, the interests of the nation or a political party.
...and it's not uncommon for people willing to leak classified info like that to also be willing to lie for the same reasons. Therefore, the leaks are untrustworthy.

It may the be the case here with this mission, but it seems like half of all news articles (just in general) contain information from anonymous sources or "on background." It's the journalists' job to make sure their sources are trustworthy. The articles I've read suggest that there are multiple people saying the same thing re Zuma.

Definitely possible that the stories all got botched, but also seems plausible that the journalists did their job properly... (though I am certainly rather skeptical of any sort of technical details).

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: daveklingler on 01/10/2018 06:58 am
If it separated it is either still in orbit or it used its own propulsion to deorbit (either planned or not). It can't be separated, failed to power up and deorbited (at least not so soon) , pick any two, but not all three.

Yup.

It either

Didn't orbit ==> Unnamed official immediately spoke about an unusually highly classified mission to the WSJ
                 ==> Spacecraft failed to separate (if SpaceX is telling the truth)

Did orbit ==> Unnamed official was either unknowledgeable or deliberately planting disinformation
                     ==> Quoted information is at least partially false
                     ==> Spacecraft failed and is still in orbit
                             ==> spacecraft did fail but not for any of the rumored reasons
                     OR
                     ==> Spacecraft succeeded and is still in orbit
                             ==> "We was just kidding!"
                     OR
                     ==> Spacecraft succeeded and is no longer in orbit
                             ==> Spacecraft de-orbited itself
                                     ==> Spacecraft is FOBS or something similar (demonstration for North Korea?)

Of course, by the time I finished typing this I'd fallen asleep a couple of times at the keyboard...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: nisse on 01/10/2018 06:59 am
Is it possible Zuma was intended to land in the Ocean? Perhaps some DARPA re-entry experiment. Some new bomb delivery vehicle or so?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: docmordrid on 01/10/2018 07:04 am
Wired, which broke the N-G payload adapter info last November, has a pretty balanced article. Digs a bit at N-G for being more open then than now

Link.... (https://www.wired.com/story/is-spacexs-covert-zuma-payload-missing-in-action/)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Mighty-T on 01/10/2018 07:50 am
Further to his previous tweet, Dr. Marco Langbroek (@Marco_Langbroek) has written up his analysis (including trajectories and maps) of what's known about the 2nd stage:

https://sattrackcam.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/fuel-dump-of-zumas-falcon-9-upper-stage.html (https://sattrackcam.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/fuel-dump-of-zumas-falcon-9-upper-stage.html)

Very good summary of the events. I am wondering though, if ZUMA stayed attached to the upper stage, then the re-entry characteristics if the stack should have been non-nominal (configuration, mass). In this hypothetical case, I would expect the stack to miss the planned re-entry zone (which, of course, we don't know).
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: sanman on 01/10/2018 07:51 am
Is it possible Zuma was intended to land in the Ocean? Perhaps some DARPA re-entry experiment. Some new bomb delivery vehicle or so?

A weapon system would only be tested along with its military launcher that it would be integrated with, rather than testing it with some other vehicle like a civilian Falcon rocket.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: suncity on 01/10/2018 07:51 am
If it separated it is either still in orbit or it used its own propulsion to deorbit (either planned or not). It can't be separated, failed to power up and deorbited (at least not so soon) , pick any two, but not all three.

Yup.

It either

Didn't orbit ==> Unnamed official immediately spoke about an unusually highly classified mission to the WSJ
                 ==> Spacecraft failed to separate (if SpaceX is telling the truth)

Did orbit ==> Unnamed official was either unknowledgeable or deliberately planting disinformation
                     ==> Quoted information is at least partially false
                     ==> Spacecraft failed and is still in orbit
                             ==> spacecraft did fail but not for any of the rumored reasons
                     OR
                     ==> Spacecraft succeeded and is still in orbit
                             ==> "We was just kidding!"
                     OR
                     ==> Spacecraft succeeded and is no longer in orbit
                             ==> Spacecraft de-orbited itself
                                     ==> Spacecraft is FOBS or something similar (demonstration for North Korea?)

Of course, by the time I finished typing this I'd fallen asleep a couple of times at the keyboard...

What really happened is that they forgot to install the payload on top of the rocket.

Being a stealth satellite nobody could tell the difference until it was too late.

That's a real issue with this invisible stuff.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: deruch on 01/10/2018 08:13 am
If it separated it is either still in orbit or it used its own propulsion to deorbit (either planned or not). It can't be separated, failed to power up and deorbited (at least not so soon) , pick any two, but not all three.
Did orbit ==> Unnamed official was either unknowledgeable or deliberately planting disinformation

Hanlon's Razor: Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

In this case, an unnamed official also could have knowledge but not understanding, in which case the information was more-or-less correct but comes out garbled in the reporting.  Allowing for such, especially when in all likelihood the source is not someone intimately familiar with space launch terminology and orbital mechanics, leaves this third possibility open.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 01/10/2018 08:37 am

The only problem with idea that is we aren’t in the sixties any more and I suspect you have to work a lot, lot harder to hide a satellite from your opponents these days.

For example just because amateur observers are struggling to find OTV-5 doesn’t mean that other countries haven’t located it in orbit.
Depends on how good "other" radars are. The reason I say this is, the raised eyebrows caused by Russian interpretation of the last few NK ICBM launches. It raises the possibility (if no one is purposely misinterpreting the data) of a serious capability gaps in being able track stuff like this. Remember, most tracking radars are que'd. They need a search area defined for them. A 900km orbit would be above the expected height of an ICBM on an early warning radar. And outside of the now shuttered Space Fence and amateur eyeball mark 1.0's, not very many unque'd systems exist.

I was more thinking of other major space powers whose capabilities are probably more extensive now.

People have talked about this being a hypersonic test I really can’t see the military using a civilian launcher for that when there are plenty better options of a more military nature for such tests.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: photonic on 01/10/2018 08:59 am
The blog post about the venting of S2 (https://sattrackcam.blogspot.it/2018/01/fuel-dump-of-zumas-falcon-9-upper-stage.html) that was mentioned earlier, shows some blurry pictures taken by a pilot above Sudan. The reason for the low quality of the images seems classical motion blur, since all the stars in the image show the same pattern. Due to the various point sources in the image, the motion can be accurately estimated, so I think some standard algorithms might improve the quality considerably. Does anyone have experience with this?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: jpo234 on 01/10/2018 10:24 am
Note that NORAD has now reserved only 1 object from this launch - 43098/2018-001A which was labelled as "USA-280". 43099-43101 have been given to objects from the Chinese launch a few hours ago.

Now, for the similar launches of NROL-76 & OTV-5 (2nd stage de-orbited), the catalog shows 2 objects from each launch, one labelled as the payload and the other as Falcon 9 Rocket Body.....  :P

Entry 43098 seems to have vanished from http://www.celestrak.com/NORAD/elements/tle-new.txt:

Quote
CZ-2D DEB               
1 43097U 17084D   18009.43163641  .00003949  00000-0  11382-3 0  9992
2 43097  97.3535  87.6076 0053722 264.2210  95.2959 15.34898253  2118
2018-002A               
1 43099U 18002A   18010.25850762  .00012444  00000-0  70609-3 0  9991
2 43099  97.5836  87.4226 0012879 286.2149 154.5439 15.13026609   164
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jakusb on 01/10/2018 10:26 am
Further to his previous tweet, Dr. Marco Langbroek (@Marco_Langbroek) has written up his analysis (including trajectories and maps) of what's known about the 2nd stage:

https://sattrackcam.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/fuel-dump-of-zumas-falcon-9-upper-stage.html (https://sattrackcam.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/fuel-dump-of-zumas-falcon-9-upper-stage.html)

Very good summary of the events. I am wondering though, if ZUMA stayed attached to the upper stage, then the re-entry characteristics if the stack should have been non-nominal (configuration, mass). In this hypothetical case, I would expect the stack to miss the planned re-entry zone (which, of course, we don't know).

My logic thinking would think that this not necessarily has to be the case...
Depends if stage is able to compensate with longer de-or it burn.. it clearly had fuel to spent as seen in the beautiful pictures posted by the Dutch pilot.
Being able includes the ability for ground to alter planned sequence, or advanced programming able to detect such a situation and act on it..

Edit: moved to discussion thread.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gwiz on 01/10/2018 10:40 am
Entry 43098 seems to have vanished from http://www.celestrak.com/NORAD/elements/tle-new.txt:
Payloads with classified orbital elements are normally omitted by this site.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: jpo234 on 01/10/2018 10:45 am
Entry 43098 seems to have vanished from http://www.celestrak.com/NORAD/elements/tle-new.txt:
Payloads with classified orbital elements are normally omitted by this site.

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/7p7ev8/official_rspacex_zuma_postlaunch_discussion_thread/dsg00gb/ says it was there...

Quote
According to both http://www.celestrak.com and http://www.n2yo.com, NORAD/USSPACECOM has Zuma (USA-280) catalogued and listed as operational.

Somebody else confirmed it: https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/7p7ev8/official_rspacex_zuma_postlaunch_discussion_thread/dsgqvls/

Quote
Yep removed some hours ago. Good confirmation that it's gone.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 01/10/2018 10:50 am
Entry 43098 seems to have vanished from http://www.celestrak.com/NORAD/elements/tle-new.txt:

Payloads with classified orbital elements are normally omitted by this site.

Could Celestrak have taken Zuma off because everyone has said it has de-orbited? After all, they use third party information rather than track themselves, correct? Maybe when the STRATCOM registration gets more general publicity, Celestrak may restore Zuma to their listing?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 01/10/2018 10:52 am
At what point should this discussion move out of the launch campaign thread and into a separate "Zuma's mystery fate" thread?  Most of the discussion the last few days has had little to nothing to do with the launch itself.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: zhangmdev on 01/10/2018 11:02 am
At what point should this discussion move out of the launch campaign thread and into a separate "Zuma's mystery fate" thread?  Most of the discussion the last few days has had little to nothing to do with the launch itself.

We need a poll thread. List best, worst and fringe scenarios there and argue the hell out of it.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: longboard1210 on 01/10/2018 11:56 am
Well whatever it is or was its certainly got everyone talking i guess in 50 ish years we will know if it was a mass simulator or something else!!
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: hoku on 01/10/2018 12:07 pm
The blog post about the venting of S2 (https://sattrackcam.blogspot.it/2018/01/fuel-dump-of-zumas-falcon-9-upper-stage.html) that was mentioned earlier, shows some blurry pictures taken by a pilot above Sudan. The reason for the low quality of the images seems classical motion blur, since all the stars in the image show the same pattern. Due to the various point sources in the image, the motion can be accurately estimated, so I think some standard algorithms might improve the quality considerably. Does anyone have experience with this?
Here you go - 20 deconvolution iterations with the Lucy-Richardson algorithm using red and green channels of one of the stars in the image to derive the point spread function. Main limitation is the moderate dynamical range of the jpeg image (8 bit per pixel per rgb channel), and that everything seen "white" in the image is at the saturation level. Also, keep in mind that picture was probably taken from a distance of several 100km, thus S2 is completely unresolved (angular extent smaller than a camera pixel).
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 01/10/2018 12:16 pm

If it separated it is either still in orbit or it used its own propulsion to deorbit (either planned or not). It can't be separated, failed to power up and deorbited (at least not so soon) , pick any two, but not all three.
If the planned perigee is low enough, and it was supposed to carry out a burn at apogee on the first orbit all three are possible.

Problem with that is the US would not have required a deorbit burn, though all that was observed was the US venting.
Also most transfer orbit perigee's are high enough by design for it to be a stable orbit..
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Rocket Science on 01/10/2018 12:21 pm
The blog post about the venting of S2 (https://sattrackcam.blogspot.it/2018/01/fuel-dump-of-zumas-falcon-9-upper-stage.html) that was mentioned earlier, shows some blurry pictures taken by a pilot above Sudan. The reason for the low quality of the images seems classical motion blur, since all the stars in the image show the same pattern. Due to the various point sources in the image, the motion can be accurately estimated, so I think some standard algorithms might improve the quality considerably. Does anyone have experience with this?
Here you go - 20 deconvolution iterations with the Lucy-Richardson algorithm using red and green channels of one of the stars in the image to derive the point spread function. Main limitation is the moderate dynamical range of the jpeg image (8 bit per pixel per rgb channel), and that everything seen "white" in the image is at the saturation level. Also, keep in mind that picture was probably taken from a distance of several 100km, thus S2 is completely unresolved (angular extent smaller than a camera pixel).
Nicely done, every time I look at it I think "wormhole"... :o
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 01/10/2018 12:24 pm
Speaking of ZUMA's planned orbit......I found (of all places, on the Russian spaceflight forum Novosti Kosmonavtiki (http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/forum/messages/forum12/topic16228/message1728291/#message1728291) - posted by Igor Lissov) a 2007 report by the US Congressional Budget Office about "Alternatives for Military Space Radar" (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7691/01-03-spaceradar.pdf). In the report, several radar constellations configurations were pitted against each other......but all of them assumes the satellites being in a 1000 km high, 53 degrees inclination orbit.

This is very close to the orbit Marco Langbroek predicted after including the de-orbit burn sighting (http://satobs.org/seesat/Jan-2018/0068.html).  :P
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: cscott on 01/10/2018 12:34 pm
Speaking of ZUMA's planned orbit......I found (of all places, on the Russian spaceflight forum Novosti Kosmonavtiki (http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/forum/messages/forum12/topic16228/message1728291/#message1728291) - posted by Igor Lissov) a 2007 report by the US Congressional Budget Office about "Alternatives for Military Space Radar" (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7691/01-03-spaceradar.pdf). In the report, several radar constellations configurations were pitted against each other......but all of them assumes the satellites being in a 1000 km high, 53 degrees inclination orbit.

This is very close to the orbit Marco Langbroek predicted after including the de-orbit burn sighting (http://satobs.org/seesat/Jan-2018/0068.html). 
Ed mentioned exactly that report several pages ago:


 
Also, FWIW, there was a 2007 CBO discussion of notional "space radar satellites" in 1,000 km x 53 deg orbits.  It was titled "Alternatives for Military Space Radar".  The discussion described a constellation of such satellites.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7691/01-03-spaceradar.pdf

 - Ed Kyle


Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: jpo234 on 01/10/2018 12:48 pm
Not really important anymore, but somebody add Reddit discovered the Flights that likely transported the ZUMA fairings between the Cape and Hawthorne after the canceled launch in November.

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/7pctq3/spacex_antonov_charter_flightsfairing_related/
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 01/10/2018 02:25 pm
A quick question - is it possible that for this mission, S2 intentionally placed the payload in an re-entering orbit, and the payload had to lift the perigee (within half an orbit)?

This will hypothetically be done so that if the payload is dud, it will automatically be destroyed - something that only makes sense for confidential payloads.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: russianhalo117 on 01/10/2018 02:44 pm
A quick question - is it possible that for this mission, S2 intentionally placed the payload in an re-entering orbit, and the payload had to lift the perigee (within half an orbit)?

This will hypothetically be done so that if the payload is dud, it will automatically be destroyed - something that only makes sense for confidential payloads.
Normally a quickly decaying target orbit would be used on some types of payloads and would reenter as early as a week and after a month at the latest if no apogee firings took place. This is not common practice on most government payloads these days.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 01/10/2018 02:44 pm
A quick question - is it possible that for this mission, S2 intentionally placed the payload in an re-entering orbit, and the payload had to lift the perigee (within half an orbit)?

Why would S2 then end up in an orbit itself, having to do a reentry burn 1.5 orbits later?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: the_other_Doug on 01/10/2018 02:46 pm
At what point should this discussion move out of the launch campaign thread and into a separate "Zuma's mystery fate" thread?  Most of the discussion the last few days has had little to nothing to do with the launch itself.

We need a poll thread. List best, worst and fringe scenarios there and argue the hell out of it.

Why?  So that the option that receives the most votes is declared "what actually happened"?   :o

You don't vote your opinion on an issue while you are investigating the issue.  "Oh, look, an airliner has disappeared from the face of the earth.  Instead of looking at its tracking data, let's have a poll to see where people think it went down, and go search at the winning GPS location."

Especially when there is no actual information forthcoming, and thus the "possible scenarios" range from specific malfunction of microswitches for which one can list part numbers, manufacturers, etc., all the way through to "aliens abducted it because we have been warned not to send weapons into space".

It is worse than useless to run a poll on a scientifically unconstrained set of scenarios.  And while it can be somewhat useful from a wring-out-the-possibilities perspective, even a discussion of such an unconstrained set of scenarios tends to go off the rails pretty easily.  Hence the banishment, on this site, of the scenarios farthest off the fringe to the party thread.

So, no -- no polls until there is enough data to actually constrain the scenarios, please.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 01/10/2018 03:31 pm
A quick question - is it possible that for this mission, S2 intentionally placed the payload in an re-entering orbit, and the payload had to lift the perigee (within half an orbit)?

Why would S2 then end up in an orbit itself, having to do a reentry burn 1.5 orbits later?

Yup, right.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: starsilk on 01/10/2018 03:36 pm
If I were SpaceX, I'd insist on some arrangement like this, precisely for the case of the rumored problem.

if I were SpaceX.. I'd seriously consider whether classified missions like this are worth the risk. they've taken a huge PR hit, possibly lost future business from worried customers and increased their insurance premiums because they can't (aren't allowed to) 'prove' the launch wasn't a failure.

they're not exactly short of business without catering to the spooks and their secrecy games.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: AncientU on 01/10/2018 03:41 pm
A quick question - is it possible that for this mission, S2 intentionally placed the payload in an re-entering orbit, and the payload had to lift the perigee (within half an orbit)?

Why would S2 then end up in an orbit itself, having to do a reentry burn 1.5 orbits later?

1.5 orbits indicates a fully orbital second stage (obviously).

If they were testing a hypersonic vehicle, it could have been de-orbited intentionally when and where the second stage de-orbited.  The Southern Ocean would be an inconspicuous place for testing hypersonic flight.  If a space weapon system were to be deployed with a hypersonic weapon, it might also have a bus that supplies power, comms, de-orbit propellant/engines, etc. until the weapon is ready to be released for flight to target.  Falcon stage 2 could have been serving as the bus for this test.

This is a scenario in which all existing evidence is consistently applied.  Only the supposition that the spacecraft was 'lost' is omitted.


Note: This would also account for the single object catalogued (USA 280) if the spacecraft had not separated -- intentionally -- from second stage.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: JasonAW3 on 01/10/2018 03:42 pm
I find it extremely odd that anything was even mentioned about whether or not Zuma had achieved orbit.

      Typically, in the past, if a classified payload did not achieve orbit, nothing would be said, one way or another, to the press.

      As this was a first flight of this kind on a Falcon 9, Zuma may have actually been a "boiler plate" payload, never really meant to maintain an orbit.

      Even odder; why would they deorbit after only 1.5 orbits, rather than trying to troubleshoot the issue remotely?  If they went to expense of sending a multi-million dollar sat into orbit, why toss it so quickly?  I just find this whole situation very strange...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: the_other_Doug on 01/10/2018 03:50 pm
I betcha the original "fell into the Atlantic" line came from US Launch Report's mistaken assumption that, since they lost sight of the second stage at about T+7:20, there must have been a SECO well before the vehicle achieved orbital speed.

Seeing as how S2 was seen venting fuel two and a half hours later, following what appear to have been a normal de-orbit burn, the only scenario possible for an early SECO and Zuma falling into the Atlantic would be:

1.  Shut down early.
2.  Quick-sep the payload.
3.  Quick-restart S2 to put it into orbit.

The odds of that happening are just about zero, I think -- at least, to anyone not firmly wearing a tinfoil hat.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: vanoord on 01/10/2018 03:51 pm
      Even odder; why would they deorbit after only 1.5 orbits, rather than trying to troubleshoot the issue remotely?  If they went to expense of sending a multi-million dollar sat into orbit, why toss it so quickly?  I just find this whole situation very strange...

The received wisdom seems to be that the stage is automated and can not be over-ridden / controlled remotely.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: JonathanD on 01/10/2018 03:51 pm
      Even odder; why would they deorbit after only 1.5 orbits, rather than trying to troubleshoot the issue remotely?  If they went to expense of sending a multi-million dollar sat into orbit, why toss it so quickly?  I just find this whole situation very strange...

Stage 2 has limited battery life - it doesn't have solar panels like Dragon - and you probably don't want to leave this payload up there for anyone to check out...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: RDMM2081 on 01/10/2018 03:59 pm
If I were SpaceX, I'd insist on some arrangement like this, precisely for the case of the rumored problem.

if I were SpaceX.. I'd seriously consider whether classified missions like this are worth the risk. they've taken a huge PR hit, possibly lost future business from worried customers and increased their insurance premiums because they can't (aren't allowed to) 'prove' the launch wasn't a failure.

they're not exactly short of business without catering to the spooks and their secrecy games.

I don't buy any of this at all.  Anyone in a position to procure a launch with SpaceX will know better than to believe a disingenuous headline about a "multibrazillion dollar satterlight lost by SpaceX noobs hur hur" and look at the facts which have been presented, specifically Gwynne Shotwell's unambiguous statement that there was nothing wrong with the Falcon 9 itself:

The following statement is from Gwynne Shotwell, President and COO of SpaceX:
 
“For clarity: after review of all data to date, Falcon 9 did everything correctly on Sunday night. If we or others find otherwise based on further review, we will report it immediately. Information published that is contrary to this statement is categorically false. Due to the classified nature of the payload, no further comment is possible. 

“Since the data reviewed so far indicates that no design, operational or other changes are needed, we do not anticipate any impact on the upcoming launch schedule. Falcon Heavy has been rolled out to launchpad LC-39A for a static fire later this week, to be followed shortly thereafter by its maiden flight. We are also preparing for an F9 launch for SES and the Luxembourg Government from SLC-40 in three weeks.”

I think the statement about insurance premiums is completely unfounded.  But yes, the public eye will change its opinion about SpaceX for about as long as it takes for the next headline about a Kardashian to come along.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: rpapo on 01/10/2018 04:03 pm
Even odder; why would they deorbit after only 1.5 orbits, rather than trying to troubleshoot the issue remotely?  If they went to expense of sending a multi-million dollar sat into orbit, why toss it so quickly?  I just find this whole situation very strange...
The Falcon 9 second stage has a limited lifetime.  It can't wait indefinitely before doing its reentry burn.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kansan52 on 01/10/2018 05:04 pm
Have I missed something? There doesn't seem to be an official statement that Zuma was lost. It will be another week or so for amateur ground base observers to have the correct lighting conditions to spot the satellite.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: abaddon on 01/10/2018 05:21 pm
if I were SpaceX.. I'd seriously consider whether classified missions like this are worth the risk. they've taken a huge PR hit, possibly lost future business from worried customers and increased their insurance premiums because they can't (aren't allowed to) 'prove' the launch wasn't a failure.
Blowing up their own rocket on the pad, with the payload attached, in spectacular fashion, captured on video didn't lose them future business from worried customers or increase their insurance premiums.  Why do you think this will?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: whitelancer64 on 01/10/2018 05:32 pm
Have I missed something? There doesn't seem to be an official statement that Zuma was lost. It will be another week or so for amateur ground base observers to have the correct lighting conditions to spot the satellite.

Most of this speculation is based on the fact that there has been no official announcement of payload success. Some articles have said anonymous sources said the payload was a total failure. Strong supporting evidence is that top level management in NG were called in to a meeting of high-ranking brass at the DOD. That would be unusual if the mission were successful.

SpaceX issued a statement saying the launch was good on their side.

There's literally no other information publicly available.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: alhenry1231 on 01/10/2018 05:34 pm
The blog post about the venting of S2 (https://sattrackcam.blogspot.it/2018/01/fuel-dump-of-zumas-falcon-9-upper-stage.html) that was mentioned earlier, shows some blurry pictures taken by a pilot above Sudan. The reason for the low quality of the images seems classical motion blur, since all the stars in the image show the same pattern. Due to the various point sources in the image, the motion can be accurately estimated, so I think some standard algorithms might improve the quality considerably. Does anyone have experience with this?
Here you go - 20 deconvolution iterations with the Lucy-Richardson algorithm using red and green channels of one of the stars in the image to derive the point spread function. Main limitation is the moderate dynamical range of the jpeg image (8 bit per pixel per rgb channel), and that everything seen "white" in the image is at the saturation level. Also, keep in mind that picture was probably taken from a distance of several 100km, thus S2 is completely unresolved (angular extent smaller than a camera pixel).

Anyone know of other examples of visible stage 2 venting prior to re-entry? Specifically Falcon related?
I've not seen it come up before.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: DaveH62 on 01/10/2018 05:40 pm
Trying to summarize the possibilities, which are all conjecture at this point.

SpaceX says they delivered the satellite to the proper orbit.
The payload either separated or not, at this point it is Schrodinger's satellite.
If it failed, it likely came down with the upper stage.
If it did not fail:
 It may be found by amateur astronomers in the next few weeks.
 It could have been a micro-satellite dispenser deploying many "invisible" satellites.
 It could be a full size but somehow stealth satellite, non-reflective and only directly observable by another local object in space.

Any other tinfoil or feasible options? If it is micro-sat or stealth, we probably won't know for years and if a separation failure, we may not know that either. It doesn't seem like there is any consensus on the possibilities. Wondering if there is any growing sense of the most likely options.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: pb2000 on 01/10/2018 05:41 pm
USLaunchReport just posted a youtube video with what they think is only one half of the fairing deploying. Doesn't look anything close to definitive to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MouF4CXkt7o
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: DaveH62 on 01/10/2018 05:47 pm
USLaunchReport just posted a youtube video with what they think is only one half of the fairing deploying. Doesn't look anything close to definitive to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MouF4CXkt7o
Wouldn't SpaceX have video of the faring separation, directly from the second stage? It wasn't webcast, but it would have been recorded, or would no camera have been allowed on the second stage?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars-J on 01/10/2018 05:49 pm
USLaunchReport just posted a youtube video with what they think is only one half of the fairing deploying. Doesn't look anything close to definitive to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MouF4CXkt7o

Geez. Looks more like the angle... In fact, if you look blow the engine, you can see that there is something that extends out there as well, which looks like the other half of the fairing.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: pb2000 on 01/10/2018 05:50 pm
For a classified mission, probably no camera, but lots of telemetry channels to confirm. That would be my guess as to why there was a delay in separation confirmation on the webcast.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: DigitalMan on 01/10/2018 05:53 pm
USLaunchReport just posted a youtube video with what they think is only one half of the fairing deploying. Doesn't look anything close to definitive to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MouF4CXkt7o

I was watching with my binoculars and I thought I saw both halves
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: russianhalo117 on 01/10/2018 05:55 pm
For a classified mission, probably no camera, but lots of telemetry channels to confirm. That would be my guess as to why there was a delay in separation confirmation on the webcast.
There are cameras on classified launches. Classified footage is typically broadcast to a separate control room(s) as was the case on classified shuttle launches and other classified USG launches.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: RoboGoofers on 01/10/2018 06:12 pm
USLaunchReport just posted a youtube video with what they think is only one half of the fairing deploying. Doesn't look anything close to definitive to me.

Sounds absurd. doesn't one half push against the other half to deploy?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: tleski on 01/10/2018 06:18 pm
USLaunchReport just posted a youtube video with what they think is only one half of the fairing deploying. Doesn't look anything close to definitive to me.

Sounds absurd. doesn't one half push against the other half to deploy?

This assumes that SpaceX is lying about the nominal performance of the Falcon. Please stop this nonsense.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: sunbingfa on 01/10/2018 06:23 pm
It is becoming more concerning over time. The longer without a statement from gov side (whatever info released), the longer the internet speculation game is going. I've seen so many theories. Some make sense, a lot do not. And I do worry it is going to hurt Spacex in PR field. As long as the gov does not clear Spacex in an official statement, there will always be doubt that they messed up.

Or, maybe a FH total success will turn all of us away.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: kevinof on 01/10/2018 06:29 pm
The companies that book slots on SpaceX flights do not give hoot about what the internet is saying. They can pick up the phone to their contact in SpaceX and get the full story on the performance of the F9 (not the classified stuff) and be assured. I don't think it will hurt them one bit.

It is becoming more concerning over time. The longer without a statement from gov side (whatever info released), the longer the internet speculation game is going. I've seen so many theories. Some make sense, a lot do not. And I do worry it is going to hurt Spacex in PR field. As long as the gov does not clear Spacex in an official statement, there will always be doubt that they messed up.

Or, maybe a FH total success will turn all of us away.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 01/10/2018 06:33 pm
It is becoming more concerning over time. The longer without a statement from gov side (whatever info released), the longer the internet speculation game is going.

Since the rumors are put out by people that put out rumors for a living, and have been doing so with or without a seed of truth, nothing is going to matter.

It'll go on for a while, and then taper off, until the next one.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: RoboGoofers on 01/10/2018 06:34 pm
It is becoming more concerning over time.

Not really. Did you expect to get updates on the health of a classified payload? or do you expect that any of the information you read or hear about is trustworthy? it could all be disinformation.

even to say that ZUMA is lost is pure speculation.



Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Hauerg on 01/10/2018 06:36 pm
It is becoming more concerning over time. The longer without a statement from gov side (whatever info released), the longer the internet speculation game is going. I've seen so many theories. Some make sense, a lot do not. And I do worry it is going to hurt Spacex in PR field. As long as the gov does not clear Spacex in an official statement, there will always be doubt that they messed up.

Or, maybe a FH total success will turn all of us away.
NO, it is not concerning.
GS said, wie did our job.
And as long as their customer - who has lost a very expensive payload - does not contradict them, IT IS OVER.
Done.
Finito.
The Nd.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Coastal Ron on 01/10/2018 06:38 pm
It is becoming more concerning over time. The longer without a statement from gov side (whatever info released), the longer the internet speculation game is going.

The National Security section of the U.S. Government doesn't care about internet speculation. The Executive branch obviously knows the status of ZUMA, and if the Legislative branch (i.e. Congress) wants an update then they will ask for a classified debriefing. They are really the only ones that matter.

Quote
I've seen so many theories. Some make sense, a lot do not. And I do worry it is going to hurt Spacex in PR field. As long as the gov does not clear Spacex in an official statement, there will always be doubt that they messed up.

SpaceX customers and potential customers only want to know if SpaceX did their job. They understand what can happen, and even though SpaceX will only tell them what they have publicly said, that will tell them that Falcon 9 had no issues.

Quote
Or, maybe a FH total success will turn all of us away.

Anyone that spends any amount of time following news cycles knows that the public will soon move on to whatever the next hot topic is. And already this launch "incident" has dropped off the front pages of major news outlets.

Look, Falcon Heavy is on the launch pad!
Look, the Crimson Tide is rolling again!
Look, cat videos!
 ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Brian45 on 01/10/2018 06:42 pm
good to see some blow back to the rumor mill. I also wouldn't put too much stock in the civilian sighting possibilities either. For all we know Zuma was designed to "disappear" once it was placed into orbit! No sightings=no satellite? Not necessarily!
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: geza on 01/10/2018 06:50 pm
even to say that ZUMA is lost is pure speculation.
Shotwell's comments were the most specific: she stressed, that SpaceX part was OK, but it was considered, as a subject for further iquiry. Her words seemed to imply that something else went wrong. Except, of course, if see was actively cooperating with the government cover story of loosing the s/c...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: testguy on 01/10/2018 06:54 pm
Enough!  Let me say up front that I do not have a clue what did or did not happen with this mission.  The reason being, is it is not in our national interest for me to know!

There are those in this forum that understand there are several ways to maintain security.  The most straight forward is to keep all information away from those without the need to know.  You can't do this with a Falcon 9 launching from the Cape.  People will see something is happening so it can't be hidden.  An alternate is to simply say the mission is classified and no other information would be forth coming.  This is indeed is what I believe most likely happened.

However, the downside to the last approach is there will be super sleuths who will try to gather more information than has been released publicly.  That is a problem. To counter the super sleuths you can intentionally provide or leak misinformation to let the super sleuths believe that they have determined the truth when that is just the opposite of what they achieved.  Allowing the uncovering of misinformation may be part of the program plan even before the launch.  That ends the discussion and yields a narrative acceptable to the security team even if they appear to object.  Things are not always as they appear.

What I am saying is we are wasting perfectly good bandwidth speculating on information that may or not be true.
The possibilities of what occurred are unlimited, to name a few Zuma failing just as speculated, possible second payload which was really the primary mission successfully completing its tasks, to returning alien visitors to their home planet Zuma.  I like the last the best!

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: daveglo on 01/10/2018 07:11 pm
If you want more intelligent observational information regarding the Zuma mission's post-launch activities, I suggest you take a look at Marco Langbroek 's excellent blog post concerning the EOM events for the F9's second stage.

https://sattrackcam.blogspot.nl/2018/01/fuel-dump-of-zumas-falcon-9-upper-stage.html

And follow SatObs for future updates as well.

http://www.satobs.org/seesat/
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: starsilk on 01/10/2018 07:40 pm
if I were SpaceX.. I'd seriously consider whether classified missions like this are worth the risk. they've taken a huge PR hit, possibly lost future business from worried customers and increased their insurance premiums because they can't (aren't allowed to) 'prove' the launch wasn't a failure.
Blowing up their own rocket on the pad, with the payload attached, in spectacular fashion, captured on video didn't lose them future business from worried customers or increase their insurance premiums.  Why do you think this will?

because it's classified.

'so, you blew up a rocket. that's not good. have you fixed the problem?'. 'sure, it took us a while be we found ice in the COPVs.. and we've done, this, this, and this to fix it. here's the paperwork, photos etc'.

'so, what happened with the Zuma thing? - did you lose the payload?'. 'no everything's fine!'. 'yes you said that already - what really happened'. 'everything was fine! can't tell you any more, classified'. 'I'm a big $$$ customer and you can't prove it?'. 'no, trust us! everything was fine!'.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lar on 01/10/2018 07:45 pm
Let's dial the concern trolling back a lot.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: whitelancer64 on 01/10/2018 07:45 pm
if I were SpaceX.. I'd seriously consider whether classified missions like this are worth the risk. they've taken a huge PR hit, possibly lost future business from worried customers and increased their insurance premiums because they can't (aren't allowed to) 'prove' the launch wasn't a failure.
Blowing up their own rocket on the pad, with the payload attached, in spectacular fashion, captured on video didn't lose them future business from worried customers or increase their insurance premiums.  Why do you think this will?

because it's classified.

'so, you blew up a rocket. that's not good. have you fixed the problem?'. 'sure, it took us a while be we found ice in the COPVs.. and we've done, this, this, and this to fix it. here's the paperwork, photos etc'.

'so, what happened with the Zuma thing? - did you lose the payload?'. 'no everything's fine!'. 'yes you said that already - what really happened'. 'everything was fine! can't tell you any more, classified'. 'I'm a big $$$ customer and you can't prove it?'. 'no, trust us! everything was fine!'.

SpaceX could produce data on things that happened to their rocket, of course, that information is still theirs. They could easily produce for a concerned customer data which shows the health of the rocket and that the stages and fairing had a good separation.

They just can't give out data on the payload or its orbit.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Eric Hedman on 01/10/2018 07:53 pm
For what it's worth according to the following article ABC News is reporting that a government official is confirming that the satellite is swimming with the fishes:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5255187/Billion-dollar-satellite-plummets-Indian-Ocean.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5255187/Billion-dollar-satellite-plummets-Indian-Ocean.html)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: DJPledger on 01/10/2018 07:56 pm
Perhaps it is time to lock this thread as we are extremely unlikely to find out what happened to Zuma and that SpaceX said F9 performed as advertised. Lets look forward to upcoming SpaceX missions and put this one to bed.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: NGCHunter on 01/10/2018 08:06 pm
USLaunchReport just posted a youtube video with what they think is only one half of the fairing deploying. Doesn't look anything close to definitive to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MouF4CXkt7o

Geez. Looks more like the angle... In fact, if you look blow the engine, you can see that there is something that extends out there as well, which looks like the other half of the fairing.
It's the same footage I had been showing to people yesterday to prove that the fairing separation did occur for both sides right when they called out that it should happen "within seconds."  The second half of the fairing is not fully resolved from the second stage due to the limited resolution of the optics being used, but it is visible as an un-resolved lobe on the second stage simultaneously with the other side of the fairing.  A frame-by-frame analysis makes this more obvious.  You can move frame by frame on youtube using the . and , keys.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: abaddon on 01/10/2018 08:11 pm
@starsilk, you can rest assured that SpaceX customers understand there is going to be a painstakingly detailed review of this incident behind closed doors, and anything that points a finger at F9 will be disclosed as per Shotwell.  You really have no reasonable basis for projecting alarm or even unease by any SpaceX customers over this incident at this time.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lar on 01/10/2018 08:15 pm
@starsilk, you can rest assured that SpaceX customers understand there is going to be a painstakingly detailed review of this incident behind closed doors, and anything that points a finger at F9 will be disclosed as per Shotwell.  You really have no reasonable basis for projecting alarm or even unease by any SpaceX customers over this incident at this time.
Exactly so. See my most recent post.

Draw a line under that subtopic and move on.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 01/10/2018 08:51 pm
It's the same footage I had been showing to people yesterday to prove that the fairing separation did occur for both sides right when they called out that it should happen "within seconds."  The second half of the fairing is not fully resolved from the second stage due to the limited resolution of the optics being used, but it is visible as an un-resolved lobe on the second stage simultaneously with the other side of the fairing.  A frame-by-frame analysis makes this more obvious.  You can move frame by frame on youtube using the . and , keys.

Totally agree!
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Rocket Science on 01/10/2018 09:02 pm
SpaceX has the telemetry to back up their statement, that's all the proof they need at this point...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: DaveH62 on 01/10/2018 09:51 pm
With the huge Tesla "fan club" in congress, if there was any evidence that SpaceX was at congress would be calling for hearings and calling for Elon to testify. I think the lack of finger pointing in Washington speaks volumes. Either this clandestine thing worked as planned, or something happened to the satellite after separation. Even a separation failure would likely lead to some initial finger pointing at SpaceX.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: docmordrid on 01/10/2018 11:11 pm
Shelby's doing the expected,

Bloomberg.... (http://"https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-10/lawmakers-look-into-spacex-launch-that-ended-with-lost-satellite")

Quote
Lawmakers Look Into SpaceX Launch That Ended With Lost Satellite

Lawmakers said they will receive classified briefings on a secret U.S. government satellite that apparently crashed into the sea after it was launched by Elon Musks Space Exploration Technologies Corp.

"The first statement by SpaceX was that the failure to achieve orbit was not theirs" so there's no reason so far to question the companys planned participation in NASA space projects, Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, a former astronaut and the top Democrat on the Senate Commerce, Science and Transport Committee, said Wednesday before being briefed.
>
The Onus

SpaceX is saying "'everything performed as expected, its not our fault,'" Marco Caceres, senior analyst and director of space studies with the Teal Group, said in an interview. "The onus is on the Air Force or Grumman to prove otherwise," he said.
>
Republican Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, who heads the panel that approves appropriations for NASA, said the lost satellite raises new questions about SpaceX contracts. Shelby is a strong supporter of United Launch Alliance, which has operations in his state.
>
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: king1999 on 01/10/2018 11:54 pm
My speculation :) The payload adapter was originally designed for vertical integration and not fully tested for horizontal integration in which it was subjected to shear force. It may have been OK if it was launched in November, but SpaceX had to replace the fairing which caused the adapter to suffer from the sheer force multiple times with unexpected fatigue failure.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: cscott on 01/11/2018 12:48 am
The folks saying "there's no way to know" are ignoring the fact that a particularly concerned US customer could probably get one of their employees cleared to view classified info (or hire someone with such a clearance) and have them go behind closed doors, view all the secret stuff, and report back thumbs up or down.  You really don't have to take SpaceX's word for it... *if* you have a need to know.

We members of the public don't.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 01/11/2018 12:53 am
Still no official statement from anyone that the satellite was lost.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: JBF on 01/11/2018 01:11 am
My speculation :) The payload adapter was originally designed for vertical integration and not fully tested for horizontal integration in which it was subjected to shear force. It may have been OK if it was launched in November, but SpaceX had to replace the fairing which caused the adapter to suffer from the sheer force multiple times with unexpected fatigue failure.

They problem with this idea is that they demated the payload from the 2nd stage and as a result it was stored in a vertical position until it was remated.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Rocket Science on 01/11/2018 01:20 am
Still no official statement from anyone that the satellite was lost.
What satellite?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: RoboGoofers on 01/11/2018 01:38 am
even to say that ZUMA is lost is pure speculation.
Shotwell's comments were the most specific: she stressed, that SpaceX part was OK, but it was considered, as a subject for further iquiry. Her words seemed to imply that something else went wrong. Except, of course, if see was actively cooperating with the government cover story of loosing the s/c...
She is obviously choosing her words very carefully as to not confirm or deny anything, as she is likely required to do. Such a statement might even have been vetted/censored before it was allowed to be made. Any implication you think it conveys is in your head.
Quote
For clarity: after review of all data to date, Falcon 9 did everything correctly on Sunday night. If we or others find otherwise based on further review, we will report it immediately. Information published that is contrary to this statement is categorically false. Due to the classified nature of the payload, no further comment is possible.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: AnnK on 01/11/2018 02:16 am
As of 1844 Eastern ABC News is reporting a "US official" saying ZUMA fell into the sea after not maintaining orbit.

ISTM this does not exclude the failed separation scenario, it reinforces it by confirming it ended up in the Indian Ocean.

Link.... (http://abcnews.go.com/US/classified-satellite-fell-ocean-spacex-launch-official-confirms/story?id=52246100)

Quote
A highly classified satellite launched by SpaceX this weekend ended up plummeting into the Indian Ocean, a U.S. official confirmed to ABC News.

Confirms the 2nd stage burned up and landed in the Indian Ocean? Who is the source of this information?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lar on 01/11/2018 02:31 am
The folks saying "there's no way to know" are ignoring the fact that a particularly concerned US customer could probably get one of their employees cleared to view classified info (or hire someone with such a clearance) and have them go behind closed doors, view all the secret stuff, and report back thumbs up or down.  You really don't have to take SpaceX's word for it... *if* you have a need to know.

We members of the public don't.

I don't have a clearance but it is my understanding that clearance doesn't work that way. In order to view information about topic Q, which has clearance "Secret", you have to both have at least Secret clearance AND have a need to know about topic Q. Those controlling topic Q access may not consider "we want to assure customers that we are a good launch provider" as sufficient need to know.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/11/2018 02:40 am
These questions have probably been answered but I don't want to look through 1100 posts.

How does separate system work.
1) who owns and builds the payload adaptor bolted to F9 US.
2) does F9 tell the adaptor to release its payload or does this command come from somewhere else.
3) Does US place it's self in orbit where it automatically deorbits after say half orbit or does it need deorbit burn.




Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: daveklingler on 01/11/2018 02:48 am
Still no official statement from anyone that the satellite was lost.

Yup.

What we do know:

- A classified satellite was launched on a Falcon 9.
- All portions of the Falcon 9 system performed nominally.
- The second stage de-orbited approximately when it might have been expected to do so.
- Either the satellite failed to separate or succeeded.
- If it succeeded, the satellite may still be in orbit, or it may not be.
- There are rumors of the satellite's demise, but they are only unconfirmed.

And that's pretty much what we're meant to know, because the mission is classified. 

Given the absence of facts, even speculation about what caused the satellite's failure requires promoting the speculation to fact.  We don't even know the satellite failed.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lar on 01/11/2018 02:53 am
These questions have probably been answered but I don't want to look through 1100 posts.
Please DO look through previous posts instead of asking questions again. Else it is 1101 posts that need to be waded through.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris Bergin on 01/11/2018 02:57 am
Been too busy to even read this thread in depth, but officially - and there's zero reason to doubt it - Falcon 9 performed as planned but the health of the satellite isn't known. Answers/clarifications on the latter won't be forthcoming as Zuma is a classified satellite.

Personally I'd lock this thread and move on because it doesn't impact future launches and we're simply not going to hear about Zuma, but the community wants to keep chatting about it, so fair enough.

I'd simply insist that we need to keep it as clean of nonsense as possible....
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: smithy999 on 01/11/2018 03:17 am
My first post (I like to watch..), but this speculation on speculation is getting really boring. Can we all give it a miss, put Zuma behind us and focus on what is really exciting...FH

edit: 2nd post
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars-J on 01/11/2018 03:34 am
There is something marginally interesting on the GOES "East Image" Visible satellite image

On the 'hurricane sector image', Sunday evening at 2315Z,  there are three bright dots visible just under the 30N latitude that are not seen in earlier / later images.  The launch was later than this time. 

So what could be flying around east of the launch area before the launch?

http://www.goes.noaa.gov/srcheast.html

Given that the three pixels are exactly on the same line, I'd say bad data. Just noise in that frame.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: garcianc on 01/11/2018 03:36 am
The folks saying "there's no way to know" are ignoring the fact that a particularly concerned US customer could probably get one of their employees cleared to view classified info (or hire someone with such a clearance) and have them go behind closed doors, view all the secret stuff, and report back thumbs up or down.  You really don't have to take SpaceX's word for it... *if* you have a need to know.

We members of the public don't.

I don't have a clearance but it is my understanding that clearance doesn't work that way. In order to view information about topic Q, which has clearance "Secret", you have to both have at least Secret clearance AND have a need to know about topic Q. Those controlling topic Q access may not consider "we want to assure customers that we are a good launch provider" as sufficient need to know.
That is correct. Given the secrecy, I would even say that this would be further compartmentalize to, let's just say ridiculous levels.
Speaking from experience, I have been in submarine missions where only a handful of us in the crew even knew where we were and what we were doing there, even though there were over a hundred of us submerged. Sometimes I wish I did not know so I could have slept better.
Since this has turned into a speculation thread, I would even speculate that Gwynne herself may not know what really happened or what Zuma is. There may not be a need for her to know.
I worked on some projects for a defense contractor where we had to tell the company CEO to wait outside because he was not cleared to be in the room.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gonucelar on 01/11/2018 03:48 am
if I were SpaceX.. I'd seriously consider whether classified missions like this are worth the risk. they've taken a huge PR hit, possibly lost future business from worried customers and increased their insurance premiums

Wrong conclusion!

The decision on accepting a classified mission is obviously taken before it is known, whether or not the launch is going to be successful. A failure would slightly increase insurance premiums - but a success would slightly reduce them.

So the net expected effect of accepting the order is pretty much zero. From the insurance point of view, there is not really much difference between a classified and an unclassified mission.

As for the PR risk, I doubt there is any - SpaceX had so many highly visible failures trying to land the first stage, that people are used to that and know they get things right at the end.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 01/11/2018 05:10 am
Been too busy to even read this thread in depth, but officially - and there's zero reason to doubt it - Falcon 9 performed as planned but the health of the satellite isn't known. Answers/clarifications on the latter won't be forthcoming as Zuma is a classified satellite.

Personally I'd lock this thread and move on because it doesn't impact future launches and we're simply not going to hear about Zuma, but the community wants to keep chatting about it, so fair enough.

I'd simply insist that we need to keep it as clean of nonsense as possible....

Locking this would be fine until there is something worthy posted in the Updated thread.
And by "worthy" I mean not just another echo, a report of a report, or some "official" talking smack.
Maybe if Shelby holds a hearing it would qualify, although that by itself doesn't mean anything either.
it's such an echo chamber in here.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 01/11/2018 07:04 am
Still no official statement from anyone that the satellite was lost.
What satellite?

Correct. All that was ever officially confirmed was that Zuma was a spacecraft (see the SpaceX press kit) or a payload (see Northop Grumman statements).

"Satellite" has been an assumption from day one.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: cartman on 01/11/2018 07:47 am
That's why we like SpaceX, because its failures are never boring! Or should i say "alleged failures that may or may not have occured"  8)
In an unrelated note, here is a pretty launch image i just found
https://twitter.com/stevenmadow/status/951200710481375235/
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: DJPledger on 01/11/2018 07:56 am
F9 worked as planned. Perhaps Zuma was too classified for it's own good and was intentionally destroyed by deliberately not releasing it from F9 S2 and was dumped into the Indian Ocean by the S2 deorbit burn. Anyway it is time to move on and to forget about this mission.

Still no official statement from anyone that the satellite was lost.
Never likely to get any official statement about Zuma due to it's highly classified nature.

Still no official statement from anyone that the satellite was lost.
- If it succeeded, the satellite may still be in orbit, or it may not be.
If Zuma is in orbit I am sure that NORAD or someone else would be able to track it.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 01/11/2018 10:00 am
I think eventually some time down the road (not talking months here by the way) we will hear if it failed & that’s about as much as we will hear. After all the politicians had no trouble discussing the cost of Misty.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 01/11/2018 11:14 am
My only objection to locking Chris out, if and when someone in seesat finally spots it, we will not be able to get an update that it is actually in orbit... Though, maybe that is what the update thread is for.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: vanoord on 01/11/2018 12:11 pm
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-10/lawmakers-look-into-spacex-launch-that-ended-with-lost-satellite

A couple of quotes:

Quote
"The first statement by SpaceX was that the failure to achieve orbit was not theirs" so there’s no reason so far to question the company’s planned participation in NASA space projects, Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, a former astronaut and the top Democrat on the Senate Commerce, Science and Transport Committee, said Wednesday before being briefed.

Does that confirm loss?

(I'd take the 'failure to achieve orbit' as being 'failure to reach the correct orbit and stay there' - rather than an actual failure to reach an orbit of any sort).

Quote
SpaceX is saying "everything performed as expected, it's not our fault," Marco Caceres, senior analyst and director of space studies with the Teal Group, said in an interview. "The onus is on the Air Force or Grumman to prove otherwise," he said.

SpaceX didn't actually say anything about 'fault' as that would have confirmed loss of the spacecraft?

Quote
Republican Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, who heads the panel that approves appropriations for NASA, said the lost satellite raises new questions about SpaceX contracts. Shelby is a strong supporter of United Launch Alliance, which has operations in his state.

"The record shows they have promise, but they've had issues as a vendor," Shelby said Wednesday, referring to SpaceX. "United Launch, knock on wood, they've had an outstanding record."

That attitude, I suspect, speaks for itself - particularly against a background of insinuation that the apparent loss / failure of the spacecraft was the launch provider's responsibility.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: envy887 on 01/11/2018 01:20 pm
...
Quote
SpaceX is saying "everything performed as expected, it's not our fault," Marco Caceres, senior analyst and director of space studies with the Teal Group, said in an interview. "The onus is on the Air Force or Grumman to prove otherwise," he said.

SpaceX didn't actually say anything about 'fault' as that would have confirmed loss of the spacecraft?


Correct. SpaceX said that any report of a failure of Falcon 9 is categorically false, and that they (obviously) can't comment about the payload or the mission.

Almost every media report I've seen has several critical facts wrong, so it's difficult to infer anything.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: testguy on 01/11/2018 01:53 pm
The Zuma loss isn't just "rumors".  The reports were based on multiple sources, congressional and industry, who said they had been briefed on the failure.  We have reports of a planned congressional investigation of the failure.  The news was reported by multiple respected news organizations.  We have SpaceX telling us - emphatically - that Falcon 9 did its job.  We have no happy press releases from satellite prime contractor Northrop Grumman.  Yes, there are conflicting stories about what exactly may have happened, but the overarching conclusion of each report is the same.  Zuma failed. 

 - Ed Kyle

Careful you are not drinking from the well of intentional misinformation and misdirection.  If the mission is as classified as some expect there would be no factual rumors/leaks.  There would be no congressional investigations because they would not be on the program or allowed any oversight.  Information would be limited to a very select few.  Anyone privy to the real facts and releases that information could well be subjected to JAIL time.  Let's get real. If it is not that highly classified, why should people care that much? We know the Falcon 9 performed as planned.  Better to just drop the whole conversation and move on.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 01/11/2018 01:58 pm
The Zuma loss isn't just "rumors".  The reports were based on multiple sources, congressional and industry, who said they had been briefed on the failure.  We have reports of a planned congressional investigation of the failure.  The news was reported by multiple respected news organizations.  We have SpaceX telling us - emphatically - that Falcon 9 did its job.  We have no happy press releases from satellite prime contractor Northrop Grumman.  Yes, there are conflicting stories about what exactly may have happened, but the overarching conclusion of each report is the same.  Zuma failed. 

 - Ed Kyle

Careful you are not drinking from the well of misinformation and misdirection.  If the mission is as classified as some expect there would be no factual rumors/leaks.  There would be no congressional investigations because they would not be on the program orallowed any oversight.  Information would be limited to a very select few.  Any release of that information means JAIL time.  Let's get real.
Now it’s time for you to get real: plenty of classified missions are historically followed up with generic press releases thanking all involved. Many of us industry and former-industry types know that (hence Ed’s post which you quoted).

It’s fine to note the selective leaking going on, presumably to incite negative press coverage of SpaceX. But to claim that utter silence after the launch was normal is nonsense.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: JonathanD on 01/11/2018 02:15 pm

Interesting analysis on what Zuma might have been for based upon its inferred inclination:

http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Jan-2018/0096.html

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: wolfpack on 01/11/2018 03:14 pm

Speaking to statements by others elsewhere in this thread, the idea that the participants in this mission would "fake" a failure is absurd.  We are living in an era when no one can keep a secret!  The NSA was hacked, for crying out loud. 

 - Ed Kyle

After digesting this all for 3 days, I agree.

The most likely scenario is NG's adapter failed. They probably don't want to eat the cost, partial or otherwise, of another Zuma. Hence the dog and pony in front of Congress.

I believe SpaceX. The unfortunate consequence of all this is that is raises the ante on FH. A problem after a "problem" - not good.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: vanoord on 01/11/2018 03:48 pm
After digesting this all for 3 days, I agree.

The most likely scenario is NG's adapter failed. They probably don't want to eat the cost, partial or otherwise, of another Zuma. Hence the dog and pony in front of Congress.

I believe SpaceX. The unfortunate consequence of all this is that is raises the ante on FH. A problem after a "problem" - not good.

Briefly ambling down the road of speculation...

There is also the potential for the NG adaptor not being properly triggered by the F9 S2 (which puts both SpaceX and NG in the frame) - although given that triggering is likely to be an electrical signal from the stage, that should have been eminently testable and could have already been ruled out relatively easily depending on the sensors fitted.

One question that does spring to mind is why NG provided the payload adaptor? Does that give an indication that the payload was sufficiently non-standard (conspiracy theorists can suggest hypersonic lifting bodies or whatever) that the usual SpaceX adaptor wasn't used?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Ted Molczan on 01/11/2018 03:57 pm
If the satellite manufacturer were doing happy press releases about a successful mission, they'd be risking jail time.

It's classified.

If memory serves me correctly, the PAN and CLIO launches were the most similar to that of Zuma, in that the builder of the payload (Lockheed Martin) contracted for the launch, and the responsible government agency was not disclosed.

I do not know whether Lockheed Martin announced the successful launch of PAN immediately after payload separation, but they did that and more a couple of weeks later:

https://spacefellowship.com/news/art13450/innovative-pan-satellite-system-operating-successfully-on-orbit.html

"A next-generation satellite, designed and built by Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] for the U.S. government, is performing as required following its successful launch from Cape Canaveral on Sept. 8 aboard a United Launch Alliance Atlas V launch vehicle. The Lockheed Martin team has successfully completed a series of key activities toward delivering the spacecraft for customer use."

Shortly after CLIO payload separation, Lockheed Martin issued this statement:

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2014/september/0916-ss-clio.html

"The U.S. Government’s CLIO satellite, designed and built by Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT], was successfully launched today from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. Lift-off occurred at 6:10 p.m. MDT aboard a United Launch Alliance Atlas V launch vehicle. Initial contact with the satellite was confirmed at 9:08 p.m. MDT."

Ted Molczan

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lar on 01/11/2018 04:43 pm
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-10/lawmakers-look-into-spacex-launch-that-ended-with-lost-satellite

Quote
Republican Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, who heads the panel that approves appropriations for NASA, said the lost satellite raises new questions about SpaceX contracts. Shelby is a strong supporter of United Launch Alliance, which has operations in his state.

"The record shows they have promise, but they've had issues as a vendor," Shelby said Wednesday, referring to SpaceX. "United Launch, knock on wood, they've had an outstanding record."


The Alabama (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words). rides again. I have nothing but respect for ULA's technical competence and I think Tory Bruno is a swell guy[1] ... but ULA really doesn't need friends like these. Not if it wants to lose the reputation it has among some that it doesn't compete on merit alone...

1 - He replies to my tweets, Elon doesn't, 'nuff said
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Basto on 01/11/2018 05:05 pm

1 - He replies to my tweets, Elon doesn't, 'nuff said

Bruno has responded to a few of mine as well... but to be fair EM gets a few more than he does...

Has this thread hit party status yet?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 01/11/2018 05:09 pm
Speaking to statements by others elsewhere in this thread, the idea that the participants in this mission would "fake" a failure is absurd.  We are living in an era when no one can keep a secret!  The NSA was hacked, for crying out loud.

There is little doubt that in 1990 the United States did exactly what you claim is absurd, with Misty.  They faked a failure and fooled Russia about it.

Maybe Zuma had a faked failure, maybe it didn't.  We don't know.  To claim you know and anyone who disagrees is being "absurd" reflects poorly on you.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3077830/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/spy-satellites-rise-faked-fall/#.WlemvHnavio
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: jimvela on 01/11/2018 06:16 pm

After digesting this all for 3 days, I agree.

The most likely scenario is NG's adapter failed.


This.  10000 X this.

Somebody cite me an instance of a SpaceX adapter failing to separate a payload...

Quote
I believe SpaceX. The unfortunate consequence of all this is that is raises the ante on FH. A problem after a "problem" - not good.

It only negatively impacts SpaceX if you don't believe them that everything on the F9 side of the launch worked properly.
I not only believe them, but I'd bet there's more- MUCH more- that they can't say about this that would make them look much better if only they could talk openly about it.

I'd stake a big chunk of my own credibility on that.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lar on 01/11/2018 06:29 pm
Has this thread hit party status yet?

No, and it won't. A quip as an aside is fine, but a pure party only post will get deleted (or moved if the mod feels kindly)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: wolfpack on 01/11/2018 07:43 pm
One question that does spring to mind is why NG provided the payload adaptor? Does that give an indication that the payload was sufficiently non-standard (conspiracy theorists can suggest hypersonic lifting bodies or whatever) that the usual SpaceX adaptor wasn't used?

I doubt it. Simplest explanation is that it's a secret payload, and it's more operationally secure for SpaceX to give NG data on the Falcon 9 than it is for NG to give SpaceX data on Zuma.

That decision will get revisited, I'm sure.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 01/11/2018 07:44 pm
Let's try to keep the discussion on the mission and not on general media/politician bashing.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: andrewsdanj on 01/11/2018 07:52 pm
As a brief interlude from all of the speculation and tinfoilhattery... Did the landing seem rather 'sedate' to anyone else? I'm used to the tempo being 'wow-pad-weeeee-landed', this time there was a good 10 seconds from first seeing the pad to shutoff, and it sure seemed that there was still (residual) thrust on the ground for a couple of seconds before shutoff.

Probably just a trick of the light (or lack thereof), but it struck me as a more leisurely landing than we're used to!
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Nomadd on 01/11/2018 07:56 pm
 So, if the adapter did fail, would the satellite probably have been hopeless in a short time because it wouldn't have been able to extend solar arrays while latched to the stage? I'm just trying to make sense of the stage de-orbiting without deployment confirmation.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: JonathanD on 01/11/2018 08:01 pm
So, if the adapter did fail, would the satellite probably have been hopeless in a short time because it wouldn't have been able to extend solar arrays while latched to the stage? I'm just trying to make sense of the stage de-orbiting without deployment confirmation.

Stage 2 has limited battery life.  If you can't get the payload separated by the time Stage 2 needs to de-orbit, it goes down with the ship.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Ictogan on 01/11/2018 08:08 pm

Stage 2 has limited battery life.  If you can't get the payload separated by the time Stage 2 needs to de-orbit, it goes down with the ship.

Wouldn't it be better to just not deorbit the second stage if seperation of the satellite doesn't occur until planned deorbit time?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: envy887 on 01/11/2018 08:10 pm
So, if the adapter did fail, would the satellite probably have been hopeless in a short time because it wouldn't have been able to extend solar arrays while latched to the stage? I'm just trying to make sense of the stage de-orbiting without deployment confirmation.

If deploy fails, the payload is toast anyway. It probably has a hard switch preventing it from powering on while attached to the stage (accidentally coming alive inside the fairing would be bad for all involved), and at the very least it won't perform as planned with 5 tonnes of Falcon hanging off its butt.

At that point your options are basically:
1) deorbit the stage and payload into the predefined hazard area or
2) let the stage die and the stage+payload deorbit randomly due to atmospheric drag, so it could hit a population center or worse crash where its classified secrets are accessible to a potentially hostile nation.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: JonathanD on 01/11/2018 08:17 pm
Wouldn't it be better to just not deorbit the second stage if seperation of the satellite doesn't occur until planned deorbit time?

Definitely not.  See envy887's post above.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Pete on 01/11/2018 08:18 pm
... Did the landing seem rather 'sedate' to anyone else?

Nope.
All RTLS landings will follow virtually the exact same trajectory.

Zuma's landing burn took the same time +-2 seconds as *all* of the previous RTLS landings..
(that i could find good youtube recordings of, to use as time measurements)

Visually comparing Zuma vs. CRS-13 and CRS-9, the speed of landing seemed identical.
The deployment timing and speed of the landing legs differ quite a bit though, go figure. Maybe this is what threw your speed sense off?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: lonestriker on 01/11/2018 08:20 pm
So, if the adapter did fail, would the satellite probably have been hopeless in a short time because it wouldn't have been able to extend solar arrays while latched to the stage? I'm just trying to make sense of the stage de-orbiting without deployment confirmation.

If deploy fails, the payload is toast anyway. It probably has a hard switch preventing it from powering on while attached to the stage (accidentally coming alive inside the fairing would be bad for all involved), and at the very least it won't perform as planned with 5 tonnes of Falcon hanging off its butt.

At that point your options are basically:
1) deorbit the stage and payload into the predefined hazard area or
2) let the stage die and deorbit randomly due to atmospheric drag, so it could hit a population center or worse crash where its classified secrets are accessible to a potentially hostile nation.

This is why the spooks need to fund BFR/BFS, so they can go up and fetch their multi-billion dollar failed satellite/space-plane/hypersonic-test-vehicle rather than let it burn up as the only option.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: JonathanD on 01/11/2018 08:23 pm
Nope.
All RTLS landings will follow virtually the exact same trajectory.

Zuma's landing burn took the same time +-2 seconds as *all* of the previous RTLS landings..
(that i could find good youtube recordings of, to use as time measurements)

Visually comparing Zuma vs. CRS-13 and CRS-9, the speed of landing seemed identical.
The deployment timing and speed of the landing legs differ quite a bit though, go figure. Maybe this is what threw your speed sense off?

I have noticed that since they added the radar-reflective paint to LZ-1 the landings have looked "softer" -- maybe that's what he was referring to.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: envy887 on 01/11/2018 08:27 pm
So, if the adapter did fail, would the satellite probably have been hopeless in a short time because it wouldn't have been able to extend solar arrays while latched to the stage? I'm just trying to make sense of the stage de-orbiting without deployment confirmation.

If deploy fails, the payload is toast anyway. It probably has a hard switch preventing it from powering on while attached to the stage (accidentally coming alive inside the fairing would be bad for all involved), and at the very least it won't perform as planned with 5 tonnes of Falcon hanging off its butt.

At that point your options are basically:
1) deorbit the stage and payload into the predefined hazard area or
2) let the stage die and deorbit randomly due to atmospheric drag, so it could hit a population center or worse crash where its classified secrets are accessible to a potentially hostile nation.

This is why the spooks need to fund BFR/BFS, so they can go up and fetch their multi-billion dollar failed satellite/space-plane/hypersonic-test-vehicle rather than let it burn up as the only option.

Or just turn around and land if sep fails.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: GWH on 01/11/2018 08:28 pm
Nothing new in the linked article below, just some statements based on rumours.

Hey Chris G. - your twitter posts are now included in the reporting of Canada's most read news organization!
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/spacex-zuma-1.4477310
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: JimO on 01/11/2018 08:35 pm
Excellent discussion. I'm looking at the Khartoum photos in a new light.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: vanoord on 01/11/2018 08:37 pm
Sorry, recovered this from the pre-gardened thread on my laptop. Reckon it qualifies as discussion rather than party...

Quote
Quote from: LouScheffer on Today at 06:19 PM
Quote
Quote from: vanoord on Today at 04:48 PM
One question that does spring to mind is why NG provided the payload adaptor? Does that give an indication that the payload was sufficiently non-standard (conspiracy theorists can suggest hypersonic lifting bodies or whatever) that the usual SpaceX adaptor wasn't used?


I still think (though Chris Gebhardt does not) that this was a test of a faster response, more hands-off launch flow, as opposed to the monolithic integration and testing that has traditionally been used.

In this case, the government designs satellites to match exactly the specific public interface of launch vehicles.  The intention would be that they can build and store satellites, then when needed, give SpaceX, ULA, or BO a call, bolt it together, and have a new asset in space within weeks, instead of the usual years.

This would account for why NG built the payload adapter, the late announcement of the name, the short time from public notice to launch, and so on.  If it was the first time, this would probably be a test processing flow, more in the flavor of "lets do it the way we'd need to get a 30 day response", and not an actual, 30 day, fully decoupled flow on the first try.

If so, in some ways ZUMA was a success, as it revealed flow problems that need to be addressed.   But it failed in the way AMOS-6 static fire failed - since the test was thought to be almost certain to be successful, it was tried in a case where failure was very expensive, in an attempt to cut schedule and effort.

Unless there is something very odd about the way that the spacecraft joined the adaptor (see conspiracies) then the lesson has to be that if there is a perceived requirement to 'launch on need', the spacecraft should have a 'standard' adaptor at its base; and SpaceX (and ULA etc.) should be persuaded / paid to have a spare payload adaptor readily available to be used for such a mission?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 01/11/2018 08:48 pm
The Zuma loss isn't just "rumors".  The reports were based on multiple sources, congressional and industry, who said they had been briefed on the failure.

... and as we've said, those people either don't have clearance (in which case they're repeating a rumour) or they do and they're risking federal prison why? Multiple sources is irrelevant if they're all repeating the same rumour.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/11/2018 08:50 pm
Use of spacecraft provided adapter increases work and time vs using standardized adapters.

There are standardized sep systems for 37, 47 and 66 inch adapters.  Most commercial spacecraft buses use these.

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: andrewsdanj on 01/11/2018 08:56 pm
Nope.
All RTLS landings will follow virtually the exact same trajectory.

Zuma's landing burn took the same time +-2 seconds as *all* of the previous RTLS landings..
(that i could find good youtube recordings of, to use as time measurements)

Visually comparing Zuma vs. CRS-13 and CRS-9, the speed of landing seemed identical.
The deployment timing and speed of the landing legs differ quite a bit though, go figure. Maybe this is what threw your speed sense off?

I have noticed that since they added the radar-reflective paint to LZ-1 the landings have looked "softer" -- maybe that's what he was referring to.

Yes indeeed, that's what I meant. The decelation over the final period SEEMED very progressive to a very soft touchdown. Nicely done. Maybe it's just becoming too routine seeing only one land at once...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: JimO on 01/11/2018 09:02 pm
Here's a draft of my report on the controversy over the June 2010 observation of the Falcon-9 venting second stage over SE Australia.

The relevance to Zuma is that the 2010 event clearly involved one plume, and the 2018 event over Khartoum was a double plume of much shorter duration.

Has the prop dump system been significantly upgraded, or do these differences indicate a fundamentally different nature of the two events?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: kerogre256 on 01/11/2018 09:06 pm
I think this is best info we will get on that "zuma" mission I just wonder how long this twitt will be live.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Matt Desch‏ @IridiumBoss
Replying to @TomMcCuin @SpaceX @ClearanceJobs

Tom, this is a typical industry smear job on the "upstart" trying to disrupt the launch industry.  @SpaceX didn't have a failure, Northrup Grumman did.  Notice that no one in the media is interested in that story.  SpaceX will pay the price as the one some will try to bring low.
1:23 pm - 11 Jan 2018
Replying to @IridiumBoss @SpaceX @ClearanceJobs

I wasn't trying to "blame" SpaceX as much as point out how difficult this stuff is. Yes, Northrop Grumman insisted on using their connector. I get it. But the point is, even powerhouses like SpaceX and NG can have mishaps, so keep that in mind when evaluating DPRK missile tech.
0 replies . 0 retweets 0 likes
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 01/11/2018 09:08 pm
I think this is best info we will get on that "zuma" mission I just wonder how long this twitt will be live.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Matt Desch‏ @IridiumBoss
Replying to @TomMcCuin @SpaceX @ClearanceJobs

Tom, this is a typical industry smear job on the "upstart" trying to disrupt the launch industry.  @SpaceX didn't have a failure, Northrup Grumman did.  Notice that no one in the media is interested in that story.  SpaceX will pay the price as the one some will try to bring low.
1:23 pm - 11 Jan 2018
Replying to @IridiumBoss @SpaceX @ClearanceJobs

I wasn't trying to "blame" SpaceX as much as point out how difficult this stuff is. Yes, Northrop Grumman insisted on using their connector. I get it. But the point is, even powerhouses like SpaceX and NG can have mishaps, so keep that in mind when evaluating DPRK missile tech.
0 replies . 0 retweets 0 likes
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

I think this sums things up very neatly. TBH I reckon we need look no further than what’s said here.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 01/11/2018 09:14 pm
I think this sums things up very neatly. TBH I reckon we need look no further than what’s said here.

He has no clue if there even was a failure. He too is repeating the rumour that they did.

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: vanoord on 01/11/2018 09:16 pm
Use of spacecraft provided adapter increases work and time vs using standardized adapters.

There are standardized sep systems for 37, 47 and 66 inch adapters.  Most commercial spacecraft buses use these.

Thank you.

So why use a custom adaptor for Zuma?

My belief for systems has always been to use the standard as far as possible: introducing change introduces the possibility that something doesn't work the way it should - essentially because it doesn't have the usage history.

In my humble opinion, if you want to launch a satellite, put it on top of a payload adaptor built by the same people who built the rocket - and which has been used in conjunction with that rocket many times before.

Unless, of course, the Zuma payload could not be mated to a standard payload adaptor.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/11/2018 09:18 pm
Quote
Matt Desch‏ @IridiumBoss
Replying to @TomMcCuin @SpaceX @ClearanceJobs

Tom, this is a typical industry smear job on the "upstart" trying to disrupt the launch industry.  @SpaceX didn't have a failure, Northrup Grumman did.  Notice that no one in the media is interested in that story.  SpaceX will pay the price as the one some will try to bring low.
1:23 pm - 11 Jan 2018
Replying to @IridiumBoss @SpaceX @ClearanceJobs

I wasn't trying to "blame" SpaceX as much as point out how difficult this stuff is. Yes, Northrop Grumman insisted on using their connector. I get it.

Tom McCuin ends his reply to Matt Desch by saying "I wasn't trying to blame SpaceX," then doesn't bother to correct his smear piece that begins by fingering SpaceX/Elon Musk and calling it "his failure." No mentioned whatsoever of NG's customer-furnished payload adapter/sep system and its likely (or even possible) failure.

What a weasel.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: JimO on 01/11/2018 09:18 pm
For comparison to a prop dump [2010] here is my ROUGH on the ground observations of Falcon-9 deorbit burn over Saudi Arabia on Feb 19, 2017.

I've rushed these two unfinished studies out so observers can ponder their relation to the Khartoum images of the Zuma mission.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/11/2018 09:18 pm

In my humble opinion, if you want to launch a satellite, put it on top of a payload adaptor built by the same people who built the rocket - and which has been used in conjunction with that rocket many times before.


Those are not built by SpaceX, but RUAG.

https://www.ruag.com/sites/default/files/2016-11/PLE-Brochure-Payload-Adapter-and-Separation-Systems.pdf

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: vanoord on 01/11/2018 09:19 pm
I think this sums things up very neatly. TBH I reckon we need look no further than what’s said here.

He has no clue if there even was a failure. He too is repeating the rumour that they did.

Or - arguably, given he's a very good customer of SpaceX - he's spoken to Gwynne Shotwell, who knows what the failure was (if indeed there was one and this whole shebang isn't just a distraction tactic) and he now knows that it's not a SpaceX problem.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: vanoord on 01/11/2018 09:20 pm

In my humble opinion, if you want to launch a satellite, put it on top of a payload adaptor built by the same people who built the rocket - and which has been used in conjunction with that rocket many times before.


Those are not built by SpaceX, but RUAG.

https://www.ruag.com/sites/default/files/2016-11/PLE-Brochure-Payload-Adapter-and-Separation-Systems.pdf

Thank you - although the same caveat applies, ie why not use the 'off the shelf' adaptor that is tried-and-tested.

The answer, I suspect, lies in the contract and the detail of the payload - so nothing we are likely to find out about  in the near future.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/11/2018 09:23 pm
I think this sums things up very neatly. TBH I reckon we need look no further than what’s said here.

He has no clue if there even was a failure. He too is repeating the rumour that they did.

Or - arguably, given he's a very good customer of SpaceX - he's spoken to Gwynne Shotwell, who knows what the failure was (if indeed there was one and this whole shebang isn't just a distraction tactic) and he now knows that it's not a SpaceX problem.

You can bet Matt Desch was one of the first people SpaceX gave a (legal, unclassified) data dump to. He knows SpaceX wasn't at fault and wouldn't be defending them on Twitter otherwise. He has a huge stake in them not losing his (future) payloads.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 01/11/2018 09:26 pm
Or - arguably, given he's a very good customer of SpaceX - he's spoken to Gwynne Shotwell, who knows what the failure was (if indeed there was one and this whole shebang isn't just a distraction tactic) and he now knows that it's not a SpaceX problem.

Yeah, we know that too. There's a public statement from SpaceX. Perhaps he has more insight into just how flawless SpaceX's performance was - but so what? No-one at SpaceX is going to tell him or anyone else if there was a problem with the payload.

It's incredibly easy to fall into the trap of repeating a rumour. It's what humans do. When secrecy is involved rumours get repeated ad infinitum because no-one who knows is allowed to say anything.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: M.E.T. on 01/11/2018 09:34 pm
Eric Berger seems strangely hesitant to accept SpaceX's official statement. He just published another article, and in it he again references "behind closed doors" theories of F9 stage 2 underperforming in achieving the correct orbit.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/pentagon-ask-spacex-about-zuma-spacex-thats-not-our-story-to-tell/

Similarly, he tweeted earlier that SpaceX's statement might just be what they "hope" is the truth.

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/951561640981549058

A bit disappointing from him. Although I confess I don't really know his general stance on Spacex.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/11/2018 09:44 pm
Eric Berger seems strangely hesitant to accept SpaceX's official statement. He just published another article, and in it he again references "behind closed doors" theories of F9 stage 2 underperforming in achieving the correct orbit.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/pentagon-ask-spacex-about-zuma-spacex-thats-not-our-story-to-tell/

Similarly, he tweeted earlier that SpaceX's statement might just be what they "hope" is the truth.

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/951561640981549058

A bit disappointing from him. Although I confess I don't really know his general stance on Spacex.

Berger's article says that one hypothesis is that S2 underperformed. However, Marco Langbroek concluded (in link below) based on the S2 re-entry observation that it likely reached an apogee of around 900-1000 km, which would seem to contradict an underperformance scenario.

https://sattrackcam.blogspot.com/2018/01/fuel-dump-of-zumas-falcon-9-upper-stage.html

Quoting from the above link by Marco Langbroek:

Quote
The sighting points to a somewhat higher orbital altitude for Zuma than I had anticipated before the launch: with hindsight, I had too much of an idée-fixe that the orbital altitude would be similar to that of USA 276. The Falcon 9 sighting over East Africa suggests an altitude over double as high, in the order of 900-1000 km rather than my original 400 km estimate.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: mn on 01/11/2018 09:46 pm
Eric Berger seems strangely hesitant to accept SpaceX's official statement. He just published another article, and in it he again references "behind closed doors" theories of F9 stage 2 underperforming in achieving the correct orbit.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/pentagon-ask-spacex-about-zuma-spacex-thats-not-our-story-to-tell/

Similarly, he tweeted earlier that SpaceX's statement might just be what they "hope" is the truth.

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/951561640981549058

A bit disappointing from him. Although I confess I don't really know his general stance on Spacex.

Seems to me he's being quite fair to SpaceX, he quotes two theories being discussed behind closed doors (one of those theories being that S2 underperformed), but he's clearly not buying that, he says quite clearly "However, at this time, it seems more likely that the mechanism built by Northrop Grumman to release the satellite failed to operate properly"

Edit: as Kabloona said, it's easy to understand why he's not buying the first theory.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 01/11/2018 09:52 pm
As an aside are NG building the release mechanism/payload adaptor for JWST?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris Bergin on 01/11/2018 09:53 pm
Quote from: JonathanD

Wew, Matt Desch weighing in!!

https://twitter.com/IridiumBoss/status/951565202629320705



Writer isn't happy about the reaction....

>Replying to @JRascagneres @IridiumBoss and 2 others
You’re obviously not one of the 38 people who have bothered to click through to the article.<

Wow. One day I hope my articles can boast such numbers. ;)

For the record, I have nothing to suggest F9 had an issue.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: saliva_sweet on 01/11/2018 09:57 pm
which would seem to contradict an underperformance scenario.

Longbroeks guess that Zuma would go to ISS orbit was wrong. This doesn't contradict or say anything about performance or the intended orbit.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: M.E.T. on 01/11/2018 09:58 pm
Eric Berger seems strangely hesitant to accept SpaceX's official statement. He just published another article, and in it he again references "behind closed doors" theories of F9 stage 2 underperforming in achieving the correct orbit.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/pentagon-ask-spacex-about-zuma-spacex-thats-not-our-story-to-tell/

Similarly, he tweeted earlier that SpaceX's statement might just be what they "hope" is the truth.

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/951561640981549058

A bit disappointing from him. Although I confess I don't really know his general stance on Spacex.

Seems to me he's being quite fair to SpaceX, he quotes two theories being discussed behind closed doors (one of those theories being that S2 underperformed), but he's clearly not buying that, he says quite clearly "However, at this time, it seems more likely that the mechanism built by Northrop Grumman to release the satellite failed to operate properly"

Edit: as Kabloona said, it's easy to understand why he's not buying the first theory.

Saying one theory is "more likely", implies that the other is still possible.  Implying that SpaceX could be less than honest in their  emphatic statement of nominal performance by their rocket.

That is what I find disappointing in the article.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/11/2018 10:01 pm
Eric Berger seems strangely hesitant to accept SpaceX's official statement. He just published another article, and in it he again references "behind closed doors" theories of F9 stage 2 underperforming in achieving the correct orbit.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/pentagon-ask-spacex-about-zuma-spacex-thats-not-our-story-to-tell/

Similarly, he tweeted earlier that SpaceX's statement might just be what they "hope" is the truth.

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/951561640981549058

A bit disappointing from him. Although I confess I don't really know his general stance on Spacex.

Aside from the "whodunnit" aspect of the Berger article, there's this excerpt:

Quote
Sources familiar with discussions behind closed doors have told Ars there are two primary working theories about what may have gone wrong with Zuma and caused it to burn up in Earth's atmosphere.

Which adds another grain of weight to the theory that, yes, Zuma was in fact lost.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ey on 01/11/2018 10:17 pm
More finger pointing (or a bad misdirect attempt)

http://spacenews.com/pentagon-shuts-down-questions-about-zuma-and-raises-more-questions/

Quote
So reporters at the Pentagon were shocked on Thursday when the Defense Department’s top spokesperson Dana White not only refused to comment on the apparent failure of a secret military space mission codenamed Zuma, but also told a journalist to direct his questions to SpaceX.

“I would have to refer you to SpaceX, who conducted the launch,” White told Bloomberg News reporter Tony Capaccio at a Pentagon briefing.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: AC in NC on 01/11/2018 10:18 pm

Wew, Matt Desch weighing in!!

https://twitter.com/IridiumBoss/status/951565202629320705



Writer isn't happy about the reaction....

>Replying to @JRascagneres @IridiumBoss and 2 others
You’re obviously not one of the 38 people who have bothered to click through to the article.

Good Lord what a horrific article and for him to ask back "What is wrong or misleading?".

What you ask?  These assertions/statements:

1)  What the SpaceX Failure Can Teach Us ...
2)  Elon Musk — the man ... – had a bad day on Sunday.
3)  But his failure presents an opportunity
4)  But news later came that all did not go well.
5)  While several online commenters hypothesized that the anonymous source (aka, leakers) were engaging in misdirection, there wouldn’t be much point to that.
6)  there is little incentive for SpaceX to go along with a ruse
7)  A nuclear warhead would also have to separate from its booster
8 )  A slight error in either direction will either send it to a fiery death, or leave it in low-earth orbit.

Writer makes a lot of assertions that aren't in evidence.  Good writing would've qualified them appropriately and categorically not stated 1-3.  Please note I'm not advocating the ruse hypothesis, just that it can't be dismissed.  I think some may want to debate 7-8 and they are irrelevant to SpaceX but I contend that given that "Close [actually does count] in horseshoes, hand-grenades and Nukes/EMPs", I think he's being as sloppy there as with the SpaceX comments.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 01/11/2018 10:19 pm
More finger pointing (or a bad misdirect attempt)

Or just simply someone who has no answers because they don't have a need to know telling a reporter that they won't get any answers from them.



Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ey on 01/11/2018 10:25 pm
More finger pointing (or a bad misdirect attempt)

Or just simply someone who has no answers because they don't have a need to know telling a reporter that they won't get any answers from them.

Sure, probably an off the cuff remark, but it would have been better to refuse to comment instead of naming SpaceX.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Cabbage123 on 01/11/2018 10:49 pm
Having a look through the thread, I wondered, is this correct?

https://twitter.com/Moxzot/status/951599206527094785

Quote
I completely agree if it was spacex adapter that failed its spacex's fault however NG used there own connector if that was the point of failure it is no longer spacex's fault, the rocket made it to orbit.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/11/2018 10:59 pm
Having a look through the thread, I wondered, is this correct?

https://twitter.com/Moxzot/status/951599206527094785

Quote
I completely agree if it was spacex adapter that failed its spacex's fault however NG used there own connector if that was the point of failure it is no longer spacex's fault, the rocket made it to orbit.

Yes, Northrop Grumman supplied their own payload adapter with separation system. If the separation system failed, it's NG's responsibility.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: allio on 01/11/2018 11:01 pm
tom mccuin is taking apasting on twitter over that article.... :)

Fair play to matt desch for laying into him....
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: starsilk on 01/11/2018 11:05 pm
Matt Desch going to bat for SpaceX again. preserved for posterity:


@TomMcCuin
 1h1 hour ago
Something tells me I will never have your respect anyway. Their launch, their failure until we get declassified details.

@IridiumBoss
 1h1 hour ago
I suppose if someone dies on their next flight to Tokyo (though the plane lands successfully), it’s Delta’s fault unless proven otherwise?  What if the passenger said their health/death was classified?  Will always be Delta’s fault then??

@TomMcCuin
I suppose it would be if Delta inspected every passenger and certified their health before boarding.

@IridiumBoss
 29m29 minutes ago
Do you even understand how launches like this work?

@TomMcCuin
 11m11 minutes ago
Are you telling me that whatever TLA owned this payload would have let the launch proceed without the people who put everything together telling them everything was good to go?

@TomMcCuin
 10m10 minutes ago
Educate me. Who is responsible for ensuring your birds are properly loaded: ThalesAlenia Space, or SpaceX?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: AC in NC on 01/11/2018 11:09 pm
He's doubling down on the stupid.  He's got to comprehend the concept of "Good to Go" is limited in that it's up to the point NG takes responsibility.  They can't go beyond that AFAIK.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 01/11/2018 11:10 pm
So, how many of you have even heard of this McCuin guy before today, or the site he's representing?  Is it really worth a bunch of posts in this thread?  Matt Desch is standing up for SpaceX, great.  We like Matt.  But copying every tweet in the exchange to this thread is kinda overkill.  There are a lot of idiots on twitter, copying everything they say here just gives them more attention.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: drnscr on 01/11/2018 11:11 pm
Tom McCuin, a public affairs guy, who has no background in space flight... give me a break
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: starsilk on 01/11/2018 11:14 pm
more just now. and it seems worthwhile to copy here because Matt Desch has probably been talking to SpaceX, for a little more insight than most of us...

@IridiumBoss
Thales Alenia (OATK) loads and fuels onto a SpaceX dispenser, and SpaceX encloses.  I doubt that’s what the responsibilities were here (ie, SpaceX doesn’t necessarily assume responsibilities for technical things it didn’t contract for or have responsibility for.

@IridiumBoss
Telling them you’re good to go doesn’t always mean you really were.  Why do I hold my breath every launch?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: tvg98 on 01/11/2018 11:17 pm
Pentagon shuts down questions about Zuma, and raises more questions
http://spacenews.com/pentagon-shuts-down-questions-about-zuma-and-raises-more-questions/ (http://spacenews.com/pentagon-shuts-down-questions-about-zuma-and-raises-more-questions/)

Quote
When a big-ticket military weapon development or procurement goes off the rails for any reason, the Pentagon as a rule does not deflect media questions to the contractor that the government hired to do the work.

So reporters at the Pentagon were shocked on Thursday when the Defense Department’s top spokesperson Dana White not only refused to comment on the apparent failure of a secret military space mission codenamed Zuma, but also told a journalist to direct his questions to SpaceX.

“I would have to refer you to SpaceX, who conducted the launch,” White told Bloomberg News reporter Tony Capaccio at a Pentagon briefing.

That's an odd response IMO. Why direct the question to SpaceX when everyone knows they can't talk about it?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/11/2018 11:24 pm
Pentagon shuts down questions about Zuma, and raises more questions
http://spacenews.com/pentagon-shuts-down-questions-about-zuma-and-raises-more-questions/ (http://spacenews.com/pentagon-shuts-down-questions-about-zuma-and-raises-more-questions/)

Quote
When a big-ticket military weapon development or procurement goes off the rails for any reason, the Pentagon as a rule does not deflect media questions to the contractor that the government hired to do the work.

So reporters at the Pentagon were shocked on Thursday when the Defense Department’s top spokesperson Dana White not only refused to comment on the apparent failure of a secret military space mission codenamed Zuma, but also told a journalist to direct his questions to SpaceX.

“I would have to refer you to SpaceX, who conducted the launch,” White told Bloomberg News reporter Tony Capaccio at a Pentagon briefing.

That's an odd response IMO. Why direct the question to SpaceX when everyone knows they can't talk about it?

I agree it's odd, but in fairness, SpaceX is the only party allowed to say anything. They are allowed to say "F9 performed nominally." OTOH, NG can't say anything, because they can't say Zuma got to orbit, and they can't say it didn't. So SpaceX's public statement is the only on-the-record quote any reporter can print.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: dorkmo on 01/11/2018 11:51 pm
plus, we dont even know if pentagon has anything to do with zuma.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: marshal on 01/11/2018 11:51 pm
Or ZUMA isn't a satellite .
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: jimvela on 01/12/2018 12:07 am
Or ZUMA isn't a satellite .

There's a pretty good chance at this point that whatever is left of it (if anything), is a submarine...  "ocean synchronous", as I refer to it.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: TripD on 01/12/2018 12:19 am
Zuma was soooooo early January.  Let's start up a Heavy conversation about something else eh?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: su27k on 01/12/2018 12:55 am
Pentagon shuts down questions about Zuma, and raises more questions
http://spacenews.com/pentagon-shuts-down-questions-about-zuma-and-raises-more-questions/ (http://spacenews.com/pentagon-shuts-down-questions-about-zuma-and-raises-more-questions/)

Quote
When a big-ticket military weapon development or procurement goes off the rails for any reason, the Pentagon as a rule does not deflect media questions to the contractor that the government hired to do the work.

So reporters at the Pentagon were shocked on Thursday when the Defense Department’s top spokesperson Dana White not only refused to comment on the apparent failure of a secret military space mission codenamed Zuma, but also told a journalist to direct his questions to SpaceX.

“I would have to refer you to SpaceX, who conducted the launch,” White told Bloomberg News reporter Tony Capaccio at a Pentagon briefing.

That's an odd response IMO. Why direct the question to SpaceX when everyone knows they can't talk about it?

But in this case SpaceX is not the contractor, NG is, SpaceX is more like the sub-contractor.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Thomas Dorman on 01/12/2018 01:05 am
Based on the best public Tle's for the Zuma launch we made two attempts to observe two reasonably good high passes of the Zuma spacecraft. Our observation were negative we saw nothing! We scanned visually and with wide field binocular above and below the predicted track also head of predicted pass times and after pass times.
Will give it ago tomorrow evening  to see if we can pick it up but believe Zuma most likely sleeps with the fishes in the Indian Ocean!
Regards
Thomas
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: JimO on 01/12/2018 01:17 am
Based on the best public Tle's for the Zuma launch we made two attempts to observe two reasonably good high passes of the Zuma spacecraft. Our observation were negative we saw nothing! We scanned visually and with wide field binocular above and below the predicted track also head of predicted pass times and after pass times.
Will give it ago tomorrow evening  to see if we can pick it up but believe Zuma most likely sleeps with the fishes in the Indian Ocean!
Regards
Thomas

Are you observing from Oklahoma?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: wannamoonbase on 01/12/2018 01:34 am
Zuma was soooooo early January.  Let's start up a Heavy conversation about something else eh?

Here here

This thread is going on longer than the ‘The moon landings were fake’ conspiracy. 

Satellites fail sometimes.  Next!
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: aero on 01/12/2018 01:42 am
hmm - just how deep is the Indian ocean where the second stage went in? Does any of our "pictures from space" providers notice any recovery activity in the area? I don't know how far the government agency would go to ensure the secrecy of the spacecraft, but maybe some others would go to great lengths to discover those secrets, ala Gomar Explorer.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: garidan on 01/12/2018 02:02 am
For comparison to a prop dump [2010] here is my ROUGH on the ground observations of Falcon-9 deorbit burnover Saudi Arabiaon Feb 19, 2017.

I've rushed these two unfinished studies out so observers can ponder their relation to the Khartoum images of the Zuma mission.
I think, if payload didn't disconnect it's weight would have made troubles to keep second stage stable on reentry. Perhaps it ended cold gas fighting this and started rotating.

Inviato dal mio MI 5 utilizzando Tapatalk

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Coastal Ron on 01/12/2018 02:59 am
I agree it's odd, but in fairness, SpaceX is the only party allowed to say anything. They are allowed to say "F9 performed nominally." OTOH, NG can't say anything, because they can't say Zuma got to orbit, and they can't say it didn't. So SpaceX's public statement is the only on-the-record quote any reporter can print.

SpaceX and Northrop Grumman are just contractors. The only party that defines what can be said is the customer, the U.S. Government. They define what their contractors can or can't say.

SpaceX obviously has been allowed to say what the results were of what they controlled, and anything more will have to come from the Pentagon.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/12/2018 03:21 am
The Zuma loss isn't just "rumors".  The reports were based on multiple sources, congressional and industry, who said they had been briefed on the failure.  We have reports of a planned congressional investigation of the failure.  The news was reported by multiple respected news organizations.  We have SpaceX telling us - emphatically - that Falcon 9 did its job.  We have no happy press releases from satellite prime contractor Northrop Grumman.  Yes, there are conflicting stories about what exactly may have happened, but the overarching conclusion of each report is the same.  Zuma failed. 

 - Ed Kyle

Careful you are not drinking from the well of misinformation and misdirection.  If the mission is as classified as some expect there would be no factual rumors/leaks.  There would be no congressional investigations because they would not be on the program orallowed any oversight.  Information would be limited to a very select few.  Any release of that information means JAIL time.  Let's get real.
Now it’s time for you to get real: plenty of classified missions are historically followed up with generic press releases thanking all involved. Many of us industry and former-industry types know that (hence Ed’s post which you quoted).

It’s fine to note the selective leaking going on, presumably to incite negative press coverage of SpaceX. But to claim that utter silence after the launch was normal is nonsense.
I mean, we knew less about this launch than many other classified payloads (like x37b) even before it launched. We don't even know the agency it is associated with, for goodness sake.

I agree that payload failure is the most likely explanation, but just because some other classified missions sent out ataboys after the launch doesn't mean that every one would. So many far weirder things have happened in the past, and the past doesn't even need to be replicated 100%. I maintain we can't know it even failed.

We just don't know and aren't likely to know for a while. I'm fine with that, but so many others are quick to jumpt to conclusions...

...just about the only thing we know with high certainty is that SpaceX and the Falcon 9 did their job.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars-J on 01/12/2018 03:23 am
Regardless, this is a pretty unique situation, it seems. Or is this in any way similar to other classified launches?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars-J on 01/12/2018 03:34 am
For comparison to a prop dump [2010] here is my ROUGH on the ground observations of Falcon-9 deorbit burnover Saudi Arabiaon Feb 19, 2017.

I've rushed these two unfinished studies out so observers can ponder their relation to the Khartoum images of the Zuma mission.
I think, if payload didn't disconnect it's weight would have made troubles to keep second stage stable on reentry. Perhaps it ended cold gas fighting this and started rotating.

Inviato dal mio MI 5 utilizzando Tapatalk

If you want to dispose of a stage during reentry, tumbling it is better.

There just isn’t enough historical footage of F9 2nd stage venting post-entry-burn to judge whether or not this one was normal or abnormal.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 01/12/2018 03:36 am
Do I have this right?
 SpaceX says F9 performed nominally.
 No other verifiable information is available because on one is discussing the payload.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Stan-1967 on 01/12/2018 03:43 am
hmm - just how deep is the Indian ocean where the second stage went in? Does any of our "pictures from space" providers notice any recovery activity in the area? I don't know how far the government agency would go to ensure the secrecy of the spacecraft, but maybe some others would go to great lengths to discover those secrets, ala Gomar Explorer.

In an assuredly & purely coincidental good fortune, there is a state of the art underwater search capability deployed very near the re-entry zone right now. 
https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2018/01/05/us-firm-ocean-infinity-seals-deal-to-resume-hunt-for-mh370/

Edit:  in an additional turn of good fortune the company "OceanInfinity", from the link,  apparently sprang into existence in March of 2017, & had their very well capitalized ship, network, & executive staff all in place, operational, & deployed to Durban/South Africa ( I love that city!) by October 2017 ( just before Zuma was first scheduled to be launched)  They were waiting out high seas common to the winter months ( while Zuma's  fairing had problems) in the southern Indian Ocean, until the week of Zuma's launch, when they apparently offered to go find MH370 for free, but then won a contract with the Malaysian government.  Apparently, from their website, this amazingly well funded company has no job experience posted on their "News" page.  ==> https://oceaninfinity.com/ocean-infinity-continue-search-missing-malaysian-airlines-flight-mh370/

Yes this all sounds like a conspiracy theory.  Sometime life just looks that way.  I still go with the theory the payload failed to separate.

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lar on 01/12/2018 04:51 am
Writer isn't happy about the reaction....

>Replying to @JRascagneres @IridiumBoss and 2 others
You’re obviously not one of the 38 people who have bothered to click through to the article.<
 
Oh boo hoo...

I have a crazy idea... if you want people (worth advertising to) to click through to your article, don't use clickbait headlines that are patently false or deliberately misleading. And when called on it, maybe consider fixing things instead of doubling down.

....just sayin...

Do I have this right?
 SpaceX says F9 performed nominally.
 No other verifiable information is available because on one that knows is discussing the payload.

Fixed it for you by adding the bolded text, but that is it in a nutshell.

The only additional nugget is that someone who has a marginally better chance of knowing whether there was a failure or not[1]  at first said there was, but then when he realised that might accidentally expose someone to Secrets Act[2] prosecution, walked it back.

1 - because he's the CEO of an important customer, who might have gotten some inadvertent hints even if there was no deliberate breach, people's facial expressions sometimes give things away
2 - or whatever it's called
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: RDMM2081 on 01/12/2018 05:07 am
More finger pointing (or a bad misdirect attempt)

http://spacenews.com/pentagon-shuts-down-questions-about-zuma-and-raises-more-questions/

Quote
So reporters at the Pentagon were shocked on Thursday when the Defense Department’s top spokesperson Dana White not only refused to comment on the apparent failure of a secret military space mission codenamed Zuma, but also told a journalist to direct his questions to SpaceX.

“I would have to refer you to SpaceX, who conducted the launch,” White told Bloomberg News reporter Tony Capaccio at a Pentagon briefing.

Caveat-quote-late, but, what types of questions could be asked of an official which would result in “questions being redirected to SpaceX”?

Not necessarily questions directly related to any actual payload (from the viewpoint of a person speaking with classified knowledge) very easy to pick a part of a question that skirts the classified part of the question and respond only to the unclassified information which is SpaceX.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lar on 01/12/2018 05:18 am
hmm - just how deep is the Indian ocean where the second stage went in? Does any of our "pictures from space" providers notice any recovery activity in the area? I don't know how far the government agency would go to ensure the secrecy of the spacecraft, but maybe some others would go to great lengths to discover those secrets, ala Gomar Explorer.

In an assuredly & purely coincidental good fortune, there is a state of the art underwater search capability deployed very near the re-entry zone right now. 
https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2018/01/05/us-firm-ocean-infinity-seals-deal-to-resume-hunt-for-mh370/

Edit:  in an additional turn of good fortune the company "OceanInfinity", from the link,  apparently sprang into existence in March of 2018, & had their very well capitalized ship, network, & executive staff all in place, operational, & deployed to Durban/South Africa ( I love that city!) by October 2018 ( just before Zuma was first scheduled to be launched)  They were waiting out high seas common to the winter months ( while Zuma's  fairing had problems) in the southern Indian Ocean, until the week of Zuma's launch, when they apparently offered to go find MH370 for free, but then won a contract with the Malaysian government.  Apparently, from their website, this amazingly well funded company has no job experience posted on their "News" page.  ==> https://oceaninfinity.com/ocean-infinity-continue-search-missing-malaysian-airlines-flight-mh370/

Yes this all sounds like a conspiracy theory.  Sometime life just looks that way.  I still go with the theory the payload failed to separate.


Bit far fetched to assume that someone funded a Glomar Explorer level enterprise and positioned them months in advance on the chance that the payload would fail to separate.

This is the kind of conspiracy theory stuff Chris is asking us not to indulge in.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: deruch on 01/12/2018 05:20 am
Pentagon shuts down questions about Zuma, and raises more questions
http://spacenews.com/pentagon-shuts-down-questions-about-zuma-and-raises-more-questions/ (http://spacenews.com/pentagon-shuts-down-questions-about-zuma-and-raises-more-questions/)

Quote
When a big-ticket military weapon development or procurement goes off the rails for any reason, the Pentagon as a rule does not deflect media questions to the contractor that the government hired to do the work.

So reporters at the Pentagon were shocked on Thursday when the Defense Department’s top spokesperson Dana White not only refused to comment on the apparent failure of a secret military space mission codenamed Zuma, but also told a journalist to direct his questions to SpaceX.

“I would have to refer you to SpaceX, who conducted the launch,” White told Bloomberg News reporter Tony Capaccio at a Pentagon briefing.

That's an odd response IMO. Why direct the question to SpaceX when everyone knows they can't talk about it?

I agree it's odd, but in fairness, SpaceX is the only party allowed to say anything. They are allowed to say "F9 performed nominally." OTOH, NG can't say anything, because they can't say Zuma got to orbit, and they can't say it didn't. So SpaceX's public statement is the only on-the-record quote any reporter can print.

What?  It was perfectly reasonable, predictable, and in fact the only possible response.  Or, I guess they could have said that they "would have to refer you to SpaceX and Northrup."  Remember that this launch was undertaken as a commercial launch by SpaceX for NG.  The end user of the payload apparently being some unidentified US Government entity.  The DoD wasn't the avowed client for the payload, so why would they suddenly take questions on it?  Doing so could be construed as an admission that it was theirs.  Something they had so far avoided. In fact, there was no avowed client beyond just "USG".  So, from the end user side there's not really anyone for reporters ask their questions.  That only leaves NG as manufacturer/contractor and SpaceX as launch provider.  So, being that this wasn't a DoD launch that's who they should redirect questions to.  Why are these reporters "shocked"?  How long have they been out of J-school?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: sherman on 01/12/2018 05:53 am
Hi all, I'm kinda new here, but I thought I may as well add my two cents..

I talked about this with my father who doesn't pay much attention to spaceflight, but is aviation mad. His immediate thought when I described the strange launch was hypersonic re-entry craft. He reckons NG have been doing a lot of R&D in this area.

Of course, this is all speculation (as others have speculated the same), and I'm not saying I agree with it, but I thought I'd share what an aviation (hobby) person thought.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars-J on 01/12/2018 06:06 am
For comparison to a prop dump [2010] here is my ROUGH on the ground observations of Falcon-9 deorbit burnover Saudi Arabiaon Feb 19, 2017.

I've rushed these two unfinished studies out so observers can ponder their relation to the Khartoum images of the Zuma mission.
I find the spin unsettling, as I mentioned many pages earlier in this thread.  I'm not sure what this means.  There was a similar observation of a spinning upper stage venting after the ascent of the very first Falcon 9, which as everyone may recall suffered a loss of roll control during its second stage ascent.

 - Ed Kyle   

Until you have a picture showing how a “normal” vent would look, the picture has little or no meaning.

And even then, for all we know, the higher altitude than most LEO flights (if this was at 900-1000km) combined with time of day at the site in question could also affect how this looks. (I.e. like the last F9 flight that wowed the LA area, the vented gassed are in sunlight while observed at dusk/night)

I mean, just looking at the Iridium 4 flight, it looked like no previous flight from the ground, so something clearly was wrong with it, right? I mean that looked like MASSIVE gas venting. That should illustrate the flawed logic.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Thomas Dorman on 01/12/2018 06:18 am
JimO
Quote
Are you observing from Oklahoma?
Yes jImO  in Oklahoma,the observation was done Wednesday night. We had a period of mostly clear skies  which surprised the hell out of us and stood out in high winds to make the observation which we saw nothing.
Regards
Thomas
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ClayJar on 01/12/2018 06:27 am
I find the spin unsettling, as I mentioned many pages earlier in this thread.  I'm not sure what this means.  There was a similar observation of a spinning upper stage venting after the ascent of the very first Falcon 9, which as everyone may recall suffered a loss of roll control during its second stage ascent.

Spiral "clouds" from venting to render expended stages passive are not a new thing.  A cursory Google search can come up with several (a couple SpaceX, a few Russian, etc.) on the first page of results, and that makes perfect sense to me.  If you've already done your reentry burn (or otherwise finished all your maneuvers), you have no need to maintain any particular orientation.  You're already done.  Finished.  Complete.

The only thing left to do is vent any pressurized tanks to space so there is no danger of catastrophic failure.  When you're headed for your final resting in pieces, why at all would you care if your vent output is not perfectly aligned with your center of mass?  If venting to render the tanks passive means you make cool spirals in the sky for a few minutes after you've completed your entire mission, call it "found art".

I do not see any reason to consider spin during the uncontrolled by definition stage passivation procedures to have any relevance to stability during the active mission.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Thomas Dorman on 01/12/2018 06:35 am
As to the spiral observed this type event was observed from a Falcon 9 launch in 2010.
Check this posted out here!
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/06/05/oh-those-falcon-ufos/#.WlhkS66nHcs
Regards Thomas
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Thomas Dorman on 01/12/2018 06:48 am
Just to throw a fly in the ointment :o is it possible that the separation of Zuma spacecraft went so bad that the Falcon 9 upper stage simply ran the Zuma spacecraft over ,hard collision, and this could explain the venting seen? Just asking!
Regards
Thomas
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 01/12/2018 06:53 am
Then the 2nd stage wouldn't be able to do the deorbit burn as planned and reenter over the planned disposal area. Yet the observed venting matches the expected period of propellan blowdown after the presumed reentry burn.

Also, upper stages usually do some kind of collision avoidance maneuver after separation so I don't see why it would make a hard collision with the payload.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: penguin44 on 01/12/2018 07:18 am
hmm - just how deep is the Indian ocean where the second stage went in? Does any of our "pictures from space" providers notice any recovery activity in the area? I don't know how far the government agency would go to ensure the secrecy of the spacecraft, but maybe some others would go to great lengths to discover those secrets, ala Gomar Explorer.

In an assuredly & purely coincidental good fortune, there is a state of the art underwater search capability deployed very near the re-entry zone right now. 
https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2018/01/05/us-firm-ocean-infinity-seals-deal-to-resume-hunt-for-mh370/

Edit:  in an additional turn of good fortune the company "OceanInfinity", from the link,  apparently sprang into existence in March of 2018, & had their very well capitalized ship, network, & executive staff all in place, operational, & deployed to Durban/South Africa ( I love that city!) by October 2018 ( just before Zuma was first scheduled to be launched)  They were waiting out high seas common to the winter months ( while Zuma's  fairing had problems) in the southern Indian Ocean, until the week of Zuma's launch, when they apparently offered to go find MH370 for free, but then won a contract with the Malaysian government.  Apparently, from their website, this amazingly well funded company has no job experience posted on their "News" page.  ==> https://oceaninfinity.com/ocean-infinity-continue-search-missing-malaysian-airlines-flight-mh370/

Yes this all sounds like a conspiracy theory.  Sometime life just looks that way.  I still go with the theory the payload failed to separate.


well considering the dates of the year are off, yeah I would not trust it either.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 01/12/2018 07:30 am

In my humble opinion, if you want to launch a satellite, put it on top of a payload adaptor built by the same people who built the rocket - and which has been used in conjunction with that rocket many times before.


Those are not built by SpaceX, but RUAG.

https://www.ruag.com/sites/default/files/2016-11/PLE-Brochure-Payload-Adapter-and-Separation-Systems.pdf (https://www.ruag.com/sites/default/files/2016-11/PLE-Brochure-Payload-Adapter-and-Separation-Systems.pdf)



That is not quite the entire story there Jim.

The two (2) standard PAF's for Falcon 9 are SpaceX in-house products. They conform to the EELV 1575 mm standard.

Additionally, for customers with 937 mm or 1194 mm clampband interfaces, SpaceX will either provide and integrate a payload adapter and clampband separation system (also built in-house) or will integrate an adapter and separation system provided by the customer. These are standard services.

Finally, as an extra, non-standard, service to their customers, SpaceX can procure almost any commercially available adapter system, as long as that system adheres to industry standards.  Falcon 9 has been made compatible with adapters provided by third parties such as RUAG and CASA.

So, to return to Jim's usual terse answer: whether or not a PAF is built by RUAG for a given mission depends on the preference of the customer. But the standard PAF's are SpaceX in-house products.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: jpo234 on 01/12/2018 07:32 am
I think this is best info we will get on that "zuma" mission I just wonder how long this twitt will be live.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Matt Desch‏ @IridiumBoss
Replying to @TomMcCuin @SpaceX @ClearanceJobs

Tom, this is a typical industry smear job on the "upstart" trying to disrupt the launch industry.  @SpaceX didn't have a failure, Northrup Grumman did.  Notice that no one in the media is interested in that story.  SpaceX will pay the price as the one some will try to bring low.
1:23 pm - 11 Jan 2018
Replying to @IridiumBoss @SpaceX @ClearanceJobs

I wasn't trying to "blame" SpaceX as much as point out how difficult this stuff is. Yes, Northrop Grumman insisted on using their connector. I get it. But the point is, even powerhouses like SpaceX and NG can have mishaps, so keep that in mind when evaluating DPRK missile tech.
0 replies . 0 retweets 0 likes
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

I have wondered even before this whether @IridiumBoss is trying to become @StarlinkBoss...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: tvg98 on 01/12/2018 07:37 am

In my humble opinion, if you want to launch a satellite, put it on top of a payload adaptor built by the same people who built the rocket - and which has been used in conjunction with that rocket many times before.


Those are not built by SpaceX, but RUAG.

https://www.ruag.com/sites/default/files/2016-11/PLE-Brochure-Payload-Adapter-and-Separation-Systems.pdf



That is not quite the entire story there Jim.

The two (2) standard PAF's for Falcon 9 are SpaceX in-house products. They conform to the EELV 1575 mm standard.

Additionally, for customers with 937 mm or 1194 mm clampband interfaces, SpaceX will either provide and integrate a payload adapter and clampband separation system (also built in-house) or will integrate an adapter and separation system chosen and provided by the customer, as a standard service.

Finally, as an extra, non-standard, service to their customers, SpaceX can procure almost any commercially available adapter system, as long as that system adheres to industry standards.  Falcon 9 has been made compatible with adapters provided by third parties such as RUAG and CASA.

In this case, would there be lots of NG personnel assisting SpaceX with integration and encapsulation of the payload? How would that compare to commercial payloads?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 01/12/2018 07:45 am
In this case, would there be lots of NG personnel assisting SpaceX with integration and encapsulation of the payload? How would that compare to commercial payloads?
Personnel of the payload provider is always present, and usually also doing final spacecraft pre- and post-encapsulation work, when the payload is encapsulated, regardless of the payload being commercial or government.

One of the few confirmed facts about Zuma is that the contractor, NG, provided the payload adapter. So, it is a safe bet that NG personnel assisted SpaceX personnel during (at least) encapsulation.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: tvg98 on 01/12/2018 07:50 am

In my humble opinion, if you want to launch a satellite, put it on top of a payload adaptor built by the same people who built the rocket - and which has been used in conjunction with that rocket many times before.


Those are not built by SpaceX, but RUAG.

https://www.ruag.com/sites/default/files/2016-11/PLE-Brochure-Payload-Adapter-and-Separation-Systems.pdf



That is not quite the entire story there Jim.

The two (2) standard PAF's for Falcon 9 are SpaceX in-house products. They conform to the EELV 1575 mm standard.

Additionally, for customers with 937 mm or 1194 mm clampband interfaces, SpaceX will either provide and integrate a payload adapter and clampband separation system (also built in-house) or will integrate an adapter and separation system chosen and provided by the customer, as a standard service.

Finally, as an extra, non-standard, service to their customers, SpaceX can procure almost any commercially available adapter system, as long as that system adheres to industry standards.  Falcon 9 has been made compatible with adapters provided by third parties such as RUAG and CASA.

In this case, would there be lots of NG personnel assisting SpaceX with integration and encapsulation of the payload? How would that compare to commercial payloads?
Personnel of the payload provider is always present, and assisting, when the payload is encapsulated, regardless of the payload being commercial or government.

Got it. I'm trying to get a picture of how involved NG was in that process as I've read that SpaceX probably doesn't really know what they launched last Sunday but I'm having a hard time believing that.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: shooter6947 on 01/12/2018 07:54 am
I mean, we knew less about this launch than many other classified payloads (like x37b) even before it launched. We don't even know the agency it is associated with, for goodness sake.

Which brings up another possibility.  Are we sure that this is a US government launch?  What if the Canadians, or the Israelis, or the Taiwanese wanted to launch a clandestine radar satellite.  Might they not hire Northrop Grumman to build and launch it for them, and to pay them extra to keep their lips sealed?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 01/12/2018 07:56 am

So why use a custom adaptor for Zuma?

<snip>

Unless, of course, the Zuma payload could not be mated to a standard payload adaptor.

You provided the most likely answer to your own question.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 01/12/2018 08:27 am
Then the 2nd stage wouldn't be able to do the deorbit burn as planned and reenter over the planned disposal area. Yet the observed venting matches the expected period of propellan blowdown after the presumed reentry burn.

Also, upper stages usually do some kind of collision avoidance maneuver after separation so I don't see why it would make a hard collision with the payload.

Emphasis mine.

Sats are nominally only deployed from the upper stage after that stage has shut down its engine. So, the stage is no longer accelerating. It's just coasting. And with it, the payload.

The payload is ejected from the adapter by imparting a small amount of delta V on the payload. Often it is springs doing this.
The result from the spring action is that the payload simply drifts away from the adapter, thus leaving the adapter (and the upper stage) behind.

De-orbit burn of the upper stage (if any) is timed to take place well after the payload has drifted to a safe distance. No collision-avoidance maneuver required given that the de-orbit burn is aimed against the direction of travel, not the direction of the ejected payload.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 01/12/2018 08:43 am
Emphasis mine.

I am well aware of all those points. However, the stage can still utilize thruster pulses for keeping the propellant settled so that will produce a net positive acceleration, without turning the stage that would be directed in the general direction of the payload. Even rotating the stage will impart some small translational movement if the stage only has one set/ring of thrusters in the aft end (i.e. not another set at the opposite end of center of mass), which I do believe is the case with F9 US. Add to that things like constant GOX venting from the MVac bleed ports even during inert coast and you can see why it would be prudent to take *some* care of where the stage ends up moving.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 01/12/2018 09:43 am
Analysts Disagree About Classified Sat Zuma’s Fate

Quote
Of this there is no doubt: At 8 p.m. on Jan. 7, a SpaceX Falcon 9 lifted off from Cape Canaveral AFS carrying a classified U.S. government payload code-named Zuma. After that, things get murky. A pilot flying over East Africa snapped pictures of the rocket’s upper stage depressurizing and venting propellant after a planned deorbit burn about 2 hr. 15 min. after launch, Marco Langbroek, a Dutch scientist and amateur satellite tracker, noted on SeeSat-L, an internet mailing list for ...

http://m.aviationweek.com/space/analysts-disagree-about-classified-sat-zuma-s-fate
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 01/12/2018 09:43 am
Emphasis mine.

I am well aware of all those points. However, the stage can still utilize thruster pulses for keeping the propellant settled so that will produce a net positive acceleration, without turning the stage that would be directed in the general direction of the payload. Even rotating the stage will impart some small translational movement if the stage only has one set/ring of thrusters in the aft end (i.e. not another set at the opposite end of center of mass), which I do believe is the case with F9 US. Add to that things like constant GOX venting from the MVac bleed ports even during inert coast and you can see why it would be prudent to take *some* care of where the stage ends up moving.

Propellant settlement is only initiated well after the payload has drifted to a safe distance.
When the payload is deployed the stage is coasting, with no active propellant settlement being executed.
Thus, propellant settlement will not be an issue with regards to the risk of impacting the payload.

Also, there is no such thing as GOX venting from MVac during payload deployment. The whole point during payload deployment is that the stage is not propulsive whatsoever. Deployment is always done from a freely drifting upper stage.
GOX venting on the F9 upper stage, after SECO, can be halted for quite a long time before you come even close to the risk of losing structural integrity.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: kevinof on 01/12/2018 09:50 am
So the only way the US could impact the payload is if the payload wasn't pushed far enough away? - ie by a failure/partial failure of the deployment mechanism. I'm assuming the stage has no idea where the payload actually is - all just down to timing and assuming everything works as normal.

..Propellant settlement is only initiated well after the payload has drifted to a safe distance.
When the payload is deployed the stage is coasting, with no active propellant settlement being executed.
Thus, propellant settlement will not be an issue with regards to the risk of impacting the payload.
..
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/12/2018 09:57 am

In my humble opinion, if you want to launch a satellite, put it on top of a payload adaptor built by the same people who built the rocket - and which has been used in conjunction with that rocket many times before.


Those are not built by SpaceX, but RUAG.

https://www.ruag.com/sites/default/files/2016-11/PLE-Brochure-Payload-Adapter-and-Separation-Systems.pdf (https://www.ruag.com/sites/default/files/2016-11/PLE-Brochure-Payload-Adapter-and-Separation-Systems.pdf)



That is not quite the entire story there Jim.

The two (2) standard PAF's for Falcon 9 are SpaceX in-house products. They conform to the EELV 1575 mm standard.

Additionally, for customers with 937 mm or 1194 mm clampband interfaces, SpaceX will either provide and integrate a payload adapter and clampband separation system (also built in-house) or will integrate an adapter and separation system provided by the customer. These are standard services.

Finally, as an extra, non-standard, service to their customers, SpaceX can procure almost any commercially available adapter system, as long as that system adheres to industry standards.  Falcon 9 has been made compatible with adapters provided by third parties such as RUAG and CASA.

So, to return to Jim's usual terse answer: whether or not a PAF is built by RUAG for a given mission depends on the preference of the customer. But the standard PAF's are SpaceX in-house products.


PAF and PSR are two separate systems.  Most use the RUAG PSRs.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/12/2018 10:04 am

In this case, would there be lots of NG personnel assisting SpaceX with integration and encapsulation of the payload? How would that compare to commercial payloads?

No different.  There wouldn't be "lots" of customer personnel.   The integration process is still the same.   Only a change in the interface.  Either way, the spacecraft is lifted onto SpaceX hardware.  With a customer provided PAF, there just is more customer hardware between the spacecraft and the SpaceX interface. 

A customer PAF doesn't really change the process.  SpaceX still has to mate something to their hardware and put the fairing around it.  The only thing that a customer provided PAF does is change who is providing the separation system.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: tvg98 on 01/12/2018 10:15 am

In this case, would there be lots of NG personnel assisting SpaceX with integration and encapsulation of the payload? How would that compare to commercial payloads?

No different.  There wouldn't be "lots" of customer personnel.   The integration process is still the same.   Only a change in the interface.  Either way, the spacecraft is lifted onto SpaceX hardware.  With a customer provided PAF, there just is more customer hardware between the spacecraft and the SpaceX interface. 

A customer PAF doesn't really change the process.  SpaceX still has to mate something to their hardware and put the fairing around it.  The only thing that a customer provided PAF does is change who is providing the separation system.

Thanks Jim.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/12/2018 10:19 am
This is the STSS Demo payload, with two spacecraft and customer supplied PAF.  The PAF is the black structure between the anodized GSE ring and the two silver spacecraft on top.

The sep system between the two spacecraft and the four posts on the PAF were provided and integrated by the spacecraft contractor.  This whole stack was integrated by the spacecraft contractor. There is a wire harness at base that would mate to a launch vehicle connector and that is when all the sep signals would pass.

Even though this was a Delta II and used on pad encapsulation, the process is the same.  From this point on, the rest of the work is done by the launch vehicle contractor.  The launch vehicle would still have an adaptor that this whole stack would be mated to and it would be by bolts and would be non separating.  Once that would be done, the fairing would be placed around the stack.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/12/2018 10:34 am
Here is a better example.

DSCOVR used a 37 inch clampband.  Something that was non standard for SpaceX.  So a PAF was procured by Spacex (anodized cone).  The DSCOVR spacecraft was mated to this small cone on stand and then the spacecraft and cone were then lifted onto the black MLI covered Spacex PAF (I think it was 62 inch bolted interface).  After which, encapsulation was performed.

The point here is to show:
a.  Spacex has to provide some form of the black PAF to interface between the spacecraft and fairing.
b.  There can be many things (i.e. spacers, dispensers, PAFs, etc) between the spacecraft and launch vehicle hardware.  It is up to an agreement (ICD) between spacecraft and LV contractors and would delineate roles and responsibilities.

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/12/2018 10:35 am
Here is a an Iridium stack for reference.  The dispenser can be spacecraft or launch vehicle provided.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 01/12/2018 10:50 am
hmm - just how deep is the Indian ocean where the second stage went in? Does any of our "pictures from space" providers notice any recovery activity in the area? I don't know how far the government agency would go to ensure the secrecy of the spacecraft, but maybe some others would go to great lengths to discover those secrets, ala Gomar Explorer.

In an assuredly & purely coincidental good fortune, there is a state of the art underwater search capability deployed very near the re-entry zone right now. 
https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2018/01/05/us-firm-ocean-infinity-seals-deal-to-resume-hunt-for-mh370/

Edit:  in an additional turn of good fortune the company "OceanInfinity", from the link,  apparently sprang into existence in March of 2018, & had their very well capitalized ship, network, & executive staff all in place, operational, & deployed to Durban/South Africa ( I love that city!) by October 2018 ( just before Zuma was first scheduled to be launched)  They were waiting out high seas common to the winter months ( while Zuma's  fairing had problems) in the southern Indian Ocean, until the week of Zuma's launch, when they apparently offered to go find MH370 for free, but then won a contract with the Malaysian government.  Apparently, from their website, this amazingly well funded company has no job experience posted on their "News" page.  ==> https://oceaninfinity.com/ocean-infinity-continue-search-missing-malaysian-airlines-flight-mh370/

Yes this all sounds like a conspiracy theory.  Sometime life just looks that way.  I still go with the theory the payload failed to separate.


First off - the whole Zuma mission, from the very beginning (of public notice) has been fascinating, and has just gotten more fascinating over time. Definitely let this thread run - why on earth (heh, maybe literally) would you want to lock it? For those annoyed with the speculation - you’ve already posted your own solution: Move on - marking this thread read is just a coupla clicks...

When I had heard about the US company Ocean Infinity getting the search contract to try to find the remains of MH370 i found it rather odd/interesting. They did kinda appear out of nowhere, were given a (I think) $70,000,000 award - a “find and get paid or no money” agreement.  Why just one company? And why put a time limit on it? (90 days I believe). They will be using eight unteathered AUVs for the search which is unique, but also - these AUVs are huge money. And the support vessel alone is probably costing tens of thousands a day to operate, if not much more. $70MM is not that large a purse, and what company has eight unteathered AUVs that can be assigned to a single mission? It just doesn’t smell right.

So add in the time and location coincidence of Zuma potentially going down in roughly the same place at the same time...

Like I said - I find Zuma captivating and am enjoying the read.

My pet peeve? When people ask the same questions over and over again. Read the damn thread - search the thread even - and see if it’s been talked about already before posting. That would go a long way towards reducing thread noise.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 01/12/2018 11:00 am
I don’t think this article has been posted yet. Name checks a few familiar residents of this very forum.

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/01/zuma-a-new-twist-on-space-radar/
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 01/12/2018 11:54 am

In my humble opinion, if you want to launch a satellite, put it on top of a payload adaptor built by the same people who built the rocket - and which has been used in conjunction with that rocket many times before.


Those are not built by SpaceX, but RUAG.

https://www.ruag.com/sites/default/files/2016-11/PLE-Brochure-Payload-Adapter-and-Separation-Systems.pdf (https://www.ruag.com/sites/default/files/2016-11/PLE-Brochure-Payload-Adapter-and-Separation-Systems.pdf)



That is not quite the entire story there Jim.

The two (2) standard PAF's for Falcon 9 are SpaceX in-house products. They conform to the EELV 1575 mm standard.

Additionally, for customers with 937 mm or 1194 mm clampband interfaces, SpaceX will either provide and integrate a payload adapter and clampband separation system (also built in-house) or will integrate an adapter and separation system provided by the customer. These are standard services.

Finally, as an extra, non-standard, service to their customers, SpaceX can procure almost any commercially available adapter system, as long as that system adheres to industry standards.  Falcon 9 has been made compatible with adapters provided by third parties such as RUAG and CASA.

So, to return to Jim's usual terse answer: whether or not a PAF is built by RUAG for a given mission depends on the preference of the customer. But the standard PAF's are SpaceX in-house products.


PAF and PSR are two separate systems.  Most use the RUAG PSRs.

Undoubtly. But your initial post suggested that the payload adapters and separation systems, standard provided by SpaceX, are built by RUAG.

That is incorrect.

Standard SpaceX-provided payload adapters and separation systems are SpaceX in-house products.

If a customer wants a non-SpaceX adapter, they have 2 choices:
1. SpaceX procures the adapter for the customer. (RUAG, CASA, or whatever the customers wants)
2. The customer supplies the adapter. (commercially available or own-design)

In case of ZUMA option number 2 applied: NG supplied the payload adapter.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: envy887 on 01/12/2018 12:44 pm
Pentagon shuts down questions about Zuma, and raises more questions
http://spacenews.com/pentagon-shuts-down-questions-about-zuma-and-raises-more-questions/ (http://spacenews.com/pentagon-shuts-down-questions-about-zuma-and-raises-more-questions/)

Quote
When a big-ticket military weapon development or procurement goes off the rails for any reason, the Pentagon as a rule does not deflect media questions to the contractor that the government hired to do the work.

So reporters at the Pentagon were shocked on Thursday when the Defense Department’s top spokesperson Dana White not only refused to comment on the apparent failure of a secret military space mission codenamed Zuma, but also told a journalist to direct his questions to SpaceX.

“I would have to refer you to SpaceX, who conducted the launch,” White told Bloomberg News reporter Tony Capaccio at a Pentagon briefing.

That's an odd response IMO. Why direct the question to SpaceX when everyone knows they can't talk about it?

If the question was about the launch, SpaceX can and has answered it: the launch was nominal.

If the question was about the mission or the payload, then redirecting to SpaceX is really odd.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 01/12/2018 12:47 pm

In my humble opinion, if you want to launch a satellite, put it on top of a payload adaptor built by the same people who built the rocket - and which has been used in conjunction with that rocket many times before.


Those are not built by SpaceX, but RUAG.

https://www.ruag.com/sites/default/files/2016-11/PLE-Brochure-Payload-Adapter-and-Separation-Systems.pdf (https://www.ruag.com/sites/default/files/2016-11/PLE-Brochure-Payload-Adapter-and-Separation-Systems.pdf)



That is not quite the entire story there Jim.

The two (2) standard PAF's for Falcon 9 are SpaceX in-house products. They conform to the EELV 1575 mm standard.

Additionally, for customers with 937 mm or 1194 mm clampband interfaces, SpaceX will either provide and integrate a payload adapter and clampband separation system (also built in-house) or will integrate an adapter and separation system provided by the customer. These are standard services.

Finally, as an extra, non-standard, service to their customers, SpaceX can procure almost any commercially available adapter system, as long as that system adheres to industry standards.  Falcon 9 has been made compatible with adapters provided by third parties such as RUAG and CASA.

So, to return to Jim's usual terse answer: whether or not a PAF is built by RUAG for a given mission depends on the preference of the customer. But the standard PAF's are SpaceX in-house products.


PAF and PSR are two separate systems.  Most use the RUAG PSRs.

Undoubtly. But your initial post suggested that the payload adapters and separation systems, standard provided by SpaceX, are built by RUAG.

That is incorrect.

Standard SpaceX-provided payload adapters and separation systems are SpaceX in-house products.

If a customer wants a non-SpaceX adapter, they have 2 choices:
1. SpaceX procures the adapter for the customer. (RUAG, CASA, or whatever the customers wants)
2. The customer supplies the adapter. (commercially available or own-design)

In case of ZUMA option number 2 applied: NG supplied the payload adapter.
This information is pulled directly from the Falcon 9 customer users guide, Section 5.1.1

http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/falcon_9_users_guide_rev_2.0.pdf
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/12/2018 01:11 pm

Standard SpaceX-provided payload adapters and separation systems are SpaceX in-house products.


That is wrong.   No where does it say SpaceX builds them.  It says they will provide one.

'For customers with 937-mm or 1194-mm (36.89 in. or 47.01 in.) clampband interface requirements, SpaceX will either provide and integrate a payload adapter and clampband separation system or will integrate an adapter and separation system chosen and provided by the customer, as a standard service.."
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 01/12/2018 01:24 pm

Standard SpaceX-provided payload adapters and separation systems are SpaceX in-house products.

That is wrong.   No where does it say SpaceX builds them.

Exactly what part of this sentence:

Quote from: SpaceX
SpaceX has experience integrating numerous commercially available and internally developed adapters and separation systems.

do you not understand? (bolding and underlining mine)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Thomas Dorman on 01/12/2018 01:36 pm
Was playing with one of the images  that Marco  Langbroek had posted on his website. Just above the spiral cloud of the fuel dump near the upper edge of the image there appears to be what could be a satellite. The issue cannot find any information on the details, specs, on the image or what type of camera or device it was shot with. If any one knows this information please would you post it. Attach a brightened image so what could be a sallete is more apparent.
Regards
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 01/12/2018 01:43 pm
Was playing with one of the images  that Marco  Langbroek had posted on his website. Just above the spiral cloud of the fuel dump near the upper edge of the image there appears to be what could be a satellite. The issue cannot find any information on the details, specs, on the image or what type of camera or device it was shot with. If any one knows this information please would you post it. Attach a brightened image so what could be a sallete is more apparent.
Regards
That appears to be a long-ish exposure. If so, then near earth (compared to a star) moving objects I think would show as a short streak instead of a point source (longer exposures would streak out stars of course due to Earth’s rotation). So I think it’s probably a star.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: hoku on 01/12/2018 01:44 pm
Here is a an Iridium stack for reference.  The dispenser can be spacecraft or launch vehicle provided.
Just to add to Jim's nice picture gallery: pictures of the Falcon9 #43 stack (with the Payload Attach Fitting on top of S2?) during one of the roll outs, and close-up of the fairing with the customer logo attached to the PAF shortly before launch.

According to the F9 User's Guide, payload+adapter and the fairing are attached in vertical position to the PAF,  and then the full assembly is rotated to horizontal for mating with the launch vehicle. Thus after any rollout/WDR without payload, the PAF must be detached from S2 for integration with the payload.

 
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jet Black on 01/12/2018 01:44 pm


If the question was about the mission or the payload, then redirecting to SpaceX is really odd.

Not as odd as you think. Remember that we don't even know which government department comissioned this satellite. We only know who they comissioned. if the Pentagon said anything about it other than redirect to SpaceX, it would imply that they know something about it which would allow people to narrow down which department was involved. They also might not know anything about it, as absurd as that sounds, but similarly not be able to tell anyone that (same reason as before). The only people who can say anything about it are SpaceX who can say "we launched it and our rocket did what we were contracted to do" and NG who can say "we built it" - it seems that is literally all anyone can say.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Mark Lattimer on 01/12/2018 01:50 pm
@Stan-1967/@Johnnyhinbos,

fascinating stuff. Sounds exactly like a Clive Cussler novel featuring the Dirk Pitt character. Dirk Pitt of...NUMA  :o

@Thomas Dorman,

I don't think so. I think that you're only looking at a star (the point of light), and a smudge in the photo adjacent to it . That picture was taken on the ground in (or near) Khartoum, Sudan, at a time when the Falcon US was a good 1,000 km south of there. The vent plume is huge, therefore you can see it. The Falcon US, at that distance, wouldn't even be the size of a pixel in that picture.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 01/12/2018 01:55 pm
@Johnnyhinbos,

fascinating stuff. Sounds exactly like a Clive Cussler novel featuring the Dirk Pitt character. Dirk Pitt of...NUMA  :o
Definitely - somewhere between NUMA and reality (Glomar Explorer).

Of course, as an author of action / adventure myself it’s hard not to go there. Luke Hawthorne, my central protagonist in “Out Of Hell’s Kitchen” has been called “Dirk Pitt in training”.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Brovane on 01/12/2018 02:12 pm


If the question was about the mission or the payload, then redirecting to SpaceX is really odd.

Not as odd as you think. Remember that we don't even know which government department comissioned this satellite. We only know who they comissioned. if the Pentagon said anything about it other than redirect to SpaceX, it would imply that they know something about it which would allow people to narrow down which department was involved. They also might not know anything about it, as absurd as that sounds, but similarly not be able to tell anyone that (same reason as before). The only people who can say anything about it are SpaceX who can say "we launched it and our rocket did what we were contracted to do" and NG who can say "we built it" - it seems that is literally all anyone can say.

I would have thought that the Pentagon would have re-directed to the Prime Contractor which was NG.  SpaceX isn't the prime contractor for Zuma. 
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: the_other_Doug on 01/12/2018 02:20 pm
People keep repeating that no one could possibly be allowed to comment on classified payloads.  I call BS on this.

I can recall several instances where classified NRO spacecraft had technical issues -- often months or years into their missions -- and such issues were in fact discussed.  The spacecraft's purpose and mission are not discussed, but the fact that they are dead in orbit, or have been used as target practice for ASAT systems, etc., has been discussed publicly.

Look -- all satellites have mechanisms to separate from their launchers.  In what way does NG stating that an NG-built separation mechanism failed compromise the secrecy of the planned mission?

How it's playing out right now, it looks like someone is first trying to point fingers at the launch provider. When SpaceX came out with strong (and apparently provable) refutation of this, then the story shifts to "Classified payload, can't discuss", even if the problem was in a system entirely separate from the spacecraft's mission.

That progression just makes it sound like NG is embarrassed at their sep mechanism failing, doesn't want to admit it, and figure they can hide it under a classified label when the failure involved a system that really, in no way, could *possibly* have anything to do with the mission, and thus can in no way be classified in and of itself.  And are waging a (currently successful) smear campaign to shift the blame onto an innocent party.  Which, if true, is not only disgusting, but needs to be punished.  Severely.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: starsilk on 01/12/2018 02:43 pm
perhaps we are seeing a corporate 'hazing' - pound on the new guy, see if he breaks? give SpaceX a bunch of cr*p for a week or so and see if they start leaking 'proof' that it wasn't their issue one way or another - see if they can keep their collective mouths shut under pressure.

not necessarily the purpose of the exercise, but someone's idea of making lemonade from lemons.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: starsilk on 01/12/2018 02:47 pm
Edit:  in an additional turn of good fortune the company "OceanInfinity", from the link,  apparently sprang into existence in March of 2018, & had their very well capitalized ship, network, & executive staff all in place, operational, & deployed to Durban/South Africa ( I love that city!) by October 2018 ( just before Zuma was first scheduled to be launched)  They were waiting out high seas common to the winter months ( while Zuma's  fairing had problems) in the southern Indian Ocean, until the week of Zuma's launch, when they apparently offered to go find MH370 for free, but then won a contract with the Malaysian government.  Apparently, from their website, this amazingly well funded company has no job experience posted on their "News" page.  ==> https://oceaninfinity.com/ocean-infinity-continue-search-missing-malaysian-airlines-flight-mh370/

on the lemonade from lemons theme... whether or not this is true, you've probably just guaranteed employment for various TLA employees for the next few months, making sure these guys AREN'T in fact looking for Zuma wreckage.

 ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: jpo234 on 01/12/2018 02:56 pm
And are waging a (currently successful) smear campaign to shift the blame onto an innocent party.  Which, if true, is not only disgusting, but needs to be punished.  Severely.

Honest question: What smear campaign?

AFAIK, all Northrop-Grumman has said is: "We can't comment.".
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jet Black on 01/12/2018 03:00 pm
And are waging a (currently successful) smear campaign to shift the blame onto an innocent party.  Which, if true, is not only disgusting, but needs to be punished.  Severely.

Honest question: What smear campaign?

AFAIK, all Northrop-Grumman has said is: "We can't comment.".

it all gets a bit speculative, but wasn't the Senator complaining about this closely attached to NG? They could wage a smear campaign through proxies. Anyway, that way leads to conspiracy theories. The available facts are very limited on this one.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: jpo234 on 01/12/2018 03:05 pm
And are waging a (currently successful) smear campaign to shift the blame onto an innocent party.  Which, if true, is not only disgusting, but needs to be punished.  Severely.

Honest question: What smear campaign?

AFAIK, all Northrop-Grumman has said is: "We can't comment.".

it all gets a bit speculative, but wasn't the Senator complaining about this closely attached to NG? They could wage a smear campaign through proxies. Anyway, that way leads to conspiracy theories. The available facts are very limited on this one.

Richard Shelby from Alabama is the patron saint of ULA. ULA is not NG.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/12/2018 03:27 pm


Richard Shelby from Alabama is the patron saint of ULA.

No, he is the partron saint of SLS and MSFC
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gonucelar on 01/12/2018 03:31 pm
Was playing with one of the images  that Marco  Langbroek had posted on his website. Just above the spiral cloud of the fuel dump near the upper edge of the image there appears to be what could be a satellite.

Probably a reflection of some cockpit light. I think it's quite pointless to analyze individual pixels on that photograph, because it wasn't exactly made through an optical quality window. There can be lots of dirt, reflections of stuff in the cockpit, reflections between window panes resulting in multiple images of the same object etc.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: su27k on 01/12/2018 03:34 pm
People keep repeating that no one could possibly be allowed to comment on classified payloads.  I call BS on this.

I can recall several instances where classified NRO spacecraft had technical issues -- often months or years into their missions -- and such issues were in fact discussed.  The spacecraft's purpose and mission are not discussed, but the fact that they are dead in orbit, or have been used as target practice for ASAT systems, etc., has been discussed publicly.

But the discussion happened much later, a history of USA-193 is on this very forum: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=5688.0, it looks like rumors of failure didn't get out until a month later, and confirmation didn't arrive until 7 months after that.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: maint1234 on 01/12/2018 03:49 pm
Time to change the thread heading to "Failure" , as without a successfull insertion into orbit , the mission has failed.
Which supplier was responsible for the failure is a matter for the suppliers to eventually reveal.
Also since its a top secret satellite , some sort of recovery effort might take place to prevent it falling into the hands of competing entities.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: old_sellsword on 01/12/2018 04:00 pm
Here is a an Iridium stack for reference.  The dispenser can be spacecraft or launch vehicle provided.
Just to add to Jim's nice picture gallery: pictures of the Falcon9 #43 stack (with the Payload Attach Fitting on top of S2?)

That’s not the PAF, that’s just a protective cover for the avionics tower on the top of S2. That’s not flight hardware, it’s just for protecting the rocket during testing.

during one of the roll outs, and close-up of the fairing with the customer logo attached to the PAF shortly before launch.

You can’t see the PAF in this picture, it’s on the inside of the fairings and S2 forward skirt (not sure what the actual term is).
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Rocket Science on 01/12/2018 04:18 pm
Time to change the thread heading to "Failure" , as without a successfull insertion into orbit , the mission has failed.
Which supplier was responsible for the failure is a matter for the suppliers to eventually reveal.
Also since its a top secret satellite , some sort of recovery effort might take place to prevent it falling into the hands of competing entities.
Falcon's mission was successful, Zuma's mission was a failure...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: intrepidpursuit on 01/12/2018 04:31 pm
It seems clear that if there even is a problem then the fault lies with Northrop Grumman. Why would NG admit fault at this stage? If there is a failure, there is no reason for anyone to know anything about it and so there is no reason to comment at least until they've gotten to the bottom of the issue.

When "officials" leak things off the record it is because they have an agenda. They don't get paid for their info like paparazzi. I would be very curious to know what officials leaked this info. Several statements from these apparently connected sources have proven wrong already (rocket never made it to orbit, second stage failed). Perhaps this sounds a little conspiratorial, but someone had a reason for framing this as a SpaceX failure.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Thomas Dorman on 01/12/2018 04:33 pm
su27k
Yep some think stuff like this can't be imaged its some how hard say like USA 193 but we did it with a little point and shoot camera. ISO 400 24 mm focal length on a 30 second exposure. See attachment. For those 24mm on this point and shoot is real zoomed in on the picture posted which looks like a wide field image the stars would only be slightly bloated and the image we posted was from the ground not a cockpit of an aircraft as gonucelar has suggested. Oh there was image shot from 747 freighter but this was not that image. Without the basic photo information not totally convinced the streak is some type of artifact!
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: DeanHFox on 01/12/2018 04:35 pm
Is it possible that the object performing the "massive spiral" venting is not the F9's second stage, but is instead the Zuma payload?  So much so that it provided enough delta-V to create a "deorbit" situation?

(I realize we don't/can't know for sure, it's just a thought that occurred to me.  Apologies if I missed it in this lengthy thread)...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: vanoord on 01/12/2018 04:49 pm
When "officials" leak things off the record it is because they have an agenda. They don't get paid for their info like paparazzi. I would be very curious to know what officials leaked this info. Several statements from these apparently connected sources have proven wrong already (rocket never made it to orbit, second stage failed). Perhaps this sounds a little conspiratorial, but someone had a reason for framing this as a SpaceX failure.

Potentially, placing stories in the media that make it appear that SpaceX are to blame could be used to promote SpaceX's competitors - so could be a motivation for politicians who have SpaceX competitors located in their state.

Otherwise, "Elon Musk's SpaceX drops a $1bn spy satellite into the ocean" will generate a lot more clicks than "unknown Northrop Grumman satellite might have an issue".

One of those statements is correct, the other is clickbait - but potentially is clickbait that was initially briefed for less-than-honest reasons.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: sevenperforce on 01/12/2018 05:08 pm
I don't see why we have any indication of a failure at all.

As for payload speculation...the one thing I can think of as a possible payload which would warrant this kind of extreme secrecy would be a test of an orbital anti-ICBM laser. After all, Northrop Grumman provided the megawatt-class laser for the 747-YAL. A Molniya orbit over DPRK would be perfect for swatting down ICBMs; no atmospheric attenuation, for example, so the optics package doesn't have to be nearly so large.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: JonathanD on 01/12/2018 05:43 pm
I don't see why we have any indication of a failure at all.

As for payload speculation...the one thing I can think of as a possible payload which would warrant this kind of extreme secrecy would be a test of an orbital anti-ICBM laser. After all, Northrop Grumman provided the megawatt-class laser for the 747-YAL. A Molniya orbit over DPRK would be perfect for swatting down ICBMs; no atmospheric attenuation, for example, so the optics package doesn't have to be nearly so large.

On the previously linked satellite site, they suggested that based upon the inclination and resulting coverage of the oceans it may have been designed to track ships smuggling weapons or nuclear material when they had their AIS turned off...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: intrepidpursuit on 01/12/2018 05:59 pm
When "officials" leak things off the record it is because they have an agenda. They don't get paid for their info like paparazzi. I would be very curious to know what officials leaked this info. Several statements from these apparently connected sources have proven wrong already (rocket never made it to orbit, second stage failed). Perhaps this sounds a little conspiratorial, but someone had a reason for framing this as a SpaceX failure.

Potentially, placing stories in the media that make it appear that SpaceX are to blame could be used to promote SpaceX's competitors - so could be a motivation for politicians who have SpaceX competitors located in their state.

Otherwise, "Elon Musk's SpaceX drops a $1bn spy satellite into the ocean" will generate a lot more clicks than "unknown Northrop Grumman satellite might have an issue".

One of those statements is correct, the other is clickbait - but potentially is clickbait that was initially briefed for less-than-honest reasons.

The fact that we aren't getting more information is perfectly normal given the secrecy of the payload, it is the fact that people leaked about a failure that is unusual. Sources were specifically quoted saying that the payload "fell out of the sky" and first said the atlantic and then said indian oceans. So the information is suspect to begin with. I'm not contending that it is deliberately inaccurate, just that transparency was not the intention of the leak.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: testguy on 01/12/2018 06:03 pm
People keep repeating that no one could possibly be allowed to comment on classified payloads.  I call BS on this.

I can recall several instances where classified NRO spacecraft had technical issues -- often months or years into their missions -- and such issues were in fact discussed.  The spacecraft's purpose and mission are not discussed, but the fact that they are dead in orbit, or have been used as target practice for ASAT systems, etc., has been discussed publicly.

Look -- all satellites have mechanisms to separate from their launchers.  In what way does NG stating that an NG-built separation mechanism failed compromise the secrecy of the planned mission?

How it's playing out right now, it looks like someone is first trying to point fingers at the launch provider. When SpaceX came out with strong (and apparently provable) refutation of this, then the story shifts to "Classified payload, can't discuss", even if the problem was in a system entirely separate from the spacecraft's mission.

That progression just makes it sound like NG is embarrassed at their sep mechanism failing, doesn't want to admit it, and figure they can hide it under a classified label when the failure involved a system that really, in no way, could *possibly* have anything to do with the mission, and thus can in no way be classified in and of itself.  And are waging a (currently successful) smear campaign to shift the blame onto an innocent party.  Which, if true, is not only disgusting, but needs to be punished.  Severely.

There are various levels of classification and they all can not be characterized with a broad brush and assumed they are all treated equally.  What can or can not be made public would be defined by the level of classification, the contractural requirements and Federal law.  The silence we are experiencing to me indicates the contractors are simply abiding by those requirements without any sinister intent.  The speculation about what did or did not happen is unfortunate.  If it were in our national interest to have more information we would have it.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 01/12/2018 06:06 pm
Time to change the thread heading to "Failure" , as without a successfull insertion into orbit , the mission has failed.
Which supplier was responsible for the failure is a matter for the suppliers to eventually reveal.
Also since its a top secret satellite , some sort of recovery effort might take place to prevent it falling into the hands of competing entities.
Falcon's mission was successful, Zuma's mission was a failure...
Less than that
You don't know that there wasn't a successful insertion into orbit.
Zuma's mission has been alleged to be a failure.
There is really no evidence to that effect, just a lot of talk by people who cannot know or say.
But it was definitely NOT a failure on the part of SpaceX.  Even the head of ULA, their competitor, has said so.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: envy887 on 01/12/2018 06:11 pm
...
You don't know that there wasn't a successful insertion into orbit.
...
But it was definitely NOT a failure on the part of SpaceX.

These are mutually exclusive. Falcon 9 reached orbit and based on SpaceX statements it was the expected orbit.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lar on 01/12/2018 06:16 pm
Here is a better example.

DSCOVR used a 37 inch clampband.  Something that was non standard for SpaceX.  So a PAF was procured by Spacex (anodized cone).  The DSCOVR spacecraft was mated to this small cone on stand and then the spacecraft and cone were then lifted onto the black MLI covered Spacex PAF (I think it was 62 inch bolted interface).  After which, encapsulation was performed.

The point here is to show:
a.  Spacex has to provide some form of the black PAF to interface between the spacecraft and fairing.
b.  There can be many things (i.e. spacers, dispensers, PAFs, etc) between the spacecraft and launch vehicle hardware.  It is up to an agreement (ICD) between spacecraft and LV contractors and would delineate roles and responsibilities.

Jim: Thanks for this additional background. I think a lot of us had been assuming that the fairing was put on the adaptor (and removed and put back on, etc) by NG so that SpaceX personnel never actually saw the payload, and it was always mated with fairing attached. It sounds like you are saying that likely is not the case, some SpaceX personnel almost certainly did see it (but of course are cleared for that level of knowledge/access and constrained to not speak about what it is). 

Is that correct?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/12/2018 06:25 pm
I don't see why we have any indication of a failure at all.

As for payload speculation...the one thing I can think of as a possible payload which would warrant this kind of extreme secrecy would be a test of an orbital anti-ICBM laser. After all, Northrop Grumman provided the megawatt-class laser for the 747-YAL. A Molniya orbit over DPRK would be perfect for swatting down ICBMs; no atmospheric attenuation, for example, so the optics package doesn't have to be nearly so large.

no, not possible.  One spacecraft isn't enough to perform the duty and the orbit is too high
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/12/2018 06:27 pm
Here is a better example.

DSCOVR used a 37 inch clampband.  Something that was non standard for SpaceX.  So a PAF was procured by Spacex (anodized cone).  The DSCOVR spacecraft was mated to this small cone on stand and then the spacecraft and cone were then lifted onto the black MLI covered Spacex PAF (I think it was 62 inch bolted interface).  After which, encapsulation was performed.

The point here is to show:
a.  Spacex has to provide some form of the black PAF to interface between the spacecraft and fairing.
b.  There can be many things (i.e. spacers, dispensers, PAFs, etc) between the spacecraft and launch vehicle hardware.  It is up to an agreement (ICD) between spacecraft and LV contractors and would delineate roles and responsibilities.

Jim: Thanks for this additional background. I think a lot of us had been assuming that the fairing was put on the adaptor (and removed and put back on, etc) by NG so that SpaceX personnel never actually saw the payload, and it was always mated with fairing attached. It sounds like you are saying that likely is not the case, some SpaceX personnel almost certainly did see it (but of course are cleared for that level of knowledge/access and constrained to not speak about what it is). 

Is that correct?

The same number of Spacex personnel that are used to encapsulate a commercial spacecraft would have been involved with encapsulating Zuma.  No difference in processes.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: envy887 on 01/12/2018 06:31 pm
Here is a better example.

DSCOVR used a 37 inch clampband.  Something that was non standard for SpaceX.  So a PAF was procured by Spacex (anodized cone).  The DSCOVR spacecraft was mated to this small cone on stand and then the spacecraft and cone were then lifted onto the black MLI covered Spacex PAF (I think it was 62 inch bolted interface).  After which, encapsulation was performed.

The point here is to show:
a.  Spacex has to provide some form of the black PAF to interface between the spacecraft and fairing.
b.  There can be many things (i.e. spacers, dispensers, PAFs, etc) between the spacecraft and launch vehicle hardware.  It is up to an agreement (ICD) between spacecraft and LV contractors and would delineate roles and responsibilities.

Jim: Thanks for this additional background. I think a lot of us had been assuming that the fairing was put on the adaptor (and removed and put back on, etc) by NG so that SpaceX personnel never actually saw the payload, and it was always mated with fairing attached. It sounds like you are saying that likely is not the case, some SpaceX personnel almost certainly did see it (but of course are cleared for that level of knowledge/access and constrained to not speak about what it is). 

Is that correct?

The same number of Spacex personnel that are used to encapsulate a commercial spacecraft would have been involved with encapsulating Zuma.  No difference in processes.

Would anyone else (NG or their subcontractor) even have the skills or equipment to handle that particular fairing and PAF for encapsulation? Seems like those would be proprietary to SpaceX.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/12/2018 06:37 pm
Here is a better example.

DSCOVR used a 37 inch clampband.  Something that was non standard for SpaceX.  So a PAF was procured by Spacex (anodized cone).  The DSCOVR spacecraft was mated to this small cone on stand and then the spacecraft and cone were then lifted onto the black MLI covered Spacex PAF (I think it was 62 inch bolted interface).  After which, encapsulation was performed.

The point here is to show:
a.  Spacex has to provide some form of the black PAF to interface between the spacecraft and fairing.
b.  There can be many things (i.e. spacers, dispensers, PAFs, etc) between the spacecraft and launch vehicle hardware.  It is up to an agreement (ICD) between spacecraft and LV contractors and would delineate roles and responsibilities.

Jim: Thanks for this additional background. I think a lot of us had been assuming that the fairing was put on the adaptor (and removed and put back on, etc) by NG so that SpaceX personnel never actually saw the payload, and it was always mated with fairing attached. It sounds like you are saying that likely is not the case, some SpaceX personnel almost certainly did see it (but of course are cleared for that level of knowledge/access and constrained to not speak about what it is). 

Is that correct?

The same number of Spacex personnel that are used to encapsulate a commercial spacecraft would have been involved with encapsulating Zuma.  No difference in processes.

Would anyone else (NG or their subcontractor) even have the skills or equipment to handle that particular fairing and PAF for encapsulation? Seems like those would be proprietary to SpaceX.

Bingo.

I don't know where the misinformation started.

The only what that would work is if the gov't owned the hardware (fairing) and gave it to another contractor to operate. 

This was done for Titan fairings, where MDAC built them but Martin "operated" them.
Lockheed also built and installed their own fairing for Hexagon.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: saliva_sweet on 01/12/2018 07:16 pm
Does the payload adapter go to internal power before launch like the payload or does the rocket supply the power? Would SpaceX have been responsible for powering the NG made adapter?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 01/12/2018 07:55 pm
I've stayed out of this discussion primarily because: a) I have no particular unique insights to share or draw attention to; b) at this point, pretty much everything known has been raised, argued over, chewed upon, spit out and the same known bits raised again; and c) I spent many years of my life arguing over stupid things that ultimately meant very little me personally and I see no need to do so again here with strangers.

I will point out, however, that there seems to be a lot of emotional investment in the success or failure of a private company that few if any of us have any personal relationship with. It's very much akin to people arguing over sports teams, political parties or favorite brands of beer.

Maybe it's time for people to take a few deep breaths, step away from the keyboard, and oh - I don't know - get a life off of the internet? :)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Basto on 01/12/2018 08:01 pm
I will point out, however, that there seems to be a lot of emotional investment in the success or failure of a private company that few if any of us have any personal relationship with. It's very much akin to people arguing over sports teams, political parties or favorite brands of beer.

Maybe it's time for people to take a few deep breaths, step away from the keyboard, and oh - I don't know - get a life off of the internet? :)

https://xkcd.com/386/

Agree. Let’s just call it a day and watch the rockets launch/sports teams play and drink the beers. After all... there is a weekend coming.



Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Elrond Cupboard on 01/12/2018 08:06 pm
I've stayed out of this discussion primarily because: a) I have no particular unique insights to share or draw attention to; b) at this point, pretty much everything known has been raised, argued over, chewed upon, spit out and the same known bits raised again; and c) I spent many years of my life arguing over stupid things that ultimately meant very little me personally and I see no need to do so again here with strangers.

I will point out, however, that there seems to be a lot of emotional investment in the success or failure of a private company that few if any of us have any personal relationship with. It's very much akin to people arguing over sports teams, political parties or favorite brands of beer.

Maybe it's time for people to take a few deep breaths, step away from the keyboard, and oh - I don't know - get a life off of the internet? :)

Very much this; this can often be a very tetchy/angry forum, and for the life of me I can't work out why.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: AC in NC on 01/12/2018 08:27 pm
I will point out, however, that there seems to be a lot of emotional investment in the success or failure of a private company that few if any of us have any personal relationship with. It's very much akin to people arguing over sports teams, political parties or favorite brands of beer.

Maybe it's time for people to take a few deep breaths, step away from the keyboard, and oh - I don't know - get a life off of the internet? :)

Point well-taken but Negatory Ghostrider.  Allow me to present the opposing case.  Humanity needs transcendent goals and purpose rather than the internecine fighting that seems to subsume everything else.  This is one.   8)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/12/2018 08:42 pm
Does the payload adapter go to internal power before launch like the payload or does the rocket supply the power? Would SpaceX have been responsible for powering the NG made adapter?

The upper stage batteries typically supply power for separation.

The payload adapter is typically just a "dumb" structure that has one end bolted to the top of the upper stage, and at the other end has a separation system on which the payload is mounted. Wiring harnesses typically run from the upper stage to the payload "through" the adapter (actually usually just run along the exterior surface of the adapter) providing communication and temporary power to the payload, plus the separation command to the sep system at the top of the adapter. Power for the sep command would come from F9 upper stage batteries.

SpaceX/F9 would have been responsible for providing the separation command through one of those harnesses running from the upper stage, "through" the adapter, to the sep system. The payload ICD would have specified what type of connector SpaceX was to provide for the sep command, as well as the electrical characteristics (voltage, duration, etc) of the command.

And as long as SpaceX can prove by telemetry that F9 provided that sep command with the correct voltage and duration at the correct time to that connector, they cannot (or at least should not) be blamed for a separation system failure.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: saliva_sweet on 01/12/2018 09:02 pm
SpaceX/F9 would have been responsible for providing the separation command

I was wondering what that separation command actually is. Is there a chip in the adapter that's listening for the command or is it a completely dumb machine? And there is a certain amount of energy that has to be spent to perform the separation. To trigger the pyrotechnics for instance. Would the power to set off the explosives come from the "sep command" or somewhere else? 
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: docmordrid on 01/12/2018 09:13 pm
Apart from the bad adapter scenario,  I  wonder about a tech demonstrator akin to the USSR experiments with BOR-4. Enter the deep sea recovery ship.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/12/2018 09:18 pm
SpaceX/F9 would have been responsible for providing the separation command

I was wondering what that separation command actually is. Is there a chip in the adapter that's listening for the command or is it a completely dumb machine? And there is a certain amount of energy that has to be spent to perform the separation. To trigger the pyrotechnics for instance. Would the power to set off the explosives come from the "sep command" or somewhere else?

For a typical Marman ring design it's a simple matter of providing a brief DC current to the small pyro initiator that breaks the tension of the clamp ring that holds the two halves of the sep system together. It's literally as simple as running two wires from your 12V car battery through a switch to the pyro device. Flip the switch, the pyro fires, and the clamp ring pops open.

It's common to use NASA Standard Initiator (NSI) pyros, which have a fairly low current requirement. I forget the exact specs, but it doesn't take much power to fire one. A  few "D" cells in series to get 12V or so would probably pop it off. Even a small 9V smoke detector battery would probably do it.

The adapter itself is usually completely dumb. The sep system has the pyro(s) mounted on/in it, and a wiring harness with the sep system connector(s) runs up to it, where the connectors interface with the pyros.

The trigger for the sep command would come from the upper stage flight computer, and power would come from the upper stage batteries.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: joek on 01/12/2018 09:23 pm
I will point out, however, that there seems to be a lot of emotional investment in the success or failure of a private company that few if any of us have any personal relationship with. It's very much akin to people arguing over sports teams, political parties or favorite brands of beer.

Some come for the player.  Some come for the team.  Some come for the game.
For me it is the game (spaceflight); teams and players come and go.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/12/2018 11:25 pm
This article from the Washington Post quotes a named United States senator Congressman seeming to confirm that Zuma was lost and raising the possibility of litigation between SpaceX and Northrop Grumman to determine who was at fault.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/lost-in-space-questions-mount-over-fate-of-secret-satellite-as-spacex-pushes-ahead/2018/01/12/c7b42cde-f729-11e7-b34a-b85626af34ef_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-cards_hp-card-national%3Ahomepage%2Fcard&utm_term=.cf994504c914

Quote
U.S. Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.), who said he received a “preliminary briefing,” had two concerns about the possible loss of the satellite.

“One is the loss of the intelligence that would have been available,” he said. “The second concern is the reliability of the delivery systems. And that issue is being debated between the contractors, SpaceX and the satellite manufacturer, Northrop.”

While he said he did not know who was to blame, he indicated that the dispute might lead to litigation. “Those two companies are going to have a long and, I suspect, very expensive discussion,” he said.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Rocket Science on 01/12/2018 11:33 pm
I will point out, however, that there seems to be a lot of emotional investment in the success or failure of a private company that few if any of us have any personal relationship with. It's very much akin to people arguing over sports teams, political parties or favorite brands of beer.

Some come for the player.  Some come for the team.  Some come for the game.
For me it is the game (spaceflight); teams and players come and go.
Some come here for the "facts" however they may fall...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Brovane on 01/12/2018 11:56 pm
This article from the Washington Post quotes a named United States senator seeming to confirm that Zuma was lost and raising the possibility of litigation between SpaceX and Northrop Grumman to determine who was at fault.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/lost-in-space-questions-mount-over-fate-of-secret-satellite-as-spacex-pushes-ahead/2018/01/12/c7b42cde-f729-11e7-b34a-b85626af34ef_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-cards_hp-card-national%3Ahomepage%2Fcard&utm_term=.cf994504c914

Quote
U.S. Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.), who said he received a “preliminary briefing,” had two concerns about the possible loss of the satellite.

“One is the loss of the intelligence that would have been available,” he said. “The second concern is the reliability of the delivery systems. And that issue is being debated between the contractors, SpaceX and the satellite manufacturer, Northrop.”

While he said he did not know who was to blame, he indicated that the dispute might lead to litigation. “Those two companies are going to have a long and, I suspect, very expensive discussion,” he said.

Would it really be worthwhile for SpaceX to litigate to recoup the final payment costs?  Assuming NG withholds the final payment because of what they perceive as launch issues.  It isn't like either one of them is liable for loss of the payload. 
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/13/2018 12:14 am
This article from the Washington Post quotes a named United States senator seeming to confirm that Zuma was lost and raising the possibility of litigation between SpaceX and Northrop Grumman to determine who was at fault.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/lost-in-space-questions-mount-over-fate-of-secret-satellite-as-spacex-pushes-ahead/2018/01/12/c7b42cde-f729-11e7-b34a-b85626af34ef_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-cards_hp-card-national%3Ahomepage%2Fcard&utm_term=.cf994504c914

Quote
U.S. Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.), who said he received a “preliminary briefing,” had two concerns about the possible loss of the satellite.

“One is the loss of the intelligence that would have been available,” he said. “The second concern is the reliability of the delivery systems. And that issue is being debated between the contractors, SpaceX and the satellite manufacturer, Northrop.”

While he said he did not know who was to blame, he indicated that the dispute might lead to litigation. “Those two companies are going to have a long and, I suspect, very expensive discussion,” he said.

Would it really be worthwhile for SpaceX to litigate to recoup the final payment costs?  Assuming NG withholds the final payment because of what they perceive as launch issues.  It isn't like either one of them is liable for loss of the payload.

I don't know how the classified world works, but on NASA programs like interplanetary missions, the Gov't is the customer for both the payload and the launch vehicle. So the payload provider does not have a subcontract with the launch vehicle; the Gov't has separate contracts with each entity.

I would suspect the same arrangement in this case, ie both NG and SpaceX would have separate contracts with the Gov't. Then it comes down to the terms of each contract, and how each company is paid depending on success, and what the mission success criteria were. If that is so, the legal disputes would be between SpaceX and the Gov't, and NG and the Gov't, each trying to prove that they met their contractual obligations for "mission success".

So I'm not convinced the Senator quoted even knows what the actual contract structures were.

And I'm not convinced it will require a "long, expensive discussion." SpaceX will have been smart enough to record telemetry for every F9 mission requirement, including separation command, and the telemetry will show that either F9 met all its requirements or it didn't. Based on SpaceX's emphatic statements, I expect the telemetry to show that it did.

If it was in fact a separation failure, NG is going to have a hard time deflecting responsibility. They provided the sep system, and SpaceX should only need to show they delivered the separation command, which should be easily proven by telemetry.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 01/13/2018 12:31 am
Rep. <> Senator
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/13/2018 12:34 am
Rep. <> Senator

Oops, meant Congressman!
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: psionedge on 01/13/2018 12:41 am
This article from the Washington Post quotes a named United States senator seeming to confirm that Zuma was lost and raising the possibility of litigation between SpaceX and Northrop Grumman to determine who was at fault.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/lost-in-space-questions-mount-over-fate-of-secret-satellite-as-spacex-pushes-ahead/2018/01/12/c7b42cde-f729-11e7-b34a-b85626af34ef_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-cards_hp-card-national%3Ahomepage%2Fcard&utm_term=.cf994504c914

Quote
U.S. Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.), who said he received a “preliminary briefing,” had two concerns about the possible loss of the satellite.

“One is the loss of the intelligence that would have been available,” he said. “The second concern is the reliability of the delivery systems. And that issue is being debated between the contractors, SpaceX and the satellite manufacturer, Northrop.”

While he said he did not know who was to blame, he indicated that the dispute might lead to litigation. “Those two companies are going to have a long and, I suspect, very expensive discussion,” he said.

Would it really be worthwhile for SpaceX to litigate to recoup the final payment costs?  Assuming NG withholds the final payment because of what they perceive as launch issues.  It isn't like either one of them is liable for loss of the payload.

I don't know how the classified world works, but on NASA programs like interplanetary missions, the Gov't is the customer for both the payload and the launch vehicle. So the payload provider does not have a subcontract with the launch vehicle; the Gov't has separate contracts with each entity.

I would suspect the same arrangement in this case, ie both NG and SpaceX would have separate contracts with the Gov't. Then it comes down to the terms of each contract, and how each company is paid depending on success, and what the mission success criteria were. If that is so, the legal disputes would be between SpaceX and the Gov't, and NG and the Gov't, each trying to prove that they met their contractual obligations for "mission success".

So I'm not convinced the Senator quoted even knows what the actual contract structures were.

And I'm not convinced it will require a "long, expensive discussion." SpaceX will have been smart enough to record telemetry for every F9 mission requirement, including separation command, and the telemetry will show that either F9 met all its requirements or it didn't. Based on SpaceX's emphatic statements, I expect the telemetry to show that it did.

If it was in fact a separation failure, NG is going to have a hard time deflecting responsibility. They provided the sep system, and SpaceX should only need to show they delivered the separation command, which should be easily proven by telemetry.

It has been previously established that NG purchased the launch, not their unnamed customer.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/13/2018 12:50 am
Quote
It has been previously established that NG purchased the launch, not their unnamed customer.

Thanks, I hadn't seen that. Then it comes down to how the contract between NG and SpaceX was written and what the mission success criteria were. I still expect SpaceX to have been smart enough to record all relevant telemetry, in which case a court of law shouldn't have a hard time determining whether SpaceX did or did not meet their contractual obligations.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Nomadd on 01/13/2018 01:03 am
 Hopefully, the two companies will cooperate, since that's the best way to track this down. Test duplicate circuitry to the point of actually detonating the pyros if they didn't go that far before launch, or something like that. A duplicate payload adapter would be handy.
 Or just let the completely objective, technically savvy, wise beyond measure politicians decide.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: johnx98374 on 01/13/2018 01:16 am
SpaceX/F9 would have been responsible for providing the separation command

I was wondering what that separation command actually is. Is there a chip in the adapter that's listening for the command or is it a completely dumb machine? And there is a certain amount of energy that has to be spent to perform the separation. To trigger the pyrotechnics for instance. Would the power to set off the explosives come from the "sep command" or somewhere else?

For a typical Marman ring design it's a simple matter of providing a brief DC current to the small pyro initiator that breaks the tension of the clamp ring that holds the two halves of the sep system together. It's literally as simple as running two wires from your 12V car battery through a switch to the pyro device. Flip the switch, the pyro fires, and the clamp ring pops open.

It's common to use NASA Standard Initiator (NSI) pyros, which have a fairly low current requirement. I forget the exact specs, but it doesn't take much power to fire one. A  few "D" cells in series to get 12V or so would probably pop it off. Even a small 9V smoke detector battery would probably do it.

The adapter itself is usually completely dumb. The sep system has the pyro(s) mounted on/in it, and a wiring harness with the sep system connector(s) runs up to it, where the connectors interface with the pyros.

The trigger for the sep command would come from the upper stage flight computer, and power would come from the upper stage batteries.

The sep system is not as trivial as you seem to make it out to be.  It takes a lot of design effort and hardware to create a system that will fire when you want and NOT fire when you don't want -- even when you could have inadvertent fire commands due to things like cosmic ray single event upsets. 
By design, initiators like the NASA Standard Initiator require a LOT of current to fire.  I doubt a 9V smoke detector battery would have a chance.           
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/13/2018 01:20 am
Hopefully, the two companies will cooperate, since that's the best way to track this down. Test duplicate circuitry to the point of actually detonating the pyros if they didn't go that far before launch, or something like that. A duplicate payload adapter would be handy.
 Or just let the completely objective, technically savvy, wise beyond measure politicians decide.

There are two different questions:

1. Did F9 meet contractual performance requirements, and
2. What was the root cause of the failure.

If it comes to a legal dispute about whether or not SpaceX gets paid for mission success, #1 is all that SpaceX cares about proving in court, and the root cause of failure (if it was on NG's side) is irrelevant.

As for #2, SpaceX can show NG the F9 telemetry (presumably) showing the sep command reached the specified connector. Beyond that, there may not be much more SpaceX can do to help. If it was in fact a sep system failure, NG owned that and SpaceX will have no insight into its design, manufacture, or test.

In the case of the Taurus fairing separation failures, the root cause was not able to be pinned down after the first failure, and it happened a second time. It recently came to light that an aerospace metals supplier had been falsifying their materials certifications, some of which may have been responsible for the Taurus sep system failure. So it took 10+ years for the potential root cause of those failures to come to light.

Cases like that don't bode well for finding a root cause of the Zuma failure.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: LouScheffer on 01/13/2018 01:22 am
I'd like to revisit the question of why NG built the payload adapter.  As Jim and others have pointed out, SpaceX, Ruag, and others build lots of assorted adapters, already flight proven.   So why build a custom one?  Some potential reasons:

(a) Payload needs unusual support, not the usual ring.   As folks have suggested, a spaceplane or reentry vehicle (or even a Tesla roadster) would require this.

(b) Payload is in several parts.  This is why Iridium uses a custom PAF, for example.

Or perhaps the adapter actually does something in addition to physical support?

(c) Vibration or electrical isolation.  Spacecraft does not need this once in orbit, so put this on the adapter.

(d) Adapter provides some service needed on the ground, but not needed once in orbit (vacuum, cryo, etc).   This way, they would only need electricity (and maybe cool air) to the adapter (which stock fairings can probably do) as opposed to a custom fairing with vacuum/cryo/etc connections.  This would dramatically ease post-encapsulation operations, as the payload would not need special services on the transport, on the launch tower, etc.  It also might require some specialized separation hardware, to cut and seal non-electrical connections.

(e) Adapter has a mechanism to keep the payload vertical at all times.  Allows vertical integration features with horizontal encapsulation.

(f) Cost savings- they are trying to be more vertically integrated (just kidding).  In practice, option (d) could lower costs by use of a standard fairing.

(g) More responsive.  If they could put some special services onto the adapter as in (d), they could avoid requiring any special launch facilities or special fairings.   Then they could use SpaceX, ULA, or Blue, any launch pad, whoever can be ready first.

These are the potential reasons I've come up with so far.  I'd be interested in any other possibilities....

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/13/2018 01:26 am
The payload does not fit on standard adaptors
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Thomas Dorman on 01/13/2018 01:31 am
Instead of being just an armchair quarterback after the fact ;) we did make the effort again to go out and see if we could locate Zuma spacecraft on orbit. Zuma satellite observation negative! Was out way before the pass and after had the camera ready also had our 15x70 binoculars and attempted a plane search above and below the forecasted track. Watched until we thought the binoculars were going to freeze to our eyes but sadly did not observe a pass of the Zuma satellite for what it is worth!
Regards
Thomas
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/13/2018 01:32 am
The sep system is not as trivial as you seem to make it out to be.  It takes a lot of design effort and hardware to create a system that will fire when you want and NOT fire when you don't want -- even when you could have inadvertent fire commands due to things like cosmic ray single event upsets. 
By design, initiators like the NASA Standard Initiator require a LOT of current to fire.  I doubt a 9V smoke detector battery would have a chance.         

Yes, I understand the complexities of upper stage design, having done systems engineering on Transfer Orbit Stage. My car battery analogy was for simplicity of explanation. No one wants to read a lengthy essay about how pyro controllers are actually designed.

As I said, I don't remember the NSI specs. I do recall it is required to meet a 1 watt/1 amp no-fire test for 5  minutes. But whatever the voltage required to fire it, I'm pretty sure F9 had enough batteries. ( IIRC, Transfer Orbit Stage had 24 volt buses powering the pyro initiation controllers.)

But that isn't the question. The question is simply, did F9 provide the correct separation command at the correct time, and that is, in fact, a simple question to answer by looking at the telemetry. There will have been an ICD requirement for a certain voltage for a certain duration at the connectors to the sep system pyros, and F9 either did or did not provide it, and the telemetry will show it.

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 01/13/2018 01:37 am
I'd like to revisit the question of why NG built the payload adapter.  As Jim and others have pointed out, SpaceX, Ruag, and others build lots of assorted adapters, already flight proven.   So why build a custom one?  Some potential reasons:

...

These are the potential reasons I've come up with so far.  I'd be interested in any other possibilities....

High density of aggregate/secondary payloads in volume of fairing otherwise unsuitable

Special non-conflicting release of unique payload geometries

Chemical isolation (ground humidity/high atmospheric ions)

Large optical systems / deployment

Large antennas/booms/other that wouldn't work with standard adapters

Excessive mass/distributions that are out of spec with standard adapters
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 01/13/2018 01:52 am
Instead of being just an armchair quarterback after the fact ;) we did make the effort again to go out and see if we could locate Zuma spacecraft on orbit. Zuma satellite observation negative! Was out way before the pass and after had the camera ready also had our 15x70 binoculars and attempted a plane search above and below the forecasted track. Watched until we thought the binoculars were going to freeze to our eyes but sadly did not observe a pass of the Zuma satellite for what it is worth!
Regards
Thomas

I thought the satellite was not predicted to show up in twlight in the Northern Hemisphere until a few days from now?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Thomas Dorman on 01/13/2018 01:54 am
What are the chance that the problem was cause because there was a second unannounced payload on board which caused a separation failure? The failure was between the two passengers and not the luanch vehicle. Just asking, just thinking outside the box!
Regards
Thomas
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Thomas Dorman on 01/13/2018 02:04 am
Galactic Penguin SS
Quote
I thought the satellite was not predicted to show up in twlight in the Northern Hemisphere until a few days from now?
That what Marco claimed but when we plug in his last two sets of Tle's our satellite program has given us passes here every night since his last updated Tle's. To Marco's statement took it under consideration and went back an rechecked all of our set up in our satellite program and everything is set correct! Believe on that point Marco was mistaken! Willing to post Tle's used in addition screen shots of the predicted passes for our location to back up what we are saying if others believe it is so needed!
Regards
Thomas
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: deruch on 01/13/2018 02:09 am
Galactic Penguin SS
Quote
I thought the satellite was not predicted to show up in twlight in the Northern Hemisphere until a few days from now?
That what Marco claimed but when we plug in his last two sets of Tle's our satellite program has given us passes here every night since his last updated Tle's. To Marco's statement took it under consideration and went back an rechecked all of our set up in our satellite program and everything is set correct! Believe on that point Marco was mistaken! Willing to post Tle's used in addition screen shots of the predicted passes for our location to back up what we are saying if others believe it is so needed!
Regards
Thomas

Does that take into account the "new" adjustment to expected satellite altitude?  IIRC, his first expectations were that it would be orbiting ~400km but observations from the reentry of the upper stage point to a higher orbit. 
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Thomas Dorman on 01/13/2018 02:16 am
deruch
Quote
Does that take into account the "new" adjustment to expected satellite altitude?  IIRC, his first expectations were that it would be orbiting ~400km but observations from the reentry of the upper stage point to a higher orbit.
Yes that is why we are looking way on either side of the predicted passes and doing plane search!
Regards
Thomas
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: su27k on 01/13/2018 02:23 am
But that isn't the question. The question is simply, did F9 provide the correct separation command at the correct time, and that is, in fact, a simple question to answer by looking at the telemetry. There will have been an ICD requirement for a certain voltage for a certain duration at the connectors to the sep system pyros, and F9 either did or did not provide it, and the telemetry will show it.

But if it's that simple, what is SX and NG arguing about? Seems too straight forward to be fighting over.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: archae86 on 01/13/2018 02:26 am
By design, initiators like the NASA Standard Initiator require a LOT of current to fire.  I doubt a 9V smoke detector battery would have a chance.         
Terminal resistance 1.05 ohm
1 Ampere never fire
3.5 Ampere always fire

Class exercise depending on the rest of the system.  But it really is not so very difficult to send 3.5 Amperes through an ohm or two.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Thomas Dorman on 01/13/2018 02:30 am
Here is the Tle's that Marco last posted on Zuma satellite.
Zuma                                                     895 x 905 km
1 70000U 18999A   18008.04166667  .00000000  00000-0  00000-0 0    09
2 70000 050.0006 016.6385 0006870 048.9951 328.2490 13.98210309    00

Zuma                                                    995 x 1005 km
1 70001U 18999A   18008.04166667  .00000000  00000-0  00000-0 0    00
2 70001 050.0003 016.6517 0006777 048.9870 328.8923 13.69880760    00
Have attached the screen shot of predicted passes for our location for tomorrow night and will try one more time with our 100mm rich field telescope which we can get more than a five degree field with a low power eyepiece and do another plane search.
Regards
Thomas
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: AC in NC on 01/13/2018 02:32 am
But that isn't the question. The question is simply, did F9 provide the correct separation command at the correct time, and that is, in fact, a simple question to answer by looking at the telemetry. There will have been an ICD requirement for a certain voltage for a certain duration at the connectors to the sep system pyros, and F9 either did or did not provide it, and the telemetry will show it.

But if it's that simple, what is SX and NG arguing about? Seems too straight forward to be fighting over.

Did I miss something?  I don't think they are arguing.  SpaceX is asserting nominal performance and NG has no comment.  The lawsuit nonsense was from one of the Carnival Barkers we call Congressmen.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 01/13/2018 02:40 am
deruch
Quote
Does that take into account the "new" adjustment to expected satellite altitude?  IIRC, his first expectations were that it would be orbiting ~400km but observations from the reentry of the upper stage point to a higher orbit.
Yes that is why we are looking way on either side of the predicted passes and doing plane search!
Regards
Thomas
If memory serves, you are observing from much further south (didn't you post Oklahoma) than Marco and SeeSat's most active observers. Marco's favorable lighting predictions are for people further north, like the Netherlands and Toronto. Different geometry... Zima if in orbit crosses the terminator twice an orbit. Someone is under it, the issue is if they have the time and desire to search for it.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/13/2018 02:41 am
But that isn't the question. The question is simply, did F9 provide the correct separation command at the correct time, and that is, in fact, a simple question to answer by looking at the telemetry. There will have been an ICD requirement for a certain voltage for a certain duration at the connectors to the sep system pyros, and F9 either did or did not provide it, and the telemetry will show it.

But if it's that simple, what is SX and NG arguing about? Seems too straight forward to be fighting over.

We don't know anything about what's going on behind doors. We don't even know what the failure mode was. But if it is indeed a separation failure, SpaceX has the upper hand in the argument, because all they need to do is show the telemetry that proves they met all the ICD requirements at the payload interface, for separation commands, etc.  IMO, that should not be difficult because SpaceX will have a ton of telemetry showing (they claim) F9 worked as required.

So my "it's as easy as..."  comment was maybe too glib, but hopeful that SpaceX should be able to prove F9 worked as required.

NG will have a harder time proving their innocence, because they supplied the sep system that may have failed. And sep system failures can be difficult to trace back to root cause (see Taurus fairing sep system failures).

So determining the root cause of the failure may not be so easy. But SpaceX, if they have enough telemetry, may be able to absolve themselves without too much difficulty.

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/13/2018 02:44 am
By design, initiators like the NASA Standard Initiator require a LOT of current to fire.  I doubt a 9V smoke detector battery would have a chance.         
Terminal resistance 1.05 ohm
1 Ampere never fire
3.5 Ampere always fire

Class exercise depending on the rest of the system.  But it really is not so very difficult to send 3.5 Amperes through an ohm or two.

I think my 9V battery wins.  ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 01/13/2018 02:51 am
By design, initiators like the NASA Standard Initiator require a LOT of current to fire.  I doubt a 9V smoke detector battery would have a chance.         
Terminal resistance 1.05 ohm
1 Ampere never fire
3.5 Ampere always fire

Class exercise depending on the rest of the system.  But it really is not so very difficult to send 3.5 Amperes through an ohm or two.

I think my 9V battery wins.  ;)

Your assuming your 9v smoke detector battery is acting as an ideal voltage source and can provide 8.57 Amps without collapsing... That's, what 77w out of a smoking hot smoke detector battery?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/13/2018 02:58 am
By design, initiators like the NASA Standard Initiator require a LOT of current to fire.  I doubt a 9V smoke detector battery would have a chance.         
Terminal resistance 1.05 ohm
1 Ampere never fire
3.5 Ampere always fire

Class exercise depending on the rest of the system.  But it really is not so very difficult to send 3.5 Amperes through an ohm or two.

I think my 9V battery wins.  ;)

Your assuming your 9v smoke detector battery is acting as an ideal voltage source and can provide 8.57 Amps without collapsing... That's, what 77w out of a smoking hot smoke detector battery?

Conceded. My 12V car battery example was probably OK, smoke detector battery dubious. But you only need the 3.5 amps for a brief zap.

Anyway, a bit OT.  F9 upper stage has enough battery power to  run the entire avionics system for several hours, and the amount of power needed to fire a typical sep system pyro is a drop in the bucket.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lee Jay on 01/13/2018 03:04 am
By design, initiators like the NASA Standard Initiator require a LOT of current to fire.  I doubt a 9V smoke detector battery would have a chance.         
Terminal resistance 1.05 ohm
1 Ampere never fire
3.5 Ampere always fire

Class exercise depending on the rest of the system.  But it really is not so very difficult to send 3.5 Amperes through an ohm or two.

I think my 9V battery wins.  ;)

Your assuming your 9v smoke detector battery is acting as an ideal voltage source and can provide 8.57 Amps without collapsing... That's, what 77w out of a smoking hot smoke detector battery?

An alkaline 9V won't produce 3.5A, even across a dead short.  Series impedance 3.05 Ohms:

https://d2ei442zrkqy2u.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/MN1604_6LP3146_US_CT1.pdf

"Discharging above 120 milliamps (mA) may activate the built-in safety mechanism."

http://data.energizer.com/pdfs/l522mj.pdf

On the other hand, my 11.1V lithium-polymer batteries that I use in my model airplanes can sustain 231A for 30 seconds.  That'll do it!
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Thomas Dorman on 01/13/2018 03:05 am
kevin-rf
We are getting real good predicted high passes here  with good phase angels should make no difference if you are more North or South with passes like these. These observations are coming at or just passed the end of astronomical twilight for our location so this is pretty good for chances to see this satellite if it's in orbit! Believe now it getting to be a pretty big if to the point of not!
Regards
Thomas
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: johnx98374 on 01/13/2018 03:10 am
By design, initiators like the NASA Standard Initiator require a LOT of current to fire.  I doubt a 9V smoke detector battery would have a chance.         
Terminal resistance 1.05 ohm
1 Ampere never fire
3.5 Ampere always fire

Class exercise depending on the rest of the system.  But it really is not so very difficult to send 3.5 Amperes through an ohm or two.

That's usually the first thought.   
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: sewebster on 01/13/2018 03:41 am
Is the Wired article the only source for "NG built their own PAF"?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Roy_H on 01/13/2018 04:37 am
SpaceX/F9 would have been responsible for providing the separation command

I was wondering what that separation command actually is. Is there a chip in the adapter that's listening for the command or is it a completely dumb machine? And there is a certain amount of energy that has to be spent to perform the separation. To trigger the pyrotechnics for instance. Would the power to set off the explosives come from the "sep command" or somewhere else?

For a typical Marman ring design it's a simple matter of providing a brief DC current to the small pyro initiator that breaks the tension of the clamp ring that holds the two halves of the sep system together. It's literally as simple as running two wires from your 12V car battery through a switch to the pyro device. Flip the switch, the pyro fires, and the clamp ring pops open.

It's common to use NASA Standard Initiator (NSI) pyros, which have a fairly low current requirement. I forget the exact specs, but it doesn't take much power to fire one. A  few "D" cells in series to get 12V or so would probably pop it off. Even a small 9V smoke detector battery would probably do it.

The adapter itself is usually completely dumb. The sep system has the pyro(s) mounted on/in it, and a wiring harness with the sep system connector(s) runs up to it, where the connectors interface with the pyros.

The trigger for the sep command would come from the upper stage flight computer, and power would come from the upper stage batteries.
Thankyou for the detailed description. But surely there is a feedback to verify a) voltage was applied, and b) separation occurred?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/13/2018 04:47 am
Thankyou for the detailed description. But surely there is a feedback to verify a) voltage was applied, and b) separation occurred?

Yes, SpaceX will likely have telemetry showing the separation command was present at the interface with NG's hardware. How separation is indicated depends on NG's separation system design. It could be via microswitch or breakwire.

When I said the payload adapter is "dumb" I meant it typically does not have its own power or logic. It's usually  just structure with wiring harnesses and separation system(s) mounted on it.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: yokem55 on 01/13/2018 05:00 am
SpaceX/F9 would have been responsible for providing the separation command

I was wondering what that separation command actually is. Is there a chip in the adapter that's listening for the command or is it a completely dumb machine? And there is a certain amount of energy that has to be spent to perform the separation. To trigger the pyrotechnics for instance. Would the power to set off the explosives come from the "sep command" or somewhere else?

For a typical Marman ring design it's a simple matter of providing a brief DC current to the small pyro initiator that breaks the tension of the clamp ring that holds the two halves of the sep system together. It's literally as simple as running two wires from your 12V car battery through a switch to the pyro device. Flip the switch, the pyro fires, and the clamp ring pops open.

It's common to use NASA Standard Initiator (NSI) pyros, which have a fairly low current requirement. I forget the exact specs, but it doesn't take much power to fire one. A  few "D" cells in series to get 12V or so would probably pop it off. Even a small 9V smoke detector battery would probably do it.

The adapter itself is usually completely dumb. The sep system has the pyro(s) mounted on/in it, and a wiring harness with the sep system connector(s) runs up to it, where the connectors interface with the pyros.

The trigger for the sep command would come from the upper stage flight computer, and power would come from the upper stage batteries.
Is there an arming sequence for the pyros that happens after launch but before the planned separation time? Or are they ready to fire from encapsulation onwards?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: speedevil on 01/13/2018 05:19 am
An alkaline 9V won't produce 3.5A, even across a dead short.  Series impedance 3.05 Ohms:

https://d2ei442zrkqy2u.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/MN1604_6LP3146_US_CT1.pdf

Only answering as I happened to look this up for my new fire alarm battery (pp3) I installed today.
Ultralife u9vl-j-p. Pulse capability is given as 1A, but short circuit graph in the datasheet gives it as 3.5A.
It's likely to produce >2A into 1 ohm, and might even reliably fire it. Certainly not remotely safe.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/13/2018 05:29 am
But that isn't the question. The question is simply, did F9 provide the correct separation command at the correct time, and that is, in fact, a simple question to answer by looking at the telemetry. There will have been an ICD requirement for a certain voltage for a certain duration at the connectors to the sep system pyros, and F9 either did or did not provide it, and the telemetry will show it.

But if it's that simple, what is SX and NG arguing about? Seems too straight forward to be fighting over.

Did I miss something?  I don't think they are arguing.  SpaceX is asserting nominal performance and NG has no comment.  The lawsuit nonsense was from one of the Carnival Barkers we call Congressmen.
Yup. That and some particularly dishonest media (*ahem* Andy Pasztor).
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: dorkmo on 01/13/2018 05:33 am
i know we're shooting in the dark, but i wonder if the launch delay could have had something to do with the separation system.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/13/2018 05:46 am
Quote
Is there an arming sequence for the pyros that happens after launch but before the planned separation time? Or are they ready to fire from encapsulation onwards?

It's not an arming sequence in the sense of rotating an electromechanical safe/arm device like on the FTS. It's more like an electrical sequence of charging up the pyro firing capacitors, removing the appropriate electrical "inhibits" that prevent accidental firing (like closing open switches), and waiting for the flight computer to send the sep command.

The pyros themselves would fire any time sufficient voltage/current reaches their pins, so for safety the avionics system is typically designed to incorporate multiple inhibits (breaks in the circuit, basically), and the sequential removal of the inhibits at the appropriate time during flight functions in much the same way as an "arming sequence" would.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/13/2018 05:51 am
An alkaline 9V won't produce 3.5A, even across a dead short.  Series impedance 3.05 Ohms:

https://d2ei442zrkqy2u.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/MN1604_6LP3146_US_CT1.pdf

Only answering as I happened to look this up for my new fire alarm battery (pp3) I installed today.
Ultralife u9vl-j-p. Pulse capability is given as 1A, but short circuit graph in the datasheet gives it as 3.5A.
It's likely to produce >2A into 1 ohm, and might even reliably fire it. Certainly not remotely safe.

One NASA paper I just looked up quoted 40 miliJoules as sufficient energy, if delivered fast enough, to fire a NSI. And a 3.5 amp current across the 1-ohm bridgewire will fire it in 10 msec, so it doesn't take much.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: yokem55 on 01/13/2018 06:06 am
My gut feeling on the situation, if the litigation rumor is right, is that it comes down to a (mis) interpretation of an interface specification. Party A has assumptions about how the interface is designed and behaves, Party B has different assumptions. The result is that the interface misbehaves and fails with both parties pointing their fingers at each other.

Party A says our interface did exactly what we always said that it would. Party B says, no, when you said that, we understood you as saying that it would do it this other way that we've always understood that description of behavior as meaning.

Both parties think the other is crazy and/or incompetent.

Normally these things get shaken out in testing. But I could see a non-repeatably testable component (say a pyro fired separation mechanism) in a highly secretive environment, be 'tested' in a manner not true to flight with poor assumptions that work for the test but fail in flight.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: jded on 01/13/2018 08:06 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/13/2018 12:44 pm
My gut feeling on the situation, if the litigation rumor is right, is that it comes down to a (mis) interpretation of an interface specification. Party A has assumptions about how the interface is designed and behaves, Party B has different assumptions. The result is that the interface misbehaves and fails with both parties pointing their fingers at each other.

(snip)

Normally these things get shaken out in testing. But I could see a non-repeatably testable component (say a pyro fired separation mechanism) in a highly secretive environment, be 'tested' in a manner not true to flight with poor assumptions that work for the test but fail in flight.

That's pretty much exactly what happened on the TOS/ACTS Shuttle separation anomaly in 1993. The Super*Zip separation system supplied by a subcontractor had 2 primary detonators and 2 backup detonators. The Lockheed Martin-designed firing system was supposed to fire the Primary A and Backup A detonators at each end of the primary detonating cord, leaving the backup "B" detonators and backup det cord intact in case the "A" string failed.

Instead, it mistakenly fired Primary A and Primary B detonators simultaneously, causing both the primary and backup det cords to fire, rupturing the containment tube inside the Super*Zip and separating the upper stage stack from the cargo bay with unexpected vigor and some shrapnel.

The electrical part of the firing system had been tested numerous times on the ground, but because of the complexity of the interface (4 electrical connectors of 2 different types interfacing with separation hardware that Lockhhed Martin was unfamiliar with and could not test end-to-end because of the pyros, the error was never caught on the ground, despite numerous design reviews, functional tests, and Shuttle safety reviews that focused particularly on pyro events.

The payload did deploy successfully, but it was an embarrassing mistake by the contractor that received much unwanted attention from NASA, since it happened in the Shuttle cargo bay.

In cases like these, there will be interface control drawings/documents (ICD's) that detail responsiblities for the two parties/components on opposite sides of the interface, as well as component specifications describing how each component functions, its required inputs/outputs, etc. Usually these are sufficient to prevent such errors. But if there is any ambiguity in the ICD such that one party can interpret it one way, and the other party interpret it another way, and the interface is not testable end-to-end on the ground, errors like the above can slip through.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/13/2018 12:54 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 01/13/2018 02:11 pm
With classified payloads are there closeout photos? If so, I wonder if they’d be telling in this instance...?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: dchill on 01/13/2018 02:55 pm

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.

Speaking of RF and ordnance, aren't there possible effects on ordnance due to just being exposed to RF?  (For anyone that hasn't heard of ths, searching on google for "HERO unreliable ordnance" gives info like "HERO Unreliable ordnance is any object whose performance is degraded due to exposure to an RF environment.")

Is it possible that SpaceX employees using cell phones within 10 meters of the ordnance during ground processing could have degraded it, or possibly the F9's RF in flight or during ground processing, given that we (and possibly they) don't know what sep ordnance was being used?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 01/13/2018 03:10 pm

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.

Speaking of RF and ordnance, aren't there possible effects on ordnance due to just being exposed to RF?  (For anyone that hasn't heard of ths, searching on google for "HERO unreliable ordnance" gives info like "HERO Unreliable ordnance is any object whose performance is degraded due to exposure to an RF environment.")

Is it possible that SpaceX employees using cell phones within 10 meters of the ordnance during ground processing could have degraded it, or possibly the F9's RF in flight or during ground processing, given that we (and possibly they) don't know what sep ordnance was being used?

In that case, NG would be responsible for doing analysis of compatibility with F9 and giving SpaceX instructions for how to handle the payload.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: RDoc on 01/13/2018 03:13 pm
With classified payloads are there closeout photos? If so, I wonder if they’d be telling in this instance...?
For that matter, I wonder if they didn't have the same video of the inside of the fairing during separation as they normally do, just encrypted.

And before people start claiming that it was so secret there wouldn't be any video, encrypted or not, think about all the classified data coming back from NSA satellites. I'm pretty doubtful that none of that is video.

Anyway, I'd be very surprised if all the inside players didn't already have a very good idea of what happened.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 01/13/2018 03:16 pm
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.

On the Formosat-5/SHERPA mission (which was later shortened to just the Formosat-5 mission) the second stage was only supposed to deploy SHERPA if the orbit lowering burn after Formosat deployment was successful.  (I don't know how exactly they were going to implement it, and the requirement on the FCC license was sort of a "best effort" thing.)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Katana on 01/13/2018 03:33 pm
With classified payloads are there closeout photos? If so, I wonder if they’d be telling in this instance...?
For that matter, I wonder if they didn't have the same video of the inside of the fairing during separation as they normally do, just encrypted.

And before people start claiming that it was so secret there wouldn't be any video, encrypted or not, think about all the classified data coming back from NSA satellites. I'm pretty doubtful that none of that is video.

Anyway, I'd be very surprised if all the inside players didn't already have a very good idea of what happened.
There should be some camera taking video of the separation.
Who have the permission to see it is unknown, and they are never allowed to talk about it.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: saliva_sweet on 01/13/2018 03:49 pm
I don't think it matters whether there was a camera. The second stage accelerometers should show the separation in perfect detail. Including whether the pyros fired (possibly even how many) and whether anything separated.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: mule169 on 01/13/2018 04:09 pm


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.

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.

Curious if when you say "the spacecraft does nothing" if that includes a de-orbit burn? 

If the issue was that the Zuma didn't separate and the breakwires/micros witches weren't broken/actuated, does the "do nothing" mean the 2nd stage continues on with it's mission profile or is there a different set of instructions it follows in the case the payload doesn't separate?

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/13/2018 04:33 pm
The second stage goes on with its mission.  There is no logic for no sep case.  It doesn't matter.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jcc on 01/13/2018 05:30 pm
The 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/13/2018 05:33 pm
The 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.

Standard practice is that the spacecraft does not become active until after separation.  Also, there aren't always ground stations around during the time of spacecraft Sep.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: MP99 on 01/13/2018 06:26 pm
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.
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
NG'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

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: MP99 on 01/13/2018 06:27 pm

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.

Things like this don't happen if everything has gone to plan: https://twitter.com/SpaceBrendan/status/950802453213130754
Everyone 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.

Cheers, Martin

Sent from my GT-N5120 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/13/2018 06:49 pm
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.
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
NG'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

The adapter is just dumb structure, there is no avionics on it.  Falcon would just send an ordnance signal to perform the sep or a discreet to Zuma avionics.

Separation is performed by positive signals and not sensed acceleration, which is another lesson learned from the past.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: the_other_Doug on 01/13/2018 08:15 pm

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.

Things like this don't happen if everything has gone to plan: https://twitter.com/SpaceBrendan/status/950802453213130754
Everyone 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/13/2018 08:31 pm

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.

Things like this don't happen if everything has gone to plan: https://twitter.com/SpaceBrendan/status/950802453213130754
Everyone 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: pb2000 on 01/13/2018 08:43 pm

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.

Things like this don't happen if everything has gone to plan: https://twitter.com/SpaceBrendan/status/950802453213130754
Everyone 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.
When people hear space mission failure, they assume rocket failure, so the discrediting of SpaceX may be little more than an unfortunate by-product.

The rest of the misinformation could be just that; congress supposedly spent a billion dollars on this mission and if it really is that secretive, regardless of what the mission was, it may have just been easier to say it failed. Based on how quickly it was leaked that the mission failed, "Top Secret" clearly is viewed as optional to some people in the government.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: pb2000 on 01/13/2018 08:55 pm

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.

Things like this don't happen if everything has gone to plan: https://twitter.com/SpaceBrendan/status/950802453213130754
Everyone 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?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/13/2018 09:30 pm

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.

Things like this don't happen if everything has gone to plan: https://twitter.com/SpaceBrendan/status/950802453213130754
Everyone 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?

the payload would be a spacecraft in every definition since they did not launch a dummy mass. 

Alright, A few hours is not enough for a test.  It takes much longer just to wake up a payload for space based test.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: SLC on 01/13/2018 10:01 pm
There's a huge problem with all of the "mission so secret that it has to be disguised as a failure" theories; a simple decoy satellite would have disguised it much better and drawn far less attention.

You take the secret payload (swarm of stealth microsatellites, hypersonic re-entry vehicle, captured alien wormhole generator, whatever) and put it on the special adapter along with a decoy satellite that doesn't need to do anything except station-keep for a while.  Launch and release them all, and the decoy gets tracked and catalogued as USA-280, while the secret stuff does its invisible work in the shadows.  Everybody forgets about the launch after a week, except enthusiasts who occasionally wonder what USA-280 is doing: "Guess we'll never know..."

So I'd have to conclude that Zuma actually was a failure.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Rocket Science on 01/13/2018 10:43 pm

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.

Things like this don't happen if everything has gone to plan: https://twitter.com/SpaceBrendan/status/950802453213130754
Everyone 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.
Remember what they did to Tucker?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: the_other_Doug on 01/13/2018 10:49 pm
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...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: AC in NC on 01/13/2018 11:21 pm
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.

Hanlon's Razor.  Presuming congressional leakers are passing along a fair representation of portrayals is fraught.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: psionedge on 01/14/2018 12:23 am
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...
You need to chill out.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: the_other_Doug on 01/14/2018 12:26 am
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...
You need to chill out.

You may not recall the McCarthy era.  I do.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: JimO on 01/14/2018 12:51 am
see also pp. 102-107 in this report
of a Falcon-9 post insertion fuel dump.
No spiral.
http://satobs.org/seesat_ref/misc/Space_clouds-Strange_Spinoff_of_the_Space_Age.pdf
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: aero on 01/14/2018 02:29 am
Look at page 80 of the report. Dragon Qual unit, spiral.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/14/2018 02:37 am

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.

Things like this don't happen if everything has gone to plan: https://twitter.com/SpaceBrendan/status/950802453213130754
Everyone 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? 

I'd caution against assuming falsified briefings. Whichever organization paid for Zuma is going to want/need another F9 launch in the future, and they will have nothing to gain by prematurely jumping to conclusions about who was at fault.

More likely is that some of the people leaking to the press (congressional aides, etc) don't fully understand the ambiguity of a potential separation system failure, because separation system failures are usually the fault of the launch vehicle but in this case may be the fault of Northtrop Grumman who provided the payload adapter.

Also, these are people who have no engineering background, haven't read the payload ICD, or the F9 user's guide, or the SpaceX contract and what exactly the criteria were for mission success.

In  such an environment, it's easy for one such under-informed congressional aide, or even congressman, to give a  reporter a simplistic and unintentionally misleading characterization of a behind-doors briefing, especially if that reporter is Andy Pasztor who is known to have an axe to grind with SpaceX.

I would note that the one direct quote I've read from a Congressman did not point any fingers, only noted that there was likely a dispute between SpaceX and NG over who was at fault.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/lost-in-space-questions-mount-over-fate-of-secret-satellite-as-spacex-pushes-ahead/2018/01/12/c7b42cde-f729-11e7-b34a-b85626af34ef_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-cards_hp-card-national%3Ahomepage%2Fcard&utm_term=.e5f238a89566

Quote
U.S. Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.), who said he received a “preliminary briefing,”.... said he did not know who was to blame, he indicated that the dispute might lead to litigation. “Those two companies are going to have a long and, I suspect, very expensive discussion,” he said.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 01/14/2018 02:58 am
After the first day or two have there been many stories from reputable news sources putting blame on SpaceX for the failure?  Even ones with information from unnamed congressman and congressional aides?  We're really not back to McCarthyism here.  (I'm sure you can find some newer stories pointing a finger at SpaceX, but it's not unusual for some conservative sites that don't like Elon to write bad stories about his companies all the time anyway.  It's just their normal behavior.)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/14/2018 03:08 am
Also, following up on Iridium CEO Matt Desch's twitter defense of SpaceX, there's this:

http://fortune.com/2018/01/12/spacex-northrop-grumman-iridium-zuma-satellite/

reporting that Desch speculated that the payload dispenser may have been at fault.

Yes, speculation again, but Desch is in a position to know mission details from SpaceX, so his speculation is likely much better informed than ours. And again it points to a failure to separate.

Also, the word "dispenser" is suggestive, because a single large payload doesn't usually get deployed from a dispenser. Multiple payloads like Iridium use dispensers.  This is more in line with a suggestion upthread that Zuma could be multiple satellites, possibly part of a notional radar satellite constellation mentioned by Ed Kyle.

https://blog.iridium.com/2016/07/15/first-falcon-9-iridium-next-satellite-dispenser-arrives-at-launch-site/
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: docmordrid on 01/14/2018 03:17 am
The reason for that spiral is likely linked to the accelerating roll seen during the last two or three minutes of this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxSxgBKlYws

 - Ed Kyle

That was Falcon 9 1.0 and a Merlin 1C Vac in the upper stage.  Neither apply to the ZUMA launch.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: geza on 01/14/2018 03:25 am
Quote
U.S. Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.), who said he received a “preliminary briefing,”.... said he did not know who was to blame, he indicated that the dispute might lead to litigation. “Those two companies are going to have a long and, I suspect, very expensive discussion,” he said.
For a while, I belived in the "failure is a cover story" version and the hypersonic reentry experiment. This quote from a named congressman made it absolutely clear that Zuma did fail.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/14/2018 05:25 am
Patches have been recalled from resellers:

http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-011218a-spacex-zuma-mission-patch-recall.html

If SpaceX is pulling patches for this mission, I think that's sufficient to label this flight as a failure, regardless of who is at fault. :-(
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: yokem55 on 01/14/2018 06:22 am
Patches have been recalled from resellers:

http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-011218a-spacex-zuma-mission-patch-recall.html

If SpaceX is pulling patches for this mission, I think that's sufficient to label this flight as a failure, regardless of who is at fault. :-(
Launch and LV success (as asserted by SpaceX), mission failure.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: hektor on 01/14/2018 07:41 am
I was listening Stéphane Israel on the radio this morning. Was quite insistent to report that SpaceX had a failure.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: jpo234 on 01/14/2018 07:47 am
I was listening Stéphane Israel on the radio this morning. Was quite insistent to report that SpaceX had a failure.
He has not a "need to know" for a classified US mission. He has a strong motivation to discredit a competitor.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: hektor on 01/14/2018 08:31 am
It is good politics for Arianespace to do so given the place they are now.

I can only imagine how they would use a real launch failure.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: vandersons on 01/14/2018 09:05 am
Page 17 looks like it has a picture of a similar spiral, just photographed some time later in the dump process than the Zuma dump, therefore it looks more like a ring until you have a look at the smaller features in that cloud.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: psionedge on 01/14/2018 09:09 am
Also, following up on Iridium CEO Matt Desch's twitter defense of SpaceX, there's this from Bloomberg:

http://fortune.com/2018/01/12/spacex-northrop-grumman-iridium-zuma-satellite/

reporting that Desch speculated in a message to Bloomberg that the payload dispenser may have been at fault.

Yes, speculation again, but Desch is in a position to know mission details from SpaceX, so his speculation is likely much better informed than ours. And again it points to a failure to separate.

Also, the word "dispenser" is suggestive, because a single large payload doesn't usually get deployed from a dispenser. Multiple payloads like Iridium use dispensers.  This is more in line with a suggestion upthread that Zuma could be multiple satellites, possibly part of a notional radar satellite constellation mentioned by Ed Kyle.

https://blog.iridium.com/2016/07/15/first-falcon-9-iridium-next-satellite-dispenser-arrives-at-launch-site/
Did SpaceX provide the dispensers for previous Iridium launches?

IIRC they would broadcast though all payload deployments, even though they may not have provided the deployment mechanism.

Indeed mission success for Iridium wouldn't have been declared if stage 2 got to the proper orbit but some or all of the satellites failed to deploy.

It seems SpaceX may have taken a different position here, at least in the early goings. The recall of mission patches seems to indicate that even if they weren't at fault (via a contractor provided separation mechanism) a mission failure is still a failure.

When did SpaceX hand out patches to the media for Iridium launches? After all the payloads deployed or after stage 2 arrived at the deployment orbit?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: docmordrid on 01/14/2018 09:54 am
>
Did SpaceX provide the dispensers for previous Iridium launches?
>

Iridium blog.... (https://blog.iridium.com/2016/07/15/first-falcon-9-iridium-next-satellite-dispenser-arrives-at-launch-site/)

Quote
>
In order to accommodate a payload of this size, SpaceX developed a Falcon 9 satellite dispenser unit that was capable of managing the critical-timed separation and deployment of ten satellites from each rocket. These dispensers were built out of a carbon fiber composite to reduce mass, minimize the total number of parts and simplify their composition while increasing structural stiffness and strength. The design of this dispenser places the Iridium NEXT satellite vehicles in two separate stacked tiers around the outside of each dispenser, holding five satellites per tier.
>

It masses about 1,000 kg per  SpaceNews.... (http://spacenews.com/iridiums-spacex-launch-slowed-by-vandenberg-bottleneck/)

Quote
>
Hawthorne, California-based SpaceX is building the 1,000-kilogram dispenser that will separate the 10 satellites into or bit on release from the rocket.
>
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: kevinof on 01/14/2018 10:15 am
I don't think I would want to be celebrating a successful launch of my rocket while the customer was figuring out how to explain $1B (ish) payload that is at the bottom of the ocean. Not good PR.

Patches have been recalled from resellers:

http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-011218a-spacex-zuma-mission-patch-recall.html

If SpaceX is pulling patches for this mission, I think that's sufficient to label this flight as a failure, regardless of who is at fault. :-(
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: JimO on 01/14/2018 11:33 am
The reason for that spiral is likely linked to the accelerating roll seen during the last two or three minutes of this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxSxgBKlYws

 - Ed Kyle

That was Falcon 9 1.0 and a Merlin 1C Vac in the upper stage.  Neither apply to the ZUMA launch.

Au contraire, those images and ground observations of two other more recent second stage thrusting/dumping in orbit indicate that the observed Zuma double spiral effect is not normal.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jarnis on 01/14/2018 11:41 am
Maybe differences between Block 4 upper stages and older upper stages?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 01/14/2018 02:26 pm
Also, following up on Iridium CEO Matt Desch's twitter defense of SpaceX, there's this:

http://fortune.com/2018/01/12/spacex-northrop-grumman-iridium-zuma-satellite/

reporting that Desch speculated that the payload dispenser may have been at fault.

Yes, speculation again, but Desch is in a position to know mission details from SpaceX, so his speculation is likely much better informed than ours. And again it points to a failure to separate.

Also, the word "dispenser" is suggestive, because a single large payload doesn't usually get deployed from a dispenser. Multiple payloads like Iridium use dispensers.  This is more in line with a suggestion upthread that Zuma could be multiple satellites, possibly part of a notional radar satellite constellation mentioned by Ed Kyle.

https://blog.iridium.com/2016/07/15/first-falcon-9-iridium-next-satellite-dispenser-arrives-at-launch-site/

There's zero chance that Desch would know any better than the rest of us whether Zuma was more than one satellite or not.  He's the CEO of a private company.  It would be illegal for anyone to tell him classified information.

Desch knows exactly what we know -- that SpaceX is saying they did everything correctly for the Zuma mission.  If Desch used the term "dispenser" that's likely simply because he thinks in terms of dispensers because his company's launches on Falcon 9 use them.  It's as simple as that.  It doesn't give us any hint about Zuma.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 01/14/2018 02:32 pm
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...

You're doing exactly the same thing that is responsible for these stories implying SpaceX did something wrong on the Zuma mission: you're leaping to conclusions and placing blame without evidence.

There's no evidence any briefing to congress said SpaceX did anything wrong.

A perfectly plausible explanation for everything we've seen in the press is that there was a briefing that said that Zuma failed and they are investigating the cause, then someone who heard that decided that since the cause is still under investigation, SpaceX could possibly be to blame, and that was what was reported.

No lying by anyone is necessary for any of the news stories we've seen.  Just speculation based on incomplete information, just like what you're doing when claiming someone is lying.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/14/2018 03:11 pm
Quote
There's zero chance that Desch would know any better than the rest of us whether Zuma was more than one satellite or not.

And I'd estimate a 100% chance Desch has been in touch directly with Gwynne Shotwell about F9 performance on the mission. And I have no doubt Gwynne scrupulously stuck to script and avoided classified information, so I am in no way impugning her integrity.

But is it possible she would feel within bounds to make a comment like "F9 delivered the proper separation command(s) to the payload dispenser?"  Maybe, maybe not, I don't know.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Nomadd on 01/14/2018 03:19 pm
 OK. I'm going to watch everybody repeat the same things six, maybe seven more times tops, then I'm giving up.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: the_other_Doug on 01/14/2018 03:22 pm
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...

You're doing exactly the same thing that is responsible for these stories implying SpaceX did something wrong on the Zuma mission: you're leaping to conclusions and placing blame without evidence.

There's no evidence any briefing to congress said SpaceX did anything wrong.

A perfectly plausible explanation for everything we've seen in the press is that there was a briefing that said that Zuma failed and they are investigating the cause, then someone who heard that decided that since the cause is still under investigation, SpaceX could possibly be to blame, and that was what was reported.

No lying by anyone is necessary for any of the news stories we've seen.  Just speculation based on incomplete information, just like what you're doing when claiming someone is lying.

My evidence is the pattern of the leak stories from the briefings all indicating that it was a SpaceX failure.  Show me any leaked stories where someone has leaked that they were briefed it was an NG or unknown cause failure and I will be happy to re-evaluate my opinion... :)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/14/2018 03:28 pm
Quote
My evidence is the pattern of the leak stories from the briefings all indicating that it was a SpaceX failure.  Show me any leaked stories where someone has leaked that they were briefed it was an NG or unknown cause failure and I will be happy to re-evaluate my opinion...

Direct quote from a Congressman who said he was briefed and he did not know who was to blame:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/lost-in-space-questions-mount-over-fate-of-secret-satellite-as-spacex-pushes-ahead/2018/01/12/c7b42cde-f729-11e7-b34a-b85626af34ef_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-cards_hp-card-national%3Ahomepage%2Fcard&utm_term=.e5f238a89566
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 01/14/2018 03:35 pm
My evidence is the pattern of the leak stories from the briefings all indicating that it was a SpaceX failure.  Show me any leaked stories where someone has leaked that they were briefed it was an NG or unknown cause failure and I will be happy to re-evaluate my opinion... :)

Actually I'm going to put the burden of proof on you here.  Show us stories from respected mainstream media sources from more than 12 hours after that first WSJ story saying what you claim every one of them said.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: dorkmo on 01/14/2018 04:23 pm
what if instead of failing to release the payload, the payload came loose on ascent and fell overboard after fairing seperation. could that explain the flip flop on which ocean it fell into?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Roy_H on 01/14/2018 04:24 pm
My evidence is the pattern of the leak stories from the briefings all indicating that it was a SpaceX failure.  Show me any leaked stories where someone has leaked that they were briefed it was an NG or unknown cause failure and I will be happy to re-evaluate my opinion... :)
Not one of the stories I have read say it was Spacex's fault. They all refer to SpaceX as the launch provider and without exception do not assign blame.

You have worded your "proof" as saying that because NG has not publicly stated it was their fault, that therefore it must be SpaceX's. NG has not stated they are not to blame, only that the mission is classified and they can't talk about it.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Soleil_Deimos on 01/14/2018 04:26 pm
I really don't understand the blame being put on Spacex by anybody. We have one and only one source of information about this flight. Gwynne Shotwell, who has made it absolutely clear that the vehicle preformed perfectly. That's all we know, all we will probably ever know, and everything else is baseless speculation. There is no evidence for this absurd speculation of second stage failures or fairing malfunctions. Nobody except Spacex, Northrup Grumman, and the customer know anything at all in any way shape or form about the success or failure of this flight, and none of them are going to discuss this in any capacity whatsoever aside from Shotwell's statement. There is no reason to theorize about a vehicle failure, and people in this thread are going down a rabbit hole of absurdity.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 01/14/2018 04:44 pm
what if instead of failing to release the payload, the payload came loose on ascent and fell overboard after fairing seperation. could that explain the flip flop on which ocean it fell into?

No.  Someone put the wrong ocean in a story.  There wasn't any flip flop.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 01/14/2018 04:50 pm
I really don't understand the blame being put on Spacex by anybody. We have one and only one source of information about this flight. Gwynne Shotwell, who has made it absolutely clear that the vehicle preformed perfectly. That's all we know, all we will probably ever know, and everything else is baseless speculation. There is no evidence for this absurd speculation of second stage failures or fairing malfunctions. Nobody except Spacex, Northrup Grumman, and the customer know anything at all in any way shape or form about the success or failure of this flight, and none of them are going to discuss this in any capacity whatsoever aside from Shotwell's statement. There is no reason to theorize about a vehicle failure, and people in this thread are going down a rabbit hole of absurdity.

I don't think I've even seen the fairing mentioned in a news story.

Many people in this thread are outraged that the media isn't just taking SpaceX at their word that there was nothing wrong on the SpaceX side.  I'd bet most journalists have run across instances in the past where a company or individual made statements that later proved to not be entirely correct.  Immediately taking everything someone says at face value is really not the road to good journalism.  As long as the journalists are saying the cause of the supposed failure is unknown and not pointing fingers at SpaceX I think that is perfectly fine.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Rocket Science on 01/14/2018 04:53 pm
How do we not know that any spin-up seen of S2 was not a requirement for the spacecraft prior to sep...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 01/14/2018 04:58 pm
How do we not know that any spin-up seen of S2 was not a requirement for the spacecraft prior to sep...

Different missions do require various spins on the second stage.  My question would be if the stage normally cancels out the spin again before deorbit burn and venting leftover propellants.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: pb2000 on 01/14/2018 05:05 pm
How do we not know that any spin-up seen of S2 was not a requirement for the spacecraft prior to sep...
Even if that were the case, the second stage would have to despin before it could start the deorbit burn.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: AC in NC on 01/14/2018 05:08 pm
Quote
U.S. Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.), who said he received a “preliminary briefing,”.... said he did not know who was to blame, he indicated that the dispute might lead to litigation. “Those two companies are going to have a long and, I suspect, very expensive discussion,” he said.
For a while, I belived in the "failure is a cover story" version and the hypersonic reentry experiment. This quote from a named congressman made it absolutely clear that Zuma did fail.
If "failure is a cover story", those bolded words (which aren't a quote but rather a characterization by the WaPo reporter) and the direct quote about litigation don't make that clear at all.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Rocket Science on 01/14/2018 05:10 pm
I don't recalling seeing any footage of S2 upon entry unless I missed it... Just the enhanced still of what was called venting...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: JimO on 01/14/2018 05:27 pm
I don't recalling seeing any footage of S2 upon entry unless I missed it... Just the enhanced still of what was called venting...
What would have been the local time, and was it near any sea lanes or air routes?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: the_other_Doug on 01/14/2018 05:44 pm
Quote
U.S. Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.), who said he received a “preliminary briefing,”.... said he did not know who was to blame, he indicated that the dispute might lead to litigation. “Those two companies are going to have a long and, I suspect, very expensive discussion,” he said.
For a while, I belived in the "failure is a cover story" version and the hypersonic reentry experiment. This quote from a named congressman made it absolutely clear that Zuma did fail.
If "failure is a cover story", those bolded words (which aren't a quote but rather a characterization by the WaPo reporter) and the direct quote about litigation don't make that clear at all.

As this is the one story with source attribution, let's look at it.

As has been stated, the only public statement is from SpaceX, claiming nominal performance.  Garamendi states he doesn't know who is to blame, and adds a statement that a disagreement on whose system was to blame may have to be settled via litigation.

How does one come up with that kind of statement unless they have heard each side blame the other?  And we know that SpaceX has publicly denied responsibility for the failure.  NG has made no public comment.  If Garamendi believes NG is also denying they are responsible (implicit in the litigation comment), and NG has made no public comment, the only source the Congressman could have for a denial would be the classified briefing.

It's simple logic, guys.  Deny it all you want, but the one attributed source sure sounds positive that each side believes the other to be responsible, and since only one side has made a public statement, the only possible source for NG's denial is the classified briefing.

There you go.  No need to invoke the early unattributed leaks.  It's all internally, logically consistent within the one attributed story.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Bananas_on_Mars on 01/14/2018 06:01 pm
2 Things i want to add to the discussion:

Spiral venting:
I as a non-aerospace engineer would think spinning the upper stage along the longitudinal axis would help venting the propellants. It seems like they have vent valves on the top of at least the LOX tank, would make sense to use them for venting before reentry too, right? Spiraling would help settling the fuel. It would also help cancelling out reaction forces that would affect the trajectory, in case there's only 1 venting valve or there's asymmetric thrust from venting because of some problems.
How often has a venting upper stage been observed previously?

Next Falcon 9 launch:
The next satellite to be launched on Falcon 9 (GovSat-1) has been built a company that is now a subdivision of Northrop Grumman. Do we know how the launch for that satellite was procured?

Max

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Sam Ho on 01/14/2018 06:33 pm
Next Falcon 9 launch:
The next satellite to be launched on Falcon 9 (GovSat-1) has been built a company that is now a subdivision of Northrop Grumman. Do we know how the launch for that satellite was procured?
Orbital ATK is not yet part of NG.  Even if it were, it seems unlikely that the GovSat team would have anything to do with the Zuma team.  SES announced the launch provider separately from the satellite, so I presume it was their call.

Quote
Luxembourg-based SES, which was the first established commercial satellite fleet operator to use Falcon 9 and has another launch scheduled with SpaceX this summer, said its SES-14 and SES-16/GovSat satellites would be launched on separate Falcon 9 vehicles.

An SES official confirmed that Arianespace did not bid for either of the two contracts. Satellites in the 4,000-kilogram class have limited launch options in today’s market. The Russian-built Proton rocket, marketed commercially by International Launch Services, typically launches satellites weighing 5,000 kilograms or more.
http://spacenews.com/ses-books-falcon-9-launches-for-ses-14-and-ses-16-govsat/
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/14/2018 06:35 pm

I as a non-aerospace engineer would think spinning the upper stage along the longitudinal axis would help venting the propellants. It seems like they have vent valves on the top of at least the LOX tank, would make sense to use them for venting before reentry too, right? Spiraling would help settling the fuel. It would also help cancelling out reaction forces that would affect the trajectory, in case there's only 1 venting valve or there's asymmetric thrust from venting because of some problems.


No, spinning would make it harder.  The vents are on top of the tanks.   There is no need to spin.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Rocket Science on 01/14/2018 06:36 pm
I don't recalling seeing any footage of S2 upon entry unless I missed it... Just the enhanced still of what was called venting...
What would have been the local time, and was it near any sea lanes or air routes?
Jim, pilot reports over East Africa who saw it, which would be 2hr 15min after launch of 8pm ET plus 8 hrs ahead so lets say 6:15am local time... If the facts are correct...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: pb2000 on 01/14/2018 07:04 pm
I don't recalling seeing any footage of S2 upon entry unless I missed it... Just the enhanced still of what was called venting...
What would have been the local time, and was it near any sea lanes or air routes?
Jim, pilot reports over East Africa who saw it, which would be 2hr 15min after launch of 8pm ET plus 8 hrs ahead so lets say 6:15am local time... If the facts are correct...

The actual atmospheric entry has it roughly landing on top of MH370, so no, I don't think anyone was around to see it go down.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: docmordrid on 01/14/2018 08:14 pm
I don't recalling seeing any footage of S2 upon entry unless I missed it... Just the enhanced still of what was called venting...
What would have been the local time, and was it near any sea lanes or air routes?
Jim, pilot reports over East Africa who saw it, which would be 2hr 15min after launch of 8pm ET plus 8 hrs ahead so lets say 6:15am local time... If the facts are correct...

The actual atmospheric entry has it roughly landing on top of MH370, so no, I don't think anyone was around to see it go down.

Took part of the ZUMA inclination & reentry track map attached to post #1243 by Stan-1967 on 11 Jan, 2018 22:43 (attached ottom) and overlaid it on the MH370 search plan (attached top.)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 01/14/2018 08:27 pm
Quote
U.S. Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.), who said he received a “preliminary briefing,”.... said he did not know who was to blame, he indicated that the dispute might lead to litigation. “Those two companies are going to have a long and, I suspect, very expensive discussion,” he said.
For a while, I belived in the "failure is a cover story" version and the hypersonic reentry experiment. This quote from a named congressman made it absolutely clear that Zuma did fail.
If "failure is a cover story", those bolded words (which aren't a quote but rather a characterization by the WaPo reporter) and the direct quote about litigation don't make that clear at all.

As this is the one story with source attribution, let's look at it.

As has been stated, the only public statement is from SpaceX, claiming nominal performance.  Garamendi states he doesn't know who is to blame, and adds a statement that a disagreement on whose system was to blame may have to be settled via litigation.

How does one come up with that kind of statement unless they have heard each side blame the other?

The same way people come up with 95% of what is written in this thread: speculation.

It's perfectly plausible that all this guy heard was that there was a failure and it is under investigation.  He wouldn't have to hear anyone blaming anyone else to speculate that maybe there will be a blame game and litigation.

And we know that SpaceX has publicly denied responsibility for the failure.  NG has made no public comment.  If Garamendi believes NG is also denying they are responsible (implicit in the litigation comment),

No, not implicit in the litigation comment.  All that's implicit in the litigation comment is that he doesn't know who is to blame and might be speculating that there might be litigation over it.

and NG has made no public comment, the only source the Congressman could have for a denial would be the classified briefing.

It's simple logic, guys.

No, it's you making assumptions and then claiming that your assumptions are the only possible explanation.

Deny it all you want, but the one attributed source sure sounds positive that each side believes the other to be responsible,

No, saying there might be litigation in the future does not imply one is positive two sides are blaming each other now.

and since only one side has made a public statement, the only possible source for NG's denial is the classified briefing.

There you go.  No need to invoke the early unattributed leaks.  It's all internally, logically consistent within the one attributed story.

Your theory is one possible explanation for the facts, but not the only one.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 01/14/2018 09:04 pm
I don't recalling seeing any footage of S2 upon entry unless I missed it... Just the enhanced still of what was called venting...
What would have been the local time, and was it near any sea lanes or air routes?
Jim, pilot reports over East Africa who saw it, which would be 2hr 15min after launch of 8pm ET plus 8 hrs ahead so lets say 6:15am local time... If the facts are correct...

The actual atmospheric entry has it roughly landing on top of MH370, so no, I don't think anyone was around to see it go down.
Er, you mean except for Seabed Constructor...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: vanoord on 01/14/2018 09:08 pm
I don't recalling seeing any footage of S2 upon entry unless I missed it... Just the enhanced still of what was called venting...

No reason that if this is 'excess' 'venting' that what was seen was an upper stage trying to re-orientate itself for a de-orbit burn - 'spin' does not have to be axial, ie presumably the vehicle has to swap the Merlin Vac to the 'forwards' end to de-orbit itself. That will look, to all intents and purposes, as if it's rotating around its longitudinal axis.

As for the 'excess' part of it - well, if it unexpectedly had a satellite / space vehicle attached to it, then it would be venting more than usual.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 01/14/2018 09:17 pm

I as a non-aerospace engineer would think spinning the upper stage along the longitudinal axis would help venting the propellants. It seems like they have vent valves on the top of at least the LOX tank, would make sense to use them for venting before reentry too, right? Spiraling would help settling the fuel. It would also help cancelling out reaction forces that would affect the trajectory, in case there's only 1 venting valve or there's asymmetric thrust from venting because of some problems.


No, spinning would make it harder.  The vents are on top of the tanks.   There is no need to spin.

As a background, and to elaborate a bit to what Jim is saying, in my years as a baby engineer, one of my tasks was to design vacuum vents for a couple of subsystems of the Space Station Freedom ECLSS. Vacuum vents, whether for spacecraft, space stations or rockets, are almost always designed to be non-propulsive. That is to say, to produce as little net force and as little net rotational moment around any axis of the host pressure vessel as possible or practicable. This is easily done in any number of ways - from a simple, short two- or four-way Tee fitting, to a tube with a central "stalk" and elevated flat cap to create a mushroom or chimney-cap type fitting. Alternately, you might run two or more equal-diameter/equal-flow fluid lines straight out of the pressure vessel but arranged radially around the structure so that the net forces are zero. But a single opening and a simple fitting is the easiest way to do this.

I have no insight on how SpaceX does their stage venting. Some stages, I understand, simply blow down the propellant tanks through the engine combustion chamber and out the nozzle as part of or as an adjunct to the deorbit burn. Some might use their existing active stage ACS (attitude control systems) to vent the stage through a simple vent, accept the propulsive nature and net forces/torques, and allow the ACS to counteract those forces and/or null out the rates to ensure a stable re-entry, though a tumbling (not rotating) stage would probably assist in the stage break-up process. *shrug*

Anyway, *IF* the spiral phot we see is accurate, one thing I wonder is if the shape of the venting and presumed rotation are due to impingement of the S2 vented fluids out the stage and against a still-attached Zuma, whose shape/protuberance/profile induced a stage roll as a result of re-directed fluid flow; think of a stream of air flowing past a pinwheel.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 01/14/2018 09:21 pm
The reason for that spiral is likely linked to the accelerating roll seen during the last two or three minutes of this video.
 - Ed Kyle
That was Falcon 9 1.0 and a Merlin 1C Vac in the upper stage.  Neither apply to the ZUMA launch.
The spiral pattern is the common factor.  It hasn't been seen during other Falcon 9 missions.

 - Ed Kyle

Even if true, how does that affect anything?

It happened 1.5 orbits later, and in the correct time and location.  It might indicate extra mass attached to the US, which might be a dead satellite or an empty dispenser or adapter of some sort.  It might not.

Even if the spiral is unique.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: psionedge on 01/14/2018 09:44 pm
I doubt the govt agency the procured the satellite assigned blame during the briefing. I'm sure a root cause investigation is underway. They likely briefed that it's under investigation. Maybe a congress critter asked who's fault it was, at this point the answer would be something like "we're not 100% sure yet, they will have to figure it out".
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: pb2000 on 01/14/2018 09:50 pm
I don't recalling seeing any footage of S2 upon entry unless I missed it... Just the enhanced still of what was called venting...
What would have been the local time, and was it near any sea lanes or air routes?
Jim, pilot reports over East Africa who saw it, which would be 2hr 15min after launch of 8pm ET plus 8 hrs ahead so lets say 6:15am local time... If the facts are correct...

The actual atmospheric entry has it roughly landing on top of MH370, so no, I don't think anyone was around to see it go down.
Er, you mean except for Seabed Constructor...
The ship left South Africa a few days before launch and has a cruise speed of 12.5 knots. Besides, ships looking for MH370 have a track record of looking in the wrong place  ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 01/14/2018 11:33 pm
The reason for that spiral is likely linked to the accelerating roll seen during the last two or three minutes of this video.
 - Ed Kyle
That was Falcon 9 1.0 and a Merlin 1C Vac in the upper stage.  Neither apply to the ZUMA launch.
The spiral pattern is the common factor.  It hasn't been seen during other Falcon 9 missions.

 - Ed Kyle

Even if true, how does that affect anything?

It happened 1.5 orbits later, and in the correct time and location.  It might indicate extra mass attached to the US, which might be a dead satellite or an empty dispenser or adapter of some sort.  It might not.

Even if the spiral is unique.
I am uncertain about the circumstances that caused the Zuma spiral.  Perhaps it is a nominal event, perhaps not.  I only know that there have been two spirals observed.  One was during the 2010 inaugural when the second stage rolled and failed during its restart experiment.  The second was during the flight that ended with the loss of Zuma.

 - Ed Kyle
So we can leave it at that, other evidence for other spirals not withstanding...

The main point of interest is what happened after SECO, and sadly we know that exactly zero about that...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 01/14/2018 11:59 pm
OK. I'm going to watch everybody repeat the same things six, maybe seven more times tops, then I'm giving up.

Is all that southern beach living at Boca Chica making you soft?
We haven't even had 800 posts since subingfa posted Peter Selding's internally contradictory tweet of a possible secret failure (http://check property).
Surely you can read through the tenth or twentieth repetition. :P
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: dorkmo on 01/15/2018 12:11 am
my gut feel is that the 2010 spiral was faster and accelerating in an uncontrolled manner, while judging from that fact that the 2018 spiral is large in size (evidence of some time elapsed) and only indicates maybe around 1 turn, id say if it is rotating much slower than the 2010
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lar on 01/15/2018 12:27 am
OK. I'm going to watch everybody repeat the same things six, maybe seven more times tops, then I'm giving up.

Is all that southern beach living at Boca Chica making you soft?
We haven't even had 800 posts since subingfa posted Peter Selding's internally contradictory tweet of a possible secret failure (http://check property).
Surely you can read through the tenth or twentieth repetition. :P
Or just don't read the thread? Watch updates for something significant to get posted, and don't worry, be happy.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: R.Simko on 01/15/2018 12:30 am
Quote
There's zero chance that Desch would know any better than the rest of us whether Zuma was more than one satellite or not.

And I'd estimate a 100% chance Desch has been in touch directly with Gwynne Shotwell about F9 performance on the mission. And I have no doubt Gwynne scrupulously stuck to script and avoided classified information, so I am in no way impugning her integrity.

But is it possible she would feel within bounds to make a comment like "F9 delivered the proper separation command(s) to the payload dispenser?"  Maybe, maybe not, I don't know.


I would disagree about Gwynne Shotwell possibly saying to Desch or anyone else, that "F9 delivered the proper separation command(s) to the payload dispenser?"  IMHO, if she could have said that, she would have put it in her official statement.  I do think that she would have given Desch a personal, heartfelt, sincere reiteration of her statement, that F9s flight was nominal.  IMHO, saying directly to him, personally, would mean much more than an official statement.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: JimO on 01/15/2018 01:05 am
The last item in this report is another Falcon-9 S2 sighting, fuel dump. No spiral.
http://satobs.org/seesat_ref/misc/Space_clouds-Strange_Spinoff_of_the_Space_Age.pdf
 http://satobs.org/seesat_ref/misc/tomsk_spiral_ufo_2006.pdf

Because the mass of Zuma is classified, the nature of the S2 deorbit burn would not be released. If the time of the burn were released, the location of the reentry NOTAMS would give a clue as to the targeted delta-V.

If the mass of the deorbiting vehicle were higher than expected, its reentry point would move significantly downrange -- perhaps this is reflected in one report that the failure caused the Zuma/S2 to fall into the Pacific Ocean instead of the Indian Ocean.

So if the double spiral was not an S2 event, was it a Zuma attitude control system trying to attain its desired orientation while being dragged by the S2 mass?

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: matthewkantar on 01/15/2018 01:55 am
If I understand correctly, the sat would not have activated until it was free of the stage. Indicated by break wires or micro switches as mentioned above. Seems unlikely to have separation indicated but not actual. Something tangled up? Some connection that should have been removed preflight that is still hanging on? I think a flex duct or electrical wire would be enough.

Matthew
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/15/2018 03:16 am
If I understand correctly, the sat would not have activated until it was free of the stage. Indicated by break wires or micro switches as mentioned above. Seems unlikely to have separation indicated but not actual. Something tangled up? Some connection that should have been removed preflight that is still hanging on? I think a flex duct or electrical wire would be enough.

Matthew

Partial sep is also a possible scenario, and if the payload's separation microswitch is on one side of the sep system (the side that does partially separate and gaps enough to activate the switch) it's conceivable that the payload "wakes up" while the other side of the sep system is still hung up. (Think of a can opener that opens a can most of the way, but doesn't fully cut through the lid, leaving a hinge).

So it's conceivable the payload could activate itself during a partial separation event, while still partially attached to the upper stage.

Marman rings are generally not susceptible to this type of partial separation, but other separation system types (frangible joints, etc) can be. Pegasus and Taurus both have experienced partial separation events (Pegasus was a partial stage separation due to incomplete cutting of the interstage by the linear shaped charge, and Taurus had the 2 partial separation failures of the fairing frangible joint.) If Zuma used a frangible joint sep system, or something besides a Marman ring, a similar failure mode is possible.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: FinalFrontier on 01/15/2018 03:36 am
Going to add one final thought to this thread, there is not much left to discuss.

Here is how I know with almost absolute certainty that this was the fault of Northrup, either being a spacecraft failure or separation failure whichever.

The chief operating officer of SpaceX made a very public series of on the record statements repeatedly saying that SpaceX was not at fault and that Falcon 9 had a nominal mission. These comments were made with the full knowledge that, at the same exact time, congressional officials were being briefed on the failure and and investigation was underway at the highest levels.

Consider the following, what does SpaceX have to gain by lying on the record knowing this? The answer is nothing, but they do have everything in the world to lose. To do this would be almost tantamount to lying to lawmakers directly or to lying to the federal government outright. They would get caught, and this would result in extreme penalties for the company, up to and including potential criminal charges against the management. SpaceX would lose any and all future government contracts and they would probably be at risk to lose their NASA related contracts as well. It would essentially end the company. You absolutely CANNOT lie when NSS payloads are involved, it cannot be done.

There is absolutely no business or technical reason for SpaceX to lie, or even remotely attempt to obfuscate responsibility in this failure and there is every reason in the world not to. If they say Falcon 9, that means ALL of Falcon 9 including the PAF, fairing, ect, performed nominally, then it most likely did.

Northrup, unlike SpaceX, has some leverage at the highest levels since they are the primary contractor for things like the B2 replacement and other critical projects. But the reality is if they resort to finger pointing here they will get hurt for it. Failure is their's pure and simple what remains to be seen is if they take ownership.

Just wanted to throw this out there. 
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: yokem55 on 01/15/2018 03:40 am


If I understand correctly, the sat would not have activated until it was free of the stage. Indicated by break wires or micro switches as mentioned above. Seems unlikely to have separation indicated but not actual. Something tangled up? Some connection that should have been removed preflight that is still hanging on? I think a flex duct or electrical wire would be enough.

Matthew

Partial sep is also a possible scenario, and if the payload's separation microswitch is on one side of the sep system (the side that does partially separate and gaps enough to activate the switch) it's conceivable that the payload "wakes up" while the other side of the sep system is still hung up. (Think of a can opener that opens a can most of the way, but doesn't fully cut through the lid, leaving a hinge).

So it's conceivable the payload could activate itself during a partial separation event, while still partially attached to the upper stage.

Marman rings are generally not susceptible to this type of partial separation, but other separation system types (frangible joints, etc) can be. Pegasus and Taurus both have experienced partial separation events (Pegasus was a partial stage separation due to incomplete cutting of the interstage by the linear shaped charge, and Taurus had the 2 partial separation failures of the fairing frangible joint.) If Zuma used a frangible joint sep system, a similar failure mode is possible.

This scenario could explain the spiral passivation. If the deorbit burn occurred with a partially attached payload, the stage could have been put into a spin. With a dangling and moving center of mass, the vehicle would have been all over the place. This would have been very clear in the telemetry of the stage and could have given SpaceX the confidence to be so clear that the falcon had done what it was supposed to.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: FinalFrontier on 01/15/2018 03:40 am
Quote
I am uncertain about the circumstances that caused the Zuma spiral.  Perhaps it is a nominal event, perhaps not.  I only know that there have been two spirals observed.  One was during the 2010 inaugural when the second stage rolled and failed during its restart experiment.  The second was during the flight that ended with the loss of Zuma.

 - Ed Kyle

Extra mass or incomplete/imperfect separation of the payload would almost certainly result in a loss of roll control. More to the point the F9US does not always retain very much roll control by the time it reaches disposal burn since fuel and oxidizer are normally very low by this point in time, as is tank repress resources. That's by design, it does not need to have much control left by this point of a mission, it only needs to be able to restart in a short burn to ensure it re enters and burns up. The upper stage is not a full fledged spacecraft it only has as much RCS/ACS resources as absolutely needed. Couple that with a dead bird dangling off the top, yes it would definitely be spinning.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Stan-1967 on 01/15/2018 04:52 am
All of the speculation comparing this S2 de-orbit cloud with others may have reasons related to the nature of the Zuma payload, not the failure mode.   I've been looking at all the payload separation events I could find.  ( Echostar, SES, Iridium, Formosat, Koreasat, SES, IntelSat, Orbcomm )  None of these payloads were spin stabilized, they all looks 3 axis stabilized.  The sep events done in darkness are hard to tell, but the separation debris moved in a way more consistent with a 3 axis stable reference frame.

Page 50 of the F9 users guide, rev.2 says the separation can be done with 3 axis stabilization or spin stabilized.  If Zuma was spin stabilized at separation on orbit 1, what would be the logical preference to follow for de-orbit?
1.  Null out the roll rate, propellant permitting, and then conduct de-orbit burn & venting/de-energizing of the vehicle for entry
2.  Do not null the roll rate, conduct de-orbit burn & venting/de-energizing.

Can #2 be done without nulling the roll?  I'm not up to speed on my orbital mechanics to know if it is possible or not.  My guess is that it is possible to change perigee without nulling the roll.  It would come down to timing the de-orbit burn. 

If the S2 does not need to null the roll rate to de-orbit, that would account for the Zuma "space cloud" having a spiral pattern where all the other reference clouds from missions that used 3 axis stabilized separation lacked such a spiral structure.

So what type of payloads needs to be spin stabilized?



Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 01/15/2018 05:51 am
The Secret Zuma Spacecraft Could Be Alive And Well Doing Exactly What It Was Intended To

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17612/the-secret-zuma-spacecraft-could-be-alive-and-well-doing-exactly-what-it-was-intended-to (http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17612/the-secret-zuma-spacecraft-could-be-alive-and-well-doing-exactly-what-it-was-intended-to)

"With all of this in mind, it's really worth at least considering the possibility that Zuma actually did exactly what it was intended to do. With the help of just a sprinkling of non-official disinformation, it may have been able to start its mission under the best possible circumstances—disappearing into the darkness to go about its intended task from the shadows undetected."

Anyone know anything about the source www.thedrive.com (http://www.thedrive.com) ?  A bunch of car enthusiasts?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: M.E.T. on 01/15/2018 05:59 am
The Secret Zuma Spacecraft Could Be Alive And Well Doing Exactly What It Was Intended To

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17612/the-secret-zuma-spacecraft-could-be-alive-and-well-doing-exactly-what-it-was-intended-to (http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17612/the-secret-zuma-spacecraft-could-be-alive-and-well-doing-exactly-what-it-was-intended-to)

"With all of this in mind, it's really worth at least considering the possibility that Zuma actually did exactly what it was intended to do. With the help of just a sprinkling of non-official disinformation, it may have been able to start its mission under the best possible circumstances—disappearing into the darkness to go about its intended task from the shadows undetected."

Anyone know anything about the source www.thedrive.com (http://www.thedrive.com) ?  A bunch of car enthusiasts?

I scanned through the article and it looked to me like basically just a summary of the different theories that have floated around on social media to date.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 01/15/2018 06:03 am
Anyone know anything about the source www.thedrive.com (http://www.thedrive.com) ?  A bunch of car enthusiasts?

Car Bro 1: Dude, we should do a website with fighter planes and tanks and bombs and that.

Car Bro 2: That sounds awesome. Do you know how to register a domain?

Car Bro 1: Nah, my brother did it for me.

Car Bro 2: We could use a subdomain of drive.com

Car Bro 1: a sub- what?

Car Bro 2: Don't worry about it, just create a new section in Wordpress.

Car Bro 1: Now you're speakin' my language!

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/15/2018 08:40 am
Consider the following, what does SpaceX have to gain by lying on the record knowing this?

Its not a lie if you believe it to be true. SpaceX currently believes they did everything they were supposed to. Further investigation may prove otherwise. Anyway, it shouldn't matter whose fault it is. The main thing is to find the problem, fix it and go fly again.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: hopalong on 01/15/2018 09:11 am
All of the speculation comparing this S2 de-orbit cloud with others may have reasons related to the nature of the Zuma payload, not the failure mode.   I've been looking at all the payload separation events I could find.  ( Echostar, SES, Iridium, Formosat, Koreasat, SES, IntelSat, Orbcomm )  None of these payloads were spin stabilized, they all looks 3 axis stabilized.  The sep events done in darkness are hard to tell, but the separation debris moved in a way more consistent with a 3 axis stable reference frame.

Page 50 of the F9 users guide, rev.2 says the separation can be done with 3 axis stabilization or spin stabilized.  If Zuma was spin stabilized at separation on orbit 1, what would be the logical preference to follow for de-orbit?
1.  Null out the roll rate, propellant permitting, and then conduct de-orbit burn & venting/de-energizing of the vehicle for entry
2.  Do not null the roll rate, conduct de-orbit burn & venting/de-energizing.

Can #2 be done without nulling the roll?  I'm not up to speed on my orbital mechanics to know if it is possible or not.  My guess is that it is possible to change perigee without nulling the roll.  It would come down to timing the de-orbit burn. 

If the S2 does not need to null the roll rate to de-orbit, that would account for the Zuma "space cloud" having a spiral pattern where all the other reference clouds from missions that used 3 axis stabilized separation lacked such a spiral structure.

So what type of payloads needs to be spin stabilized?

If there was a '3rd stage' solid fuel boost motor attached to the base of Zuma, would that normally require spin stabilisation?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: MechE31 on 01/15/2018 10:00 am
Anyone know anything about the source www.thedrive.com (http://www.thedrive.com) ?  A bunch of car enthusiasts?

Car Bro 1: Dude, we should do a website with fighter planes and tanks and bombs and that.

Car Bro 2: That sounds awesome. Do you know how to register a domain?

Car Bro 1: Nah, my brother did it for me.

Car Bro 2: We could use a subdomain of drive.com

Car Bro 1: a sub- what?

Car Bro 2: Don't worry about it, just create a new section in Wordpress.

Car Bro 1: Now you're speakin' my language!

I'll defend Tyler for a second. He's a very seasoned defense journalist. I've been reading his stuff for years at various sites. He does quite a few of these informed opinion pieces, but a few have been spot on.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/15/2018 12:49 pm
The last item in this report is another Falcon-9 S2 sighting, fuel dump. No spiral.
http://satobs.org/seesat_ref/misc/Space_clouds-Strange_Spinoff_of_the_Space_Age.pdf
 http://satobs.org/seesat_ref/misc/tomsk_spiral_ufo_2006.pdf

Because the mass of Zuma is classified, the nature of the S2 deorbit burn would not be released. If the time of the burn were released, the location of the reentry NOTAMS would give a clue as to the targeted delta-V.

If the mass of the deorbiting vehicle were higher than expected, its reentry point would move significantly downrange -- perhaps this is reflected in one report that the failure caused the Zuma/S2 to fall into the Pacific Ocean instead of the Indian Ocean.


No, it wouldn't be a fixed duration burn but a fixed velocity increment and therefore entry would be in the same place, unless there was a propellant depletion
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/15/2018 12:50 pm
If I understand correctly, the sat would not have activated until it was free of the stage. Indicated by break wires or micro switches as mentioned above. Seems unlikely to have separation indicated but not actual. Something tangled up? Some connection that should have been removed preflight that is still hanging on? I think a flex duct or electrical wire would be enough.

Matthew

No such connections
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/15/2018 12:52 pm
All of the speculation comparing this S2 de-orbit cloud with others may have reasons related to the nature of the Zuma payload, not the failure mode.   I've been looking at all the payload separation events I could find.  ( Echostar, SES, Iridium, Formosat, Koreasat, SES, IntelSat, Orbcomm )  None of these payloads were spin stabilized, they all looks 3 axis stabilized.  The sep events done in darkness are hard to tell, but the separation debris moved in a way more consistent with a 3 axis stable reference frame.

Page 50 of the F9 users guide, rev.2 says the separation can be done with 3 axis stabilization or spin stabilized.  If Zuma was spin stabilized at separation on orbit 1, what would be the logical preference to follow for de-orbit?
1.  Null out the roll rate, propellant permitting, and then conduct de-orbit burn & venting/de-energizing of the vehicle for entry
2.  Do not null the roll rate, conduct de-orbit burn & venting/de-energizing.

Can #2 be done without nulling the roll?  I'm not up to speed on my orbital mechanics to know if it is possible or not.  My guess is that it is possible to change perigee without nulling the roll.  It would come down to timing the de-orbit burn. 

If the S2 does not need to null the roll rate to de-orbit, that would account for the Zuma "space cloud" having a spiral pattern where all the other reference clouds from missions that used 3 axis stabilized separation lacked such a spiral structure.

So what type of payloads needs to be spin stabilized?

they don't exist anymore
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: the_other_Doug on 01/15/2018 01:19 pm
Going to add one final thought to this thread, there is not much left to discuss.

Here is how I know with almost absolute certainty that this was the fault of Northrup, either being a spacecraft failure or separation failure whichever.

The chief operating officer of SpaceX made a very public series of on the record statements repeatedly saying that SpaceX was not at fault and that Falcon 9 had a nominal mission. These comments were made with the full knowledge that, at the same exact time, congressional officials were being briefed on the failure and and investigation was underway at the highest levels.

Consider the following, what does SpaceX have to gain by lying on the record knowing this? The answer is nothing, but they do have everything in the world to lose. To do this would be almost tantamount to lying to lawmakers directly or to lying to the federal government outright. They would get caught, and this would result in extreme penalties for the company, up to and including potential criminal charges against the management. SpaceX would lose any and all future government contracts and they would probably be at risk to lose their NASA related contracts as well. It would essentially end the company. You absolutely CANNOT lie when NSS payloads are involved, it cannot be done.

There is absolutely no business or technical reason for SpaceX to lie, or even remotely attempt to obfuscate responsibility in this failure and there is every reason in the world not to. If they say Falcon 9, that means ALL of Falcon 9 including the PAF, fairing, ect, performed nominally, then it most likely did.

Northrup, unlike SpaceX, has some leverage at the highest levels since they are the primary contractor for things like the B2 replacement and other critical projects. But the reality is if they resort to finger pointing here they will get hurt for it. Failure is their's pure and simple what remains to be seen is if they take ownership.

Just wanted to throw this out there.

Exactly what I have been saying.  I appreciate most people have a wait-and-see attitude about these kinds of things and some of y'all feel speculation in advance of the facts ranges from useless to disgusting.

In this case, we will *never* have the facts.  But the events could have very real consequences for whichever company is ultimately held responsible.

I don't want to see the goal of getting to Mars scuttled due to classified retribution against SpaceX just because NG wants to cover their own asses, whoever else gets hurt.  Take away future government business, press the FCC to make Starlink impossible to get going due to some targeted maze of regulations designed to stop it, make it impossible to get an EIS approval to launch BFR from anywhere in the country, or allow NG to feed partial data pointing fingers at SpaceX to Congressional inquiries, and NG's CYA could bring down the Mars efforts a-borning.

So, if y'all wonder why the possibility that NG could be lying to Congress bothers me so much, well... that's why.  SpaceX could get us to Mars.  NG could care less.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: the_other_Doug on 01/15/2018 01:31 pm
Consider the following, what does SpaceX have to gain by lying on the record knowing this?

Its not a lie if you believe it to be true. SpaceX currently believes they did everything they were supposed to. Further investigation may prove otherwise. Anyway, it shouldn't matter whose fault it is. The main thing is to find the problem, fix it and go fly again.

Since SpaceX isn't doing any kind of stand-down during this investigation, we can be certain they don't believe they have anything to fix before they go fly again.  They have too much to lose if they suspect faults in their systems and, knowing this, go ahead and put their customers' satellites at risk.

Remember, this is a company that now runs static fires sans payload after the Amos pad explosion, even though they feel certain the root cause of that failure has been fixed.  I don't see them continuing to fly on schedule if they think there is even a slight possibility they have any issues they need to address with Falcon 9.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: MostlyHarmless on 01/15/2018 02:09 pm

2.  Do not null the roll rate, conduct de-orbit burn & venting/de-energizing.

Can #2 be done without nulling the roll?  I'm not up to speed on my orbital mechanics to know if it is possible or not.  My guess is that it is possible to change perigee without nulling the roll.  It would come down to timing the de-orbit burn. 


Just speculation on my part, but I suspect the answer for this is no.  If stage 2 is in a roll, remaining fuel will be forced to the sides of the tanks, and away from the fuel outlet.  I'm not sure that even ullage motors would be enough to compensate.  If I remember correctly, didn't one of the early Falcon 1 tests fail because the second stage started rolling (due to fuel slosh), starving out the Merlin? 
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: the_other_Doug on 01/15/2018 02:31 pm

2.  Do not null the roll rate, conduct de-orbit burn & venting/de-energizing.

Can #2 be done without nulling the roll?  I'm not up to speed on my orbital mechanics to know if it is possible or not.  My guess is that it is possible to change perigee without nulling the roll.  It would come down to timing the de-orbit burn. 


Just speculation on my part, but I suspect the answer for this is no.  If stage 2 is in a roll, remaining fuel will be forced to the sides of the tanks, and away from the fuel outlet.  I'm not sure that even ullage motors would be enough to compensate.  If I remember correctly, didn't one of the early Falcon 1 tests fail because the second stage started rolling (due to fuel slosh), starving out the Merlin?

Depends on the roll rate, I would think.  The spiral cloud observed makes it appear that the US had a roll rate of less than one RPM, and depending on the duration of the prop vent, maybe a lot less than that.  Not enough to force the props away from the feeds, especially with a short ullage burn from the stage's RCS.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Rocket Science on 01/15/2018 02:43 pm
All of the speculation comparing this S2 de-orbit cloud with others may have reasons related to the nature of the Zuma payload, not the failure mode.   I've been looking at all the payload separation events I could find.  ( Echostar, SES, Iridium, Formosat, Koreasat, SES, IntelSat, Orbcomm )  None of these payloads were spin stabilized, they all looks 3 axis stabilized.  The sep events done in darkness are hard to tell, but the separation debris moved in a way more consistent with a 3 axis stable reference frame.

Page 50 of the F9 users guide, rev.2 says the separation can be done with 3 axis stabilization or spin stabilized.  If Zuma was spin stabilized at separation on orbit 1, what would be the logical preference to follow for de-orbit?
1.  Null out the roll rate, propellant permitting, and then conduct de-orbit burn & venting/de-energizing of the vehicle for entry
2.  Do not null the roll rate, conduct de-orbit burn & venting/de-energizing.

Can #2 be done without nulling the roll?  I'm not up to speed on my orbital mechanics to know if it is possible or not.  My guess is that it is possible to change perigee without nulling the roll.  It would come down to timing the de-orbit burn. 

If the S2 does not need to null the roll rate to de-orbit, that would account for the Zuma "space cloud" having a spiral pattern where all the other reference clouds from missions that used 3 axis stabilized separation lacked such a spiral structure.

So what type of payloads needs to be spin stabilized?

they don't exist anymore
Jim is that in reference for "stability only"? Ariane for example, still performs spin-ups for customer requirements....
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 01/15/2018 03:06 pm
Going to add one final thought to this thread, there is not much left to discuss.

Here is how I know with almost absolute certainty that this was the fault of Northrup, either being a spacecraft failure or separation failure whichever.

The chief operating officer of SpaceX made a very public series of on the record statements repeatedly saying that SpaceX was not at fault and that Falcon 9 had a nominal mission. These comments were made with the full knowledge that, at the same exact time, congressional officials were being briefed on the failure and and investigation was underway at the highest levels.

Consider the following, what does SpaceX have to gain by lying on the record knowing this? The answer is nothing, but they do have everything in the world to lose. To do this would be almost tantamount to lying to lawmakers directly or to lying to the federal government outright. They would get caught, and this would result in extreme penalties for the company, up to and including potential criminal charges against the management. SpaceX would lose any and all future government contracts and they would probably be at risk to lose their NASA related contracts as well. It would essentially end the company. You absolutely CANNOT lie when NSS payloads are involved, it cannot be done.

There is absolutely no business or technical reason for SpaceX to lie, or even remotely attempt to obfuscate responsibility in this failure and there is every reason in the world not to. If they say Falcon 9, that means ALL of Falcon 9 including the PAF, fairing, ect, performed nominally, then it most likely did.

Northrup, unlike SpaceX, has some leverage at the highest levels since they are the primary contractor for things like the B2 replacement and other critical projects. But the reality is if they resort to finger pointing here they will get hurt for it. Failure is their's pure and simple what remains to be seen is if they take ownership.

Just wanted to throw this out there.

Yup.  But it doesn't rule out that SpaceX was honestly mistaken, and GS's statement (as it should) leaves the door open to further analysis.

If I were to place odds at this point, I'd choose "There was a separation failure" and "It was NG's fault".  But there's not enough information to be sure.  Maybe even with the vendors.

Think about this scenario:
SpaceX:  We did everything right.  We sent the right signal. (And maybe even: "We received the correct response")
NG: We did everything right.  We never received the signal.  We don't know why you think you got the correct response.

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: SimonFD on 01/15/2018 03:13 pm
So, if y'all wonder why the possibility that NG could be lying to Congress bothers me so much, well... that's why.  SpaceX could get us to Mars.  NG could care less.
If SpaceX = good, then Northrop Grumman (or any other non-SpaceX entity) must = bad?  I'm tired of that point of view on these forums. 

Surely both companies were working to serve their country with this mission.   

 - Ed Kyle


I agree.
The problem is SpaceX have said as much as they can (GS:"it all worked as it should"). NG have said as much as they can (i.e. nothing -'cos it's classified) but an unnamed source claimed failure with no backup, and an (at best) inept answer was given (by Dana White) to a legit question.

We're therefore left with a massive hole of unknown to fill with speculation that reveals our fears and biases.

Which is what this forum topic is.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: LouScheffer on 01/15/2018 03:45 pm
It's true the press coverage is quite one-sided.   If you go to google news, type in "Northrup Grumman failure" (without the quotes), then hit "View Full Coverage", you will see 218 headlines containing "SpaceX" but only 3 containing "Northrup" or "Grumman".  This seems about opposite of the odds of true responsibility from the evidence so far.

But will this have any impact on SpaceX business?  I think not.  The average NSF spaceflight reader on this exact forum seems to understand what is known and what will remain unknown, where the blame likely lies, and that what people do (such as continuing with the Heavy launch, without even a hint of stand-down) is much more revealing than what people say.  And surely the average booster-buyer CTO, or insurance company risk-evaluator, is at least as informed as the space flight enthusiasts that congregate here.

So SpaceX fans, and SpaceX itself, and even SpaceX detractors, are best served by ignoring the noise and watching the action.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: MostlyHarmless on 01/15/2018 03:54 pm

2.  Do not null the roll rate, conduct de-orbit burn & venting/de-energizing.

Can #2 be done without nulling the roll?  I'm not up to speed on my orbital mechanics to know if it is possible or not.  My guess is that it is possible to change perigee without nulling the roll.  It would come down to timing the de-orbit burn. 


Just speculation on my part, but I suspect the answer for this is no.  If stage 2 is in a roll, remaining fuel will be forced to the sides of the tanks, and away from the fuel outlet.  I'm not sure that even ullage motors would be enough to compensate.  If I remember correctly, didn't one of the early Falcon 1 tests fail because the second stage started rolling (due to fuel slosh), starving out the Merlin?

Depends on the roll rate, I would think.  The spiral cloud observed makes it appear that the US had a roll rate of less than one RPM, and depending on the duration of the prop vent, maybe a lot less than that.  Not enough to force the props away from the feeds, especially with a short ullage burn from the stage's RCS.

More likely, there was no roll -- the deorbit burn was accomplished, then the booster was commanded to "tumble" before venting excess propellants.  The tumbling is used to induce higher aerodynamic forces during reentry to increase breakup and ensure most (if not all) of the components don't reach the ground.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 01/15/2018 04:11 pm
No, it wouldn't be a fixed duration burn but a fixed velocity increment and therefore entry would be in the same place, unless there was a propellant depletion
Could you point to the source of this information?

Doesn't need a source, that's just common sense. How else are you going to assure you'll hit the designated reentry zone if not with a deterministic delta-V burn?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/15/2018 04:26 pm

More likely, there was no roll -- the deorbit burn was accomplished, then the booster was commanded to "tumble" before venting excess propellants.  The tumbling is used to induce higher aerodynamic forces during reentry to increase breakup and ensure most (if not all) of the components don't reach the ground.

The tumbling is used to ensure a constant L/D or ballistic coefficient and does not induce higher aeroforces.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/15/2018 04:28 pm
No, it wouldn't be a fixed duration burn but a fixed velocity increment and therefore entry would be in the same place, unless there was a propellant depletion
Could you point to the source of this information?

That is how all burns are done.  The actual mass at the start of a burn is unknown due to dispersions.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: mn on 01/15/2018 04:58 pm
It is assumed that SpaceX would know if the payload didn't separate (regardless of cause).

So would SpaceX initially release the patch if they knew the payload didn't separate?

Unless their understanding of top secret was that they thought they need to release the patch to make believe there is no problem regardless of outcome, (and then were told otherwise later).
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: tleski on 01/15/2018 05:19 pm
That is how all burns are done.  The actual mass at the start of a burn is unknown due to dispersions.
I thought burs were pre-programmed.

This is what Jim says. They are pre-programmed to deliver a certain dV. The length of the burn depends on the actual mass of the 2nd stage.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: yokem55 on 01/15/2018 06:22 pm
It is assumed that SpaceX would know if the payload didn't separate (regardless of cause).

So would SpaceX initially release the patch if they knew the payload didn't separate?

Unless their understanding of top secret was that they thought they need to release the patch to make believe there is no problem regardless of outcome, (and then were told otherwise later).
Chris G tweeted the picture of the patch he got at about T+1hr. The fuel dump was observed at T+2 hr, 18min.

So, it's possible that payload sep was supposed to be somewhat befire that t + 1hr mark, and with what data SpaceX had at the time, thought they had a successful deployment.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: jpo234 on 01/15/2018 06:43 pm


Chris G tweeted the picture of the patch he got at about T+1hr. The fuel dump was observed at T+2 hr, 18min.

So, it's possible that payload sep was supposed to be somewhat befire that t + 1hr mark, and with what data SpaceX had at the time, thought they had a successful deployment.
I would not read too much into something that could have been decided by a PR person while the mission team was scrambling because of whatever happened.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: geza on 01/15/2018 07:05 pm
Pentagon: direct you question to SpaceX. Strange.
https://www.space.com/39374-pentagon-shuts-down-questions-about-zuma-and-raises-more-questions.html
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: deruch on 01/15/2018 07:22 pm
It is assumed that SpaceX would know if the payload didn't separate (regardless of cause).

So would SpaceX initially release the patch if they knew the payload didn't separate?

Unless their understanding of top secret was that they thought they need to release the patch to make believe there is no problem regardless of outcome, (and then were told otherwise later).
Chris G tweeted the picture of the patch he got at about T+1hr. The fuel dump was observed at T+2 hr, 18min.

So, it's possible that payload sep was supposed to be somewhat befire that t + 1hr mark, and with what data SpaceX had at the time, thought they had a successful deployment.
I would not read too much into something that could have been decided by a PR person while the mission team was scrambling because of whatever happened.

Or, SpaceX released the patches once they had determined that they successfully delivered the stack to the required orbit (plus some amount of time to maintain secrecy requirements).  Since payload separation was not their direct responsibility, they could consider their portion of the mission successful once they had achieved proper orbit.  This would be like the 30th SW routinely putting out press releases on having successfully launched out of VAFB well before total mission success (i.e. once their responsibilities as Range are over, the presser seems to go out).
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Michael Baylor on 01/15/2018 07:23 pm
You just knew Loren Thompson would weigh in at Forbes, this time trying to use ZUMA to claim an increased risk to astronauts in Commercial Crew,

*removed link*

If you are going to complain about an article because it is provocative, then you shouldn't link it. They write articles like this just because it makes people visit the site.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: deruch on 01/15/2018 07:35 pm
Pentagon: direct you question to SpaceX. Strange.
https://www.space.com/39374-pentagon-shuts-down-questions-about-zuma-and-raises-more-questions.html
No.  Not strange at all.  Zuma wasn't an avowed DoD mission.  It was a SpaceX commercial launch for Northrop Grumman.  NG's customer was an unnamed US gov't entity.  Why would the DoD choose to answer questions about a payload that they aren't claiming responsibility for?  It would be tantamount to saying the payload was the DoD's, which if that was the case, is something they've been careful to avoid saying/suggesting before now.  The only other thing they might have said was to include directing further questions to Northrop as well as SpaceX.  Otherwise that response was totally predictable and shouldn't have "shocked" any reporter at all.


edit: Northrop spelling.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: envy887 on 01/15/2018 07:52 pm
Pentagon: direct you question to SpaceX. Strange.
https://www.space.com/39374-pentagon-shuts-down-questions-about-zuma-and-raises-more-questions.html
No.  Not strange at all.  Zuma wasn't an avowed DoD mission.  It was a SpaceX commercial launch for Northrup Grumman.  NG's customer was an unnamed US gov't entity.  Why would the DoD choose to answer questions about a payload that they aren't claiming responsibility for?  It would be tantamount to saying the payload was the DoD's, which if that was the case, is something they've been careful to avoid saying/suggesting before now.  The only other thing they might have said was to include directing further questions to Northrup as well as SpaceX.  Otherwise that response was totally predictable and shouldn't have "shocked" any reporter at all.
Which non DoD agencies have billion dollar classified missions? NRO and NSA are both DoD.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: the_other_Doug on 01/15/2018 08:09 pm
Pentagon: direct you question to SpaceX. Strange.
https://www.space.com/39374-pentagon-shuts-down-questions-about-zuma-and-raises-more-questions.html
No.  Not strange at all.  Zuma wasn't an avowed DoD mission.  It was a SpaceX commercial launch for Northrup Grumman.  NG's customer was an unnamed US gov't entity.  Why would the DoD choose to answer questions about a payload that they aren't claiming responsibility for?  It would be tantamount to saying the payload was the DoD's, which if that was the case, is something they've been careful to avoid saying/suggesting before now.  The only other thing they might have said was to include directing further questions to Northrup as well as SpaceX.  Otherwise that response was totally predictable and shouldn't have "shocked" any reporter at all.
Which non DoD agencies have billion dollar classified missions? NRO and NSA are both DoD.

CIA...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: deruch on 01/15/2018 08:11 pm
Pentagon: direct you question to SpaceX. Strange.
https://www.space.com/39374-pentagon-shuts-down-questions-about-zuma-and-raises-more-questions.html
No.  Not strange at all.  Zuma wasn't an avowed DoD mission.  It was a SpaceX commercial launch for Northrup Grumman.  NG's customer was an unnamed US gov't entity.  Why would the DoD choose to answer questions about a payload that they aren't claiming responsibility for?  It would be tantamount to saying the payload was the DoD's, which if that was the case, is something they've been careful to avoid saying/suggesting before now.  The only other thing they might have said was to include directing further questions to Northrup as well as SpaceX.  Otherwise that response was totally predictable and shouldn't have "shocked" any reporter at all.
Which non DoD agencies have billion dollar classified missions? NRO and NSA are both DoD.

CIA or more likely a joint program between multiple agencies. 
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ccdengr on 01/15/2018 08:14 pm
Everybody, it's "Northrop", not "Northrup".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Corporation
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 01/15/2018 08:42 pm
The Pentagon press conference thing is old news, discussion of it started almost 300 posts ago in this thread.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 01/15/2018 09:09 pm
Pentagon: direct you question to SpaceX. Strange.
https://www.space.com/39374-pentagon-shuts-down-questions-about-zuma-and-raises-more-questions.html
No.  Not strange at all.  Zuma wasn't an avowed DoD mission.  It was a SpaceX commercial launch for Northrup Grumman.  NG's customer was an unnamed US gov't entity.  Why would the DoD choose to answer questions about a payload that they aren't claiming responsibility for?  It would be tantamount to saying the payload was the DoD's, which if that was the case, is something they've been careful to avoid saying/suggesting before now.  The only other thing they might have said was to include directing further questions to Northrup as well as SpaceX.  Otherwise that response was totally predictable and shouldn't have "shocked" any reporter at all.
Which non DoD agencies have billion dollar classified missions? NRO and NSA are both DoD.

NSA is an indepenent Executive agency. NRO is DoD. CIA is also an independent Executive agency.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: stcks on 01/15/2018 09:12 pm
NSA is an indepenent Executive agency. NRO is DoD. CIA is also an independent Executive agency.

NSA and NRO are both under DoD, unlike CIA.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: CyndyC on 01/15/2018 09:20 pm
....... and Taurus had 2 partial separation failures of the fairing frangible joint........

.......Some connection that should have been removed preflight that is still hanging on? I think a flex duct or electrical wire would be enough.

Matthew

No such connections

What about the April 1999 Titan IV inertial upper stage (IUS) clamshell separation due to "sticky tape" on an electrical connector? Not an actual payload connection but nevertheless the inadvertent configuration put a Northrop Grumman DSP satellite in a GTO rather than a planned GSO orbit. Another lesson learned from the past and incorporated into future technology?  http://www.spacedaily.com/news/titan-99e.html
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 01/15/2018 09:26 pm
NSA is an indepenent Executive agency. NRO is DoD. CIA is also an independent Executive agency.

NSA and NRO are both under DoD, unlike CIA.

Yes, you are correct. I mis-remembered (mostly because when I was growing up, "No Such Agency" was still the official line).
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: JimO on 01/15/2018 09:53 pm
I'm not so sure about these assumptions of a deorbit burn using delta-V guidance rather than just timer guidance -- the NOTAMS entry zone is mighty long for a precise aim point scheme. With a dry mass of 10,000 lbs plus remaining fuel, and a 200,000 lb thrust engine, a deorbit burn -- depending on parking orbit altitude -- could be on the order of 300-400  ft/sec, wouldn't last long. The burn over Saudi Arabia a year ago, that was widely observed and videotaped, lasted only a few seconds, so even with  gentle 3-G acceleration that's plenty of time. That's a mighty short control loop to measure achieved accel, damp out mechanical/slosh excursions, compute modified burn time, and issue new mechanical fuel line commands. I flew MCC console for OMS/RCS system for the first shuttle missions, with our engines and mass we had about two orders of magnitude less accel, and the burn lasted very long, plenty of time to recompute and fine-tune cutoff time. Not with the Falcoln-9, looks like to me. What am I missing? Just because it was the way NASA did it is no guaranty SpaceX would or could or wanted to emulate it.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars-J on 01/15/2018 10:11 pm
I'm not so sure about these assumptions of a deorbit burn using delta-V guidance rather than just timer guidance -- the NOTAMS entry zone is mighty long for a precise aim point scheme. With a dry mass of 10,000 lbs plus remaining fuel, and a 200,000 lb thrust engine, a deorbit burn -- depending on parking orbit altitude -- could be on the order of 300-400  ft/sec, wouldn't last long. The burn over Saudi Arabia a year ago, that was widely observed and videotaped, lasted only a few seconds, so even with  gentle 3-G acceleration that's plenty of time. That's a mighty short control loop to measure achieved accel, damp out mechanical/slosh excursions, compute modified burn time, and issue new mechanical fuel line commands. I flew MCC console for OMS/RCS system for the first shuttle missions, with our engines and mass we had about two orders of magnitude less accel, and the burn lasted very long, plenty of time to recompute and fine-tune cutoff time. Not with the Falcoln-9, looks like to me. What am I missing? Just because it was the way NASA did it is no guaranty SpaceX would or could or wanted to emulate it.

Note that the F9 upper stage engine is capable of quite short and precise burns, despite its large thrust. See the Iridium missions - and this where it changes a 200x650km orbit to a circular 650km, a burn with ~3 second duration.

A deorbit burn from 900-1000km would be more significant that.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lee Jay on 01/15/2018 10:35 pm
What am I missing?

Sampling rates of the IMUs measured in kHz and computations measured in GHz?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 01/15/2018 11:23 pm
Well, I think part of the reason the F9 second-stage hazard area is so big is that it's not a winged vehicle flying a guided entry and meant to survive intact. The hazard area has to account for not only nominal propulsion dispersions and tail-off, but also under- or over-performance, failures during the burn, potential attitude control anomalies before or during the burn, plus the fact that the thing is supposed to break up in dozens or hundreds of pieces along the way into the lower atmosphere. Those fragments will have widely-varying ballistic coefficients and fall over a relatively large area.

Or so it seems to me.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: the_other_Doug on 01/15/2018 11:28 pm
Well, I think part of the reason the F9 second-stage hazard area is so big is that it's not a winged vehicle flying a guided entry and meant to survive intact. The hazard area has to account for not only nominal propulsion dispersions and tail-off, but also under- or over-performance, failures during the burn, potential attitude control anomalies before or during the burn, plus the fact that the thing is supposed to break up in dozens or hundreds of pieces along the way into the lower atmosphere. Those fragments will have widely-varying ballistic coefficients and fall over a relatively large area.

Or so it seems to me.

That, and it's not running its avionics software on a PDP-8 with ground support computers that my wristwatch can now out-perform...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/15/2018 11:29 pm
....... and Taurus had 2 partial separation failures of the fairing frangible joint........

.......Some connection that should have been removed preflight that is still hanging on? I think a flex duct or electrical wire would be enough.

Matthew

No such connections

What about the April 1999 Titan IV inertial upper stage (IUS) clamshell separation due to "sticky tape" on an electrical connector? Not an actual payload connection but nevertheless the inadvertent configuration put a Northrop Grumman DSP satellite in a GTO rather than a planned GSO orbit. Another lesson learned from the past and incorporated into future technology?  http://www.spacedaily.com/news/titan-99e.html

There is nothing like that across sep planes
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/15/2018 11:32 pm
I'm not so sure about these assumptions of a deorbit burn using delta-V guidance rather than just timer guidance -- the NOTAMS entry zone is mighty long for a precise aim point scheme. With a dry mass of 10,000 lbs plus remaining fuel, and a 200,000 lb thrust engine, a deorbit burn -- depending on parking orbit altitude -- could be on the order of 300-400  ft/sec, wouldn't last long. The burn over Saudi Arabia a year ago, that was widely observed and videotaped, lasted only a few seconds, so even with  gentle 3-G acceleration that's plenty of time. That's a mighty short control loop to measure achieved accel, damp out mechanical/slosh excursions, compute modified burn time, and issue new mechanical fuel line commands. I flew MCC console for OMS/RCS system for the first shuttle missions, with our engines and mass we had about two orders of magnitude less accel, and the burn lasted very long, plenty of time to recompute and fine-tune cutoff time. Not with the Falcoln-9, looks like to me. What am I missing? Just because it was the way NASA did it is no guaranty SpaceX would or could or wanted to emulate it.

All US liquid launch vehicles use delta V guidance, Delta II & IV, Atlas V and Falcon 9.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: the_other_Doug on 01/15/2018 11:37 pm
....... and Taurus had 2 partial separation failures of the fairing frangible joint........

.......Some connection that should have been removed preflight that is still hanging on? I think a flex duct or electrical wire would be enough.

Matthew

No such connections

What about the April 1999 Titan IV inertial upper stage (IUS) clamshell separation due to "sticky tape" on an electrical connector? Not an actual payload connection but nevertheless the inadvertent configuration put a Northrop Grumman DSP satellite in a GTO rather than a planned GSO orbit. Another lesson learned from the past and incorporated into future technology?  http://www.spacedaily.com/news/titan-99e.html

There is nothing like that across sep planes

This was, from what we can tell, a one-off PAF and, thus, sep system.  As people have been telling me, you can't have seen any specs on it, so you can't speak about this particular piece of hardware authoritatively.  And if you could, and did, you'd be looking at jail time.

Just sayin'...  ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: CyndyC on 01/15/2018 11:49 pm
OK. I'm going to watch everybody repeat the same things six, maybe seven more times tops, then I'm giving up.

I don't think anyone has yet highlighted SpaceX's nearly squeaky clean payload deployment record, the only exception(s) AFAIK being one or two satellites on their very first mission(s), and their full record would be counting a much larger number of satellites and Dragons than number of missions. Yes there is always a first time, but successful payload deployment is where SpaceX has shown some of their greatest strength. Anyone questioning their technology & operations in that category is associating historical precedents in a way that most likely doesn't apply.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 01/16/2018 12:04 am
Well, I think part of the reason the F9 second-stage hazard area is so big is that it's not a winged vehicle flying a guided entry and meant to survive intact. The hazard area has to account for not only nominal propulsion dispersions and tail-off, but also under- or over-performance, failures during the burn, potential attitude control anomalies before or during the burn, plus the fact that the thing is supposed to break up in dozens or hundreds of pieces along the way into the lower atmosphere. Those fragments will have widely-varying ballistic coefficients and fall over a relatively large area.

Or so it seems to me.

That, and it's not running its avionics software on a PDP-8 with ground support computers that my wristwatch can now out-perform...
Hey! I actually did program a PDP-8 with avionics software, back in the neolithic era ... TAD (Two's complement ADd) was the most common instruction. (Later replaced by a Sperry 1819A/B, but the worst was Intel's 4004 ...)

And, the mainframes of that era were about 1-2 mips, my phone has a 4 core processor that could emulate them at 15x faster and still work the other apps w/o a sweat.

Spent half my time tracking down floating point anomalies due to poor practices ... definitely the "bad old days" ... the math was adequate but all the rest was "stone knives and bearskins" .

....... and Taurus had 2 partial separation failures of the fairing frangible joint........

.......Some connection that should have been removed preflight that is still hanging on? I think a flex duct or electrical wire would be enough.

Matthew

No such connections

What about the April 1999 Titan IV inertial upper stage (IUS) clamshell separation due to "sticky tape" on an electrical connector? Not an actual payload connection but nevertheless the inadvertent configuration put a Northrop Grumman DSP satellite in a GTO rather than a planned GSO orbit. Another lesson learned from the past and incorporated into future technology?  http://www.spacedaily.com/news/titan-99e.html

There is nothing like that across sep planes

This was, from what we can tell, a one-off PAF and, thus, sep system.  As people have been telling me, you can't have seen any specs on it, so you can't speak about this particular piece of hardware authoritatively.  And if you could, and did, you'd be looking at jail time.

Just sayin'...  ;)
Jim's right, not comparable. We saw the fairing sep.

His comment refers to the obvious case of the payload separating from the F9US. Nothing like that would be across the plane of separation.

The problem with this "20 questions" approach is lack of knowledge. Which will persist obviously.

Very likely the need for a nonstandard  adapter is linked to a special need unfulfilled by the standard one.

Also likely is that if there's a sep failure, it likely has something to do with that, possibly incorrectly / incompletely tested, or a novel problem.

He can tell you things that are not there. And he is. He does this, has done this, is doing this. Not steering you wrong. Thank you Jim.

And also one cannot assess the "blame game" remotely. That's why this thread keeps going "roundy roundy". Little information content, less understanding.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: JimO on 01/16/2018 12:43 am
Thanks for the comments. I'm still just seeing assumptions about the S2 deorbit burn guidance scheme, because 'everybody does it." And that could well be correct.

Can we deduce from the NOTAMS, meanwhile, that the Khartoum double-spiral was several minutes AFTER when the S2 deorbit burn must have occurred? Compare burn point to NOTAMS arc for last year's Saudi overflight when the burn itself was observed.

Can anybody query Khartoum contacts for any all-sky cameras that could provide duration info on the double-spiral event?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/16/2018 12:48 am
It isn't an assumption, it is done that way.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/16/2018 12:52 am
NSA is an indepenent Executive agency. NRO is DoD. CIA is also an independent Executive agency.

NSA and NRO are both under DoD, unlike CIA.
I just call them all "national security," as it would include CIA.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 01/16/2018 12:57 am
Is NASA allowed to have secret payloads?

I presume not.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 01/16/2018 01:34 am
NASA has launched secret payloads
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: JimO on 01/16/2018 01:43 am
NASA has launched secret payloads

Shuttle-related flight plan details were classified only at the 'SECRET' level, but details of the spacecraft itself were often classified at higher levels requiring much tighter controls and special facilities for handling those data. For the operators who were just delivering cargo, not having to operate at levels at TS and special access programs was an enormous alleviation of overhead.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: mn on 01/16/2018 02:24 am
NASA has launched secret payloads

I suspect that means they launched on behalf of other agencies?

His question was whether NASA owned any secret payloads.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: geza on 01/16/2018 04:03 am
Pentagon: direct you question to SpaceX. Strange.
https://www.space.com/39374-pentagon-shuts-down-questions-about-zuma-and-raises-more-questions.html
No.  Not strange at all.  Zuma wasn't an avowed DoD mission.  It was a SpaceX commercial launch for Northrop Grumman.  NG's customer was an unnamed US gov't entity.  Why would the DoD choose to answer questions about a payload that they aren't claiming responsibility for?  It would be tantamount to saying the payload was the DoD's, which if that was the case, is something they've been careful to avoid saying/suggesting before now.  The only other thing they might have said was to include directing further questions to Northrop as well as SpaceX.  Otherwise that response was totally predictable and shouldn't have "shocked" any reporter at all.


edit: Northrop spelling.
I know nothing about the relationships between different US government entities. However, DoD could just decline telling anything, citing secrecy. Naming one company, but not the other, unnecessarly, is finger pointing. Anybody, who is not familiar with the issue ("dispenser", "separation signal") will read it, as a hint for SpaceX failure.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 01/16/2018 09:41 am
So, if y'all wonder why the possibility that NG could be lying to Congress bothers me so much, well... that's why.  SpaceX could get us to Mars.  NG could care less.
If SpaceX = good, then Northrop Grumman (or any other non-SpaceX entity) must = bad?  I'm tired of that point of view on these forums. 

Surely both companies were working to serve their country with this mission.   

 - Ed Kyle


Both companies were working to serve their respective customer, not so much their country.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jet Black on 01/16/2018 11:02 am
I know nothing about the relationships between different US government entities. However, DoD could just decline telling anything, citing secrecy. Naming one company, but not the other, unnecessarly, is finger pointing. Anybody, who is not familiar with the issue ("dispenser", "separation signal") will read it, as a hint for SpaceX failure.

and they can misread it if they like. SpaceX customers will understand though - remember as much as the public take an interest in rocket launches, informing the public is not really important to SpaceX's bottom line.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 01/16/2018 03:37 pm
Pentagon: direct you question to SpaceX. Strange.
https://www.space.com/39374-pentagon-shuts-down-questions-about-zuma-and-raises-more-questions.html
No.  Not strange at all.  Zuma wasn't an avowed DoD mission.  It was a SpaceX commercial launch for Northrop Grumman.  NG's customer was an unnamed US gov't entity.  Why would the DoD choose to answer questions about a payload that they aren't claiming responsibility for?  It would be tantamount to saying the payload was the DoD's, which if that was the case, is something they've been careful to avoid saying/suggesting before now.  The only other thing they might have said was to include directing further questions to Northrop as well as SpaceX.  Otherwise that response was totally predictable and shouldn't have "shocked" any reporter at all.


edit: Northrop spelling.
I know nothing about the relationships between different US government entities. However, DoD could just decline telling anything, citing secrecy. Naming one company, but not the other, unnecessarly, is finger pointing. Anybody, who is not familiar with the issue ("dispenser", "separation signal") will read it, as a hint for SpaceX failure.

No, the DoD referring questions to SpaceX not NG is not finger pointing.  It's perfectly natural.  SpaceX was the company broadcasting the launch.  SpaceX was the company that put out a statement after the launch.  There was no statement from NG.  So, if you're speaking for the DoD and you can't say anything yourself, the most natural place to refer questions to is the only company that said anything about it, and, probably, the only one that legal could.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: envy887 on 01/16/2018 04:18 pm
NSA is an indepenent Executive agency. NRO is DoD. CIA is also an independent Executive agency.

NSA and NRO are both under DoD, unlike CIA.
I just call them all "national security," as it would include CIA.
The question that prompted this was whether the DoD had oversight to the Zuma payload. Which they should, unless it was procured soley by a civilian agency like CIA.

Does the CIA (or any other civilian agency) have any of their own recon sat platforms? From what I understand they were and are jointly operated with at least one DoD agency.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: RonM on 01/16/2018 05:21 pm
NSA is an indepenent Executive agency. NRO is DoD. CIA is also an independent Executive agency.

NSA and NRO are both under DoD, unlike CIA.
I just call them all "national security," as it would include CIA.
The question that prompted this was whether the DoD had oversight to the Zuma payload. Which they should, unless it was procured soley by a civilian agency like CIA.

Does the CIA (or any other civilian agency) have any of their own recon sat platforms? From what I understand they were and are jointly operated with at least one DoD agency.

Interesting question, but it doesn't matter in this case. No government agency is on the record having anything to do with Zuma. No one in government is going to officially say anything about this mission.

Does make me wonder what the Zuma project is all about. Unfortunately, we'll never know* and speculating without evidence is not a productive exercise.

*Maybe some of the younger folk here will be around when it's eventually declassified.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Roy_H on 01/16/2018 05:46 pm
You just knew Loren Thompson would weigh in at Forbes, this time trying to use ZUMA to claim an increased risk to astronauts in Commercial Crew,

Forbes.... (https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2018/01/15/doubts-about-spacex-reliability-persist-as-astronaut-missions-approach/#7e34cb523305)
That link brought me to the general page rather than the article.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2018/01/15/doubts-about-spacex-reliability-persist-as-astronaut-missions-approach/#322d01383305
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: russianhalo117 on 01/16/2018 05:48 pm
You just knew Loren Thompson would weigh in at Forbes, this time trying to use ZUMA to claim an increased risk to astronauts in Commercial Crew,

Forbes.... (https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2018/01/15/doubts-about-spacex-reliability-persist-as-astronaut-missions-approach/#7e34cb523305)
That link brought me to the general page rather than the article.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2018/01/15/doubts-about-spacex-reliability-persist-as-astronaut-missions-approach/#322d01383305

Both links are not permalinks and will expire and change
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: JimO on 01/16/2018 08:36 pm
.....
Can anybody query Khartoum contacts for any all-sky cameras that could provide duration info on the double-spiral event?

I've initiated email and press inquiries, will report back.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Wolfram66 on 01/16/2018 08:55 pm
You just knew Loren Thompson would weigh in at Forbes, this time trying to use ZUMA to claim an increased risk to astronauts in Commercial Crew,

Forbes.... (https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2018/01/15/doubts-about-spacex-reliability-persist-as-astronaut-missions-approach/#7e34cb523305)
That link brought me to the general page rather than the article.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2018/01/15/doubts-about-spacex-reliability-persist-as-astronaut-missions-approach/#322d01383305

Both links are not permalinks and will expire and change

Loren Thompson obviously is heavily invested in ULA - Boeing - Lockheed  & MIC related companies. Doesn't seem to mention all of the Russian Failures recently, yet we still put our personnel on them. #Jackwagon
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Ludus on 01/17/2018 05:59 am
Hypothetically, if a secret expensive payload failed to separate from an F9 S2 for any reason, would SpaceX or the nameless government customer likely proceed to deorbit the second stage anyway destroying all possibility of salvaging the mission or would they just let it orbit for awhile to see if something could be done?

Does SpaceX have the capability of leaving the S2 in orbit and deciding at some future time to deorbit it?

Would it be pretty clear that nothing could be done soon after the event or would that be a difficult call until the problem had been worked for awhile?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 01/17/2018 06:01 am
Yeah, I really do think it would be completely obvious if the payload didn't separate. This whole discussion is based on a rumour from an unnamed source. It's stupid.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: kevinof on 01/17/2018 06:53 am
The S2 doesn't have solar panels and very limited batteries so it's shelf life is very limited -parking it somewhere and coming back to sort it out later is not an option.

Hypothetically, if a secret expensive payload failed to separate from an F9 S2 for any reason, would SpaceX or the nameless government customer likely proceed to deorbit the second stage anyway destroying all possibility of salvaging the mission or would they just let it orbit for awhile to see if something could be done?

Does SpaceX have the capability of leaving the S2 in orbit and deciding at some future time to deorbit it?

Would it be pretty clear that nothing could be done soon after the event or would that be a difficult call until the problem had been worked for awhile?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: jpo234 on 01/17/2018 07:58 am
The S2 doesn't have solar panels and very limited batteries so it's self life is very limited -parking it someone and coming back to sort it out later is not an option.

Hypothetically, if a secret expensive payload failed to separate from an F9 S2 for any reason, would SpaceX or the nameless government customer likely proceed to deorbit the second stage anyway destroying all possibility of salvaging the mission or would they just let it orbit for awhile to see if something could be done?

Does SpaceX have the capability of leaving the S2 in orbit and deciding at some future time to deorbit it?

Would it be pretty clear that nothing could be done soon after the event or would that be a difficult call until the problem had been worked for awhile?

Not to mention that LOX would boil off and that RP1 could cool below its pour point without active thermal management.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jet Black on 01/17/2018 10:01 am
.....
Can anybody query Khartoum contacts for any all-sky cameras that could provide duration info on the double-spiral event?

I've initiated email and press inquiries, will report back.

I'm curious about the double spiral since it is the first time I have ever seen it. Have there been other images of previous stages with this - the reason I ask is that if the Zuma satellite was still attached, then it's possible that the torque would be different (Center of Mass changes due to there being an attached satellite) and thus the spiral might appear different to an empty second stage that has correctly detached it's payload. Depending on the mass though compared to the mass of the second stage, it might not be significant - or then again it might, in which case you might be able to tell that something is attached. This would be harder of course if the rotation axis is along the stage (from engine to satellite)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: kevinof on 01/17/2018 10:39 am
2010  http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/06/05/oh-those-falcon-ufos/#.WloXHahl9dh

.....
Can anybody query Khartoum contacts for any all-sky cameras that could provide duration info on the double-spiral event?

I've initiated email and press inquiries, will report back.

I'm curious about the double spiral since it is the first time I have ever seen it. Have there been other images of previous stages with this - the reason I ask is that if the Zuma satellite was still attached, then it's possible that the torque would be different (Center of Mass changes due to there being an attached satellite) and thus the spiral might appear different to an empty second stage that has correctly detached it's payload. Depending on the mass though compared to the mass of the second stage, it might not be significant - or then again it might, in which case you might be able to tell that something is attached. This would be harder of course if the rotation axis is along the stage (from engine to satellite)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: bjornl on 01/17/2018 10:58 am
2010  http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/06/05/oh-those-falcon-ufos/#.WloXHahl9dh

I'm curious about the double spiral since it is the first time I have ever seen it. Have there been other images of previous stages with this
That was the first launch, in which the second stage got an unintentional spin, which was already obvious during ascent.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 01/17/2018 11:10 am
This thread is literally going in circles now.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: JimO on 01/17/2018 12:08 pm
.....
Can anybody query Khartoum contacts for any all-sky cameras that could provide duration info on the double-spiral event?

I've initiated email and press inquiries, will report back.


I am now in touch with the University of Khartoum Space Research Centre.

They are eager to collect and send more eyewitness reports.

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/17/2018 12:12 pm

Does SpaceX have the capability of leaving the S2 in orbit and deciding at some future time to deorbit it?


no, as stated many times before, there is no commanding capability and the batteries only last for a matter of hours.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: stcks on 01/17/2018 03:15 pm

Does SpaceX have the capability of leaving the S2 in orbit and deciding at some future time to deorbit it?


no, as stated many times before, there is no commanding capability and the batteries only last for a matter of hours.

Jim. I believe you 100%, but its perplexing to me given the CRS-1 partial failure (https://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/004/121008orbcomm/)? Specifically, this part:

Quote
The second stage's Merlin engine was supposed to reignite briefly to place the Orbcomm payload in an orbit between 350 kilometers and 750 kilometers above Earth, or about 217 miles by 466 miles.

Because of strict safety constraints instituted to ensure satellites and space debris do not come too close to the space station, the Falcon 9 upper stage's second burn was aborted.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 01/17/2018 03:19 pm
Jim. I believe you 100%, but its perplexing to me given the CRS-1 partial failure (https://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/004/121008orbcomm/)?

That doesn't contradict what he said. Flight software can be programmed to make that decision on its own, based on measured propellant quantity remaining. The "aborted" statement does not imply human intervention during flight.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: stcks on 01/17/2018 03:20 pm
Jim. I believe you 100%, but its perplexing to me given the CRS-1 partial failure (https://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/004/121008orbcomm/)?

That doesn't contradict what he said. Flight software can be programmed to make that decision on its own, based on measured propellant quantity remaining. The "aborted" statement does not imply human intervention during flight.

Ah, thats a good point. 👍
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: yokem55 on 01/17/2018 05:03 pm
The hearing on commercial crew had Hans Koenigsmann repeating SpaceX's position that the Falcon 9 performed exactly as specified. Also, per Eric Berger, Gerst said that NASA hadn't been informed of any mishap:
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/953655636327305220
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: pb2000 on 01/17/2018 05:40 pm

Does SpaceX have the capability of leaving the S2 in orbit and deciding at some future time to deorbit it?


no, as stated many times before, there is no commanding capability and the batteries only last for a matter of hours.
Everybody keeps repeating that, but it really doesn't make any sense from a technology and engineering standpoint.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: georgegassaway on 01/17/2018 06:05 pm

Does SpaceX have the capability of leaving the S2 in orbit and deciding at some future time to deorbit it?


no, as stated many times before, there is no commanding capability and the batteries only last for a matter of hours.
Everybody keeps repeating that, but it really doesn't make any sense from a technology and engineering standpoint.

Let's say they add more battery capacity or even solar panels. Among other issues, the LOx is still boiling off, needing to vent or else burst the tank. Over some limited amount of time (more hours than days), there's nothing left to do a re-entry burn with.

So the stage is designed to live long enough to do what it needs to do, not have an "emergency stand by for days" mode that would add to the cost and complexity (and more to go wrong) for such little likely value in return.  Different thing than if there was an important mission requirement for some future customers who would want that capability for a lot of flights.

As well, its not very likely that if they had days to spend, there would likely be any "fix" for the problem, that wasn't already part of a contingency plan of options they would have tried before giving up on it. Apollo-13, this was not.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: MostlyHarmless on 01/17/2018 06:19 pm

Does SpaceX have the capability of leaving the S2 in orbit and deciding at some future time to deorbit it?


no, as stated many times before, there is no commanding capability and the batteries only last for a matter of hours.
Everybody keeps repeating that, but it really doesn't make any sense from a technology and engineering standpoint.

It makes perfect sense.  Rocket stages have a very limited lifetime requirement.  Since they are powered only by batteries, and have no capability of producing power on orbit, longer lifetime requirements mean larger batteries.  Larger batteries mean reduced payload capability. 

You want the booster de-orbited at the earliest opportunity -- so it can be dropped in the desired target area.  Waiting an orbit or two past that, and you risk either running out of power before the burn can be accomplished, or having the reentry area occur over populated areas. 

Perhaps someone else has definitive info on expected 2nd stage battery lifetimes...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: cscott on 01/17/2018 06:22 pm

Does SpaceX have the capability of leaving the S2 in orbit and deciding at some future time to deorbit it?


no, as stated many times before, there is no commanding capability and the batteries only last for a matter of hours.
Everybody keeps repeating that, but it really doesn't make any sense from a technology and engineering standpoint.
I tend to reconcile this as:

Sure, there's a backdoor diagnostic radio link we *could* use in some unusual situation, but we can't guarantee radio coverage at every point on the F9's trajectory, and in particular we can't guarantee that we'll be in coverage when [important thing] needs to happen.

So the vehicle is designed to be completely autonomous.

Again, we probably *could* override the stage in unusual cases, but (a) we don't test for this, (b) we don't count on it being possible (due to limited radio coverage), and (c) we don't really have time to diagnose and create an appropriate override package when things do go wrong. (To point c, note that we were told SpaceX tried to manually command a chute deploy for CRS-8, but couldn't get it done before the dragon dropped below the radio horizon. Dragon is not S2, of course.)

So in practice, SpaceX does not command the stage from the ground and it is entirely autonomous.  And the autonomous sequence programs a relatively quick S2 reentry.

The only exception would be some unusual case where time and radio coverage conspire to let SpaceX try a daring hack. Say some future S2 has upgraded batteries and propellant storage and ends up stranded in an orbit with good visibility from the Cape.  That *might* be a situation where SpaceX breaks out the backdoor diagnostic/debugging link and tries to improvise control of the stage.

This interpretation squares Jim's insistence that, practically speaking, the stage is completely autonomous and there is no way to command it from the ground, with the engineer's certainty that there's always some backdoor diagnostic capability available (even though it is usually impractical or impossible or too "cowboy" to use).

Jim will correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure. Perhaps there's no RX radio at all on S2, and there's no way to use diagnostic backdoors without a hard wire. But *even if there were a ground-to-S2 link* the above would be the reasons why it is in practice never used for control
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/17/2018 06:51 pm

Does SpaceX have the capability of leaving the S2 in orbit and deciding at some future time to deorbit it?


no, as stated many times before, there is no commanding capability and the batteries only last for a matter of hours.
Everybody keeps repeating that, but it really doesn't make any sense from a technology and engineering standpoint.

Yes, it makes great sense.  There aren't tracking sites in the right places to be able to send the commands.  There isn't enough time to diagnose and correct problems in time.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Stan-1967 on 01/17/2018 06:58 pm
A F9 S2 would need much more than a bigger battery to survive longer & have on the fly change capability while on orbit.   You’d basically need to design it with ACES like capability.  You need power generation, comms, & thermal control that includes an RCS system.   

How long would CRS-2 have lasted if they didn’t override & deploy the solar panels?  Look at how quickly Skylab nearly reached loss of mission when thermal & power went out of whack.   LEO is not friendly to electronics.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: pb2000 on 01/17/2018 08:32 pm

Does SpaceX have the capability of leaving the S2 in orbit and deciding at some future time to deorbit it?


no, as stated many times before, there is no commanding capability and the batteries only last for a matter of hours.
Everybody keeps repeating that, but it really doesn't make any sense from a technology and engineering standpoint.
I tend to reconcile this as:

Sure, there's a backdoor diagnostic radio link we *could* use in some unusual situation, but we can't guarantee radio coverage at every point on the F9's trajectory, and in particular we can't guarantee that we'll be in coverage when [important thing] needs to happen.

So the vehicle is designed to be completely autonomous.

Again, we probably *could* override the stage in unusual cases, but (a) we don't test for this, (b) we don't count on it being possible (due to limited radio coverage), and (c) we don't really have time to diagnose and create an appropriate override package when things do go wrong. (To point c, note that we were told SpaceX tried to manually command a chute deploy for CRS-8, but couldn't get it done before the dragon dropped below the radio horizon. Dragon is not S2, of course.)

So in practice, SpaceX does not command the stage from the ground and it is entirely autonomous.  And the autonomous sequence programs a relatively quick S2 reentry.

The only exception would be some unusual case where time and radio coverage conspire to let SpaceX try a daring hack. Say some future S2 has upgraded batteries and propellant storage and ends up stranded in an orbit with good visibility from the Cape.  That *might* be a situation where SpaceX breaks out the backdoor diagnostic/debugging link and tries to improvise control of the stage.

This interpretation squares Jim's insistence that, practically speaking, the stage is completely autonomous and there is no way to command it from the ground, with the engineer's certainty that there's always some backdoor diagnostic capability available (even though it is usually impractical or impossible or too "cowboy" to use).

Jim will correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure. Perhaps there's no RX radio at all on S2, and there's no way to use diagnostic backdoors without a hard wire. But *even if there were a ground-to-S2 link* the above would be the reasons why it is in practice never used for control
That's not far off from what I was thinking. If Zuma truly was a payload separation failure, I'm sure NG would have loved an extra orbit to troubleshoot.

As for batteries, I'm not sure how much power S2 uses during a coast phase, but good LiPo cells are something like 150Wh/Kg. Even assuming a ridiculous power consumption, we're still only talking single digit Kg's for an extra 2 hours. Hardly a deal breaker.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Testraindrop on 01/17/2018 08:46 pm
From the Updates thread:
https://twitter.com/SES_Satellites/status/953732417810034688

Looking forward to @GovSatLu 1st #satellite launch with @SpaceX. Following Zuma mission, our engineering staff have reviewed all relevant launch vehicle flight data following last Falcon-9 launcher mission. We are confident on SpaceX readiness & set for Govsat-1 launch late Jan!

After Matt Desch now also SES sees no problem with F9, and thats after inspecting the data.
So I guess its fair to say that Shotwell wasn't lying when she said that F9 was nominal...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/17/2018 08:47 pm

Does SpaceX have the capability of leaving the S2 in orbit and deciding at some future time to deorbit it?


no, as stated many times before, there is no commanding capability and the batteries only last for a matter of hours.
Everybody keeps repeating that, but it really doesn't make any sense from a technology and engineering standpoint.
I tend to reconcile this as:

Sure, there's a backdoor diagnostic radio link we *could* use in some unusual situation, but we can't guarantee radio coverage at every point on the F9's trajectory, and in particular we can't guarantee that we'll be in coverage when [important thing] needs to happen.

So the vehicle is designed to be completely autonomous.

Again, we probably *could* override the stage in unusual cases, but (a) we don't test for this, (b) we don't count on it being possible (due to limited radio coverage), and (c) we don't really have time to diagnose and create an appropriate override package when things do go wrong. (To point c, note that we were told SpaceX tried to manually command a chute deploy for CRS-8, but couldn't get it done before the dragon dropped below the radio horizon. Dragon is not S2, of course.)

So in practice, SpaceX does not command the stage from the ground and it is entirely autonomous.  And the autonomous sequence programs a relatively quick S2 reentry.

The only exception would be some unusual case where time and radio coverage conspire to let SpaceX try a daring hack. Say some future S2 has upgraded batteries and propellant storage and ends up stranded in an orbit with good visibility from the Cape.  That *might* be a situation where SpaceX breaks out the backdoor diagnostic/debugging link and tries to improvise control of the stage.

This interpretation squares Jim's insistence that, practically speaking, the stage is completely autonomous and there is no way to command it from the ground, with the engineer's certainty that there's always some backdoor diagnostic capability available (even though it is usually impractical or impossible or too "cowboy" to use).

Jim will correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure. Perhaps there's no RX radio at all on S2, and there's no way to use diagnostic backdoors without a hard wire. But *even if there were a ground-to-S2 link* the above would be the reasons why it is in practice never used for control
That's not far off from what I was thinking. If Zuma truly was a payload separation failure, I'm sure NG would have loved an extra orbit to troubleshoot.

As for batteries, I'm not sure how much power S2 uses during a coast phase, but good LiPo cells are something like 150Wh/Kg. Even assuming a ridiculous power consumption, we're still only talking single digit Kg's for an extra 2 hours. Hardly a deal breaker.

Wrong, there is nothing NG could do if there was a capability.  There is no backup separation system.  The spacecraft is not active until after separation, it is inhibited from doing anything while attached to the second stage, including receiving commands.  Also, the second stage was responsible for sending the sep signal.  The sep signal just goes to the sep system and not the spacecraft, so the spacecraft has no direct interaction with the sep signal.*

Also, even if there was power, it doesn't mean there is a tracking site within that orbit to receive data or send commands.


* the only interaction between F9 stage two and the spacecraft is if there is a direct electrical connections for the receiving  of discrete signals.   This is a capability that is seldom used. 


Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 01/17/2018 08:51 pm
Well - Hans said it several times before congress today as well. which makes two points...

1) SpaceX is extremely confident in the nominal performance of their vehicle

2) Congress is hopping all over the rumor mill and were basically flat out claiming SpaceX had a failed mission with Zuma that would impact commercial crew.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lar on 01/17/2018 08:55 pm
Yeah, I should know better than to say this, but sometimes things here on earth take more than one try. Not likely that a separation command takes more than one try, but there have been instances of other (mechanical) systems in space that didn't work on the first try but were activated more than once and finally "broke loose".

Firing a pyro[1] isn't like a mechanical device of course, but that in general is a reason to possibly allow commands to be sent up even if the vehicle is normally fully autonomous. because sometimes a second try actually helps.

(assuming the position for Jim to beat me senseless for a bad suggestion :) )

1 - we don't know that the separation was a pyro but that's the way to bet.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 01/17/2018 08:57 pm
Congress is hopping all over the rumor mill and were basically flat out claiming SpaceX had a failed mission with Zuma that would impact commercial crew.
Tribal politics at its ... er ... finest? More "fake news"?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Nomadd on 01/17/2018 09:03 pm
The only way you can be sure the stage sends the sep signal on this case, as opposed to a "clear to sep" signal would be inside information that I doubt NG or whatever government agency would appreciate being released in public.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: pb2000 on 01/17/2018 09:18 pm
Yes, it makes great sense.  There aren't tracking sites in the right places to be able to send the commands.  There isn't enough time to diagnose and correct problems in time.
STS-51-F was saved by an Engineer on the ground...

Wrong, there is nothing NG could do if there was a capability.  There is no backup separation system.  The spacecraft is not active until after separation, it is inhibited from doing anything while attached to the second stage, including receiving commands.  Also, the second stage was responsible for sending the sep signal.  The sep signal just goes to the sep system and not the spacecraft, so the spacecraft has no direct interaction with the sep signal.*

Also, even if there was power, it doesn't mean there is a tracking site within that orbit to receive data or send commands.

* the only interaction between F9 stage two and the spacecraft is if there is a direct electrical connections for the receiving  of discrete signals.   This is a capability that is seldom used.
NG provided the payload adapter, which I assume has the separation system. Do we know if the signal to separate sent by the F9 is just a voltage passed directly through to whatever mechanism NG used, or did the payload adapter have a controller between the F9 and the separation system?

As for all the talk about ground stations - SpaceX seems to have pretty good coverage during all the major mission milestones, based on the live video we get.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: tvg98 on 01/17/2018 09:22 pm
Quote
As for all the talk about ground stations - SpaceX seems to have pretty good coverage during all the major mission milestones, based on the live video we get.

The lack of coverage tends to be more apparent on Iridium webcasts.

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/17/2018 10:23 pm
Yes, it makes great sense.  There aren't tracking sites in the right places to be able to send the commands.  There isn't enough time to diagnose and correct problems in time.
STS-51-F was saved by an Engineer on the ground...

Wrong, there is nothing NG could do if there was a capability.  There is no backup separation system.  The spacecraft is not active until after separation, it is inhibited from doing anything while attached to the second stage, including receiving commands.  Also, the second stage was responsible for sending the sep signal.  The sep signal just goes to the sep system and not the spacecraft, so the spacecraft has no direct interaction with the sep signal.*

Also, even if there was power, it doesn't mean there is a tracking site within that orbit to receive data or send commands.

* the only interaction between F9 stage two and the spacecraft is if there is a direct electrical connections for the receiving  of discrete signals.   This is a capability that is seldom used.
NG provided the payload adapter, which I assume has the separation system. Do we know if the signal to separate sent by the F9 is just a voltage passed directly through to whatever mechanism NG used, or did the payload adapter have a controller between the F9 and the separation system?

As for all the talk about ground stations - SpaceX seems to have pretty good coverage during all the major mission milestones, based on the live video we get.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/17/2018 10:30 pm
51-F is not a valid example.
A.  There was no ground command.
B.  There wouldn't be an issue for an unmanned mission.  There wouldn't be a red line or an inhibit in the first place.  Commercial Crew isn't going to have the same capability.

No reason for such a box, unless the spacecraft has weird needs.

That is only SpaceX telemetry and only in view from the launch site.  Also, SpaceX stores and dumps TM for longer missions. 
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: catdlr on 01/17/2018 11:36 pm
Congressman Grills SpaceX Over Zuma and Rocket Failures


Quote
VideoFromSpace
Published on Jan 17, 2018


Representative Brian Babin (R-TX 36th District) asks SpaceX's Dr. Hans Koenigsmann (vice president, Build and Flight Reliability) and others about the mysterious circumstances that occurred during the Zuma mission launch and other SpaceX rocket failures. The questioning occurred at a hearing by the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology to get an update on NASA Commercial Crew Systems Development on Jan. 17, 2017.

Credit: House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

https://youtu.be/juZVCbnnZB8?t=001

https://youtu.be/juZVCbnnZB8
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lar on 01/17/2018 11:43 pm
Grandstander.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 01/17/2018 11:45 pm
So we now know NASA isn't the unnamed agency... which was a safe bet all along. Yawn.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Coastal Ron on 01/17/2018 11:52 pm
Watching the video when Congressman Babin asked about "load-n-go" being used for crewed and uncrewed flights made me realize that ALL uncrewed flights of ALL launcher types use "load-n-go".

So it's really crewed flights that have been the exception as to when the launchers are fueled and the "precious cargo" is installed on top of the launchers.

That's a perspective I just realized, but no doubt many understood. Call me slow...  :o
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 01/18/2018 12:07 am
Hey the good news from this idiot Congressman is the James Web telescope cost $9 million
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: pb2000 on 01/18/2018 12:13 am
Hey the good news from this idiot Congressman is the James Web telescope cost $9 million
Bad news is that AMOS-9 is also apparently a failure. When is it scheduled to launch blow up?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lar on 01/18/2018 12:18 am
There's now a thread for discussion of this hearing,  Not all of these posts are Zuma related so maybe consider posting non-Zuma but hearing related discussion to that thread?

Edit: Belay that advice, because it's in Space Policy

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44709

... so not everyone can post there. Aether I guess..
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: pb2000 on 01/18/2018 05:09 am
I don't understand why somebody in Congress is asking for further qualification/certification of SpaceX stuff for JWST.
Northrop Grumman built Zuma and is primary on the JWST.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: deruch on 01/18/2018 05:42 am
Yeah, I should know better than to say this, but sometimes things here on earth take more than one try. Not likely that a separation command takes more than one try, but there have been instances of other (mechanical) systems in space that didn't work on the first try but were activated more than once and finally "broke loose".

Firing a pyro[1] isn't like a mechanical device of course, but that in general is a reason to possibly allow commands to be sent up even if the vehicle is normally fully autonomous. because sometimes a second try actually helps.

(assuming the position for Jim to beat me senseless for a bad suggestion :) )

1 - we don't know that the separation was a pyro but that's the way to bet.

I imagine it would be SOP for the vehicle to send more than 1 separation command signal?  i.e. keep sending them for X amount of time or until it receives a sep. success signal from the breakwire/microswitch.  If the vehicle is already sending repeated signals to the separation mechanism, not much is to be gained by trying to command from the ground.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: swampcat on 01/18/2018 09:23 am
Sure.  But the NG built JWST is planned to fly on the ESA Arianne 5.  It doesn't make sense to certify Spacex hardware for jwst.  Don't think NASA has any reach to dig into certifying Arianne 5 components.  Shrug.


He may be implying confidence in NG and lack of same with SpaceX.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: hopalong on 01/18/2018 10:35 am
Yeah, I should know better than to say this, but sometimes things here on earth take more than one try. Not likely that a separation command takes more than one try, but there have been instances of other (mechanical) systems in space that didn't work on the first try but were activated more than once and finally "broke loose".

Firing a pyro[1] isn't like a mechanical device of course, but that in general is a reason to possibly allow commands to be sent up even if the vehicle is normally fully autonomous. because sometimes a second try actually helps.

(assuming the position for Jim to beat me senseless for a bad suggestion :) )

1 - we don't know that the separation was a pyro but that's the way to bet.

I imagine it would be SOP for the vehicle to send more than 1 separation command signal?  i.e. keep sending them for X amount of time or until it receives a sep. success signal from the breakwire/microswitch.  If the vehicle is already sending repeated signals to the separation mechanism, not much is to be gained by trying to command from the ground.

If I remember the user guide correctly, two separation signals are sent to the PAF via different physical cables with loop-backs so verifying that the signal had reached the PAF.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Cologan on 01/18/2018 01:15 pm
sorry if this question is awfully redundant, but all this lobbying nonsense is confusing me:

What is the actual "evidence" that there was a failure ? Is there any "new" "evidence" linking SpaceX to said potential failure ?

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 01/18/2018 01:20 pm
sorry if this question is awfully redundant, but all this lobbying nonsense is confusing me:

What is the actual "evidence" that there was a failure ? Is there any "new" "evidence" linking SpaceX to said potential failure ?
Actually it’s to the contrary - Hans has stated / testified as a witness in a congressional meeting that there were zero issues with the Falcon 9 system during the Zuma mission.

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Cologan on 01/18/2018 01:27 pm
sorry if this question is awfully redundant, but all this lobbying nonsense is confusing me:

What is the actual "evidence" that there was a failure ? Is there any "new" "evidence" linking SpaceX to said potential failure ?
Actually it’s to the contrary - Hans has stated / testified as a witness in a congressional meeting that there were zero issues with the Falcon 9 system during the Zuma mission.
Ok, so no evidence whatsoever to failure on spacex part?
I am asking because it seems to still come up, and i want to know if i can ignore that or if there is actual truth to it

Gesendet von meinem SM-G935F mit Tapatalk

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: yokem55 on 01/18/2018 01:45 pm
sorry if this question is awfully redundant, but all this lobbying nonsense is confusing me:

What is the actual "evidence" that there was a failure ? Is there any "new" "evidence" linking SpaceX to said potential failure ?
Actually it’s to the contrary - Hans has stated / testified as a witness in a congressional meeting that there were zero issues with the Falcon 9 system during the Zuma mission.
And one new data point - Gerstenmaier said that NASA would have been informed of a mishap and as of then, had not been informed of a mishap.

Now, this doesn't mean that there wasn't a mishap in the overall mission, but it could mean that at this point NASA doesn't have a 'need to know' about it. That lends a lot of credence to the SpaceX assertions that everything was nominal on the LV side of things as it's the LV that would be NASA's concern.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: BeamRider on 01/18/2018 02:00 pm
The supposed Zuma fairing issue is nagging at me. What characteristic of the Zuma payload could cause concern about fairing sep, and could that characteristic or a related one cause a payload deploy anomaly?

There was a statement that the fairing issue was a “customer concern”. Could that imply that NG had a nonstandard (greater) degree of design or operational responsibility for the fairing, and perhaps everything including fairing sep onward?

Do we know if the payload was delivered to SX as a sealed-fairing package? I heard the “please give us control of the camera” call during the launch, but I don’t recall if that was post fairing sep, and I don’t recall whether there was SX confirmation of fairing sep?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: MostlyHarmless on 01/18/2018 02:44 pm
.... I don’t recall whether there was SX confirmation of fairing sep?

I just watched the SpaceX launch video, again.  Fairing deploy was scheduled to occur at ~ T+3:13.  The SpaceX PA guy confirmed successful fairing deploy at T+5:18.  This delay seems a bit long, but I don't think that relates to anything other than a limited experience in supporting classified launches, and making sure that an appropriate separation is maintained between the unclassified launch reporting and the classified post-staging mission updates.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: BeamRider on 01/18/2018 03:00 pm
It could also mean that SX did not observe the sep but was notified of it a bit after the fact by NG, but that might be just another way of saying what you said.
Either way, IMO this adds to the various clues that the handoff of responsibility was shifted to NG earlier in the flight than what is considered normal. Considered in that light, SX’s statement that the Falcon “did everything it was supposed to do” might imply that it was not supposed to do as much as usual.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: mn on 01/18/2018 03:25 pm
The supposed Zuma fairing issue is nagging at me. What characteristic of the Zuma payload could cause concern about fairing sep, and could that characteristic or a related one cause a payload deploy anomaly?

There was a statement that the fairing issue was a “customer concern”. Could that imply that NG had a nonstandard (greater) degree of design or operational responsibility for the fairing, and perhaps everything including fairing sep onward?

Do we know if the payload was delivered to SX as a sealed-fairing package? I heard the “please give us control of the camera” call during the launch, but I don’t recall if that was post fairing sep, and I don’t recall whether there was SX confirmation of fairing sep?

The statement was about a concern discovered in another fairing for another customer, and they decided to double check the zuma fairing to make sure it didn't have the same issue.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44175.msg1750842#msg1750842
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 01/18/2018 03:25 pm
The supposed Zuma fairing issue is nagging at me. What characteristic of the Zuma payload could cause concern about fairing sep, and could that characteristic or a related one cause a payload deploy anomaly?

Fairing separation is a worry for every launch.  Many failed missions are because of fairing problems.  The launch delay to investigate the fairings (if that's what it really was) may not have anything to do with the specifics of the Zuma payload.

(Personally I thought the weirdest part of the Zuma campaign was the extra WDRs).
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Pete on 01/18/2018 03:28 pm
.... I don’t recall whether there was SX confirmation of fairing sep?

I just watched the SpaceX launch video, again.  Fairing deploy was scheduled to occur at ~ T+3:13.  The SpaceX PA guy confirmed successful fairing deploy at T+5:18.  This delay seems a bit long, but I don't think that relates to anything other than a limited experience in supporting classified launches, and making sure that an appropriate separation is maintained between the unclassified launch reporting and the classified post-staging mission updates.

There is visual confirmation via amateur video of at least one half of the fairing separating, at about (+- 10 sec) the correct time for fairing sep.

We have SpaceX's very emphatic statement that the Falcon9 did what it was supposed to do.
A failed fairing separation would ***MOST DEFINITELY*** have been detected and noted as an off-nominal event by SpaceX.

So unless you believe that SpaceX is lying, or you think that SpaceX does not consider the payload fairing part of the falcon9, we have 100% confirmation of fairing sep from SpaceX.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Hauerg on 01/18/2018 03:33 pm
The supposed Zuma fairing issue is nagging at me. What characteristic of the Zuma payload could cause concern about fairing sep, and could that characteristic or a related one cause a payload deploy anomaly?

Fairing separation is a worry for every launch.  Many failed missions are because of fairing problems.  The launch delay to investigate the fairings (if that's what it really was) may not have anything to do with the specifics of the Zuma payload.

(Personally I thought the weirdest part of the Zuma campaign was the extra WDRs).
Nothing weird there: the CHANGED launch pads after the static fire. So only logical to test the connections before flight.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: JimO on 01/18/2018 03:33 pm
For background, here's the feb 19, 2017 stage 2 deorbit burn and fuel dump as seen from Kuwait and Iran:
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPKWT62xc7g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FK4rboIK-7k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiFBl1RQLbo
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 01/18/2018 03:54 pm
Taxpayers May Pay for Secret Satellite Lost After SpaceX Launch

Relevant section.

Quote
U.S. taxpayers may end up paying for the missing satellite launched by Elon Musk’s Space Exploration Technologies Corp. that crashed into the ocean earlier this month, part of a classified U.S. government mission dubbed “Zuma.”

Questions remain around the event, which appeared to be unsuccessful despite a fruitful rocket launch and first-stage landing. But SpaceX and Northrop Grumman Corp., the satellite builder, aren’t likely to bear the costs. They probably have contracts with the government that limit the firms’ liabilities tied to the lost satellite, according to several industry experts.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-18/taxpayers-may-pay-for-secret-satellite-lost-after-spacex-launch
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: JimO on 01/18/2018 05:20 pm
So who else is looking for additional stage-2 visual reports in the Sudan area? If we get reports of a brief deorbit burn a minute or so before the double spiral, we have a lot of new evidence. There are activist strategies to enlarge the data base.

Can we ask SpaceX for details of nominal stage-2 deorbit activities such as the Feb 19, 2017 event -- not a classified mission. Winkle that out of them and we increase insight into the Jan 9 sighting.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: JonathanD on 01/18/2018 05:27 pm
So who else is looking for additional stage-2 visual reports in the Sudan area? If we get reports of a brief deorbit burn a minute or so before the double spiral, we have a lot of new evidence. There are activist strategies to enlarge the data base.

Can we ask SpaceX for details of nominal stage-2 deorbit activities such as the Feb 19, 2017 event -- not a classified mission. Winkle that out of them and we increase insight into the Jan 9 sighting.

If Zuma is up there, the sat trackers will be able to see it in another week or so when the track is in the dark.  That will really reveal if it was an on-orbit failure and it's just up there dead, or if it went down with the ship, so to speak.  But Congress wouldn't be asking Hans questions about it they know he can't answer in public hearings if everything was hunky dory.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lar on 01/18/2018 05:46 pm
A quite over the top political post was removed. Posts referencing it and nothing else were also removed. I edited one post to remove the reference but leave the meat. Report to Mod if you spot things that are awry.  Thanks
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: mulp on 01/18/2018 07:30 pm
Consider the following, what does SpaceX have to gain by lying on the record knowing this?

Its not a lie if you believe it to be true. SpaceX currently believes they did everything they were supposed to. Further investigation may prove otherwise. Anyway, it shouldn't matter whose fault it is. The main thing is to find the problem, fix it and go fly again.
Finding the problem revelas top secret info and reveals methods and means. Need to keep open the belief spy sats are put in orbit by witch doctors or shaman...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: DeanG1967 on 01/18/2018 08:36 pm

If Zuma is up there, the sat trackers will be able to see it in another week or so when the track is in the dark.  That will really reveal if it was an on-orbit failure and it's just up there dead, or if it went down with the ship, so to speak.  But Congress wouldn't be asking Hans questions about it they know he can't answer in public hearings if everything was hunky dory.

The "sat trackers" may not see it "in a week or so".  Nobody has been able to see OTV 5 yet.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: MostlyHarmless on 01/18/2018 09:03 pm
.... I don’t recall whether there was SX confirmation of fairing sep?

I just watched the SpaceX launch video, again.  Fairing deploy was scheduled to occur at ~ T+3:13.  The SpaceX PA guy confirmed successful fairing deploy at T+5:18.  This delay seems a bit long, but I don't think that relates to anything other than a limited experience in supporting classified launches, and making sure that an appropriate separation is maintained between the unclassified launch reporting and the classified post-staging mission updates.

There is visual confirmation via amateur video of at least one half of the fairing separating, at about (+- 10 sec) the correct time for fairing sep.

We have SpaceX's very emphatic statement that the Falcon9 did what it was supposed to do.
A failed fairing separation would ***MOST DEFINITELY*** have been detected and noted as an off-nominal event by SpaceX.

So unless you believe that SpaceX is lying, or you think that SpaceX does not consider the payload fairing part of the falcon9, we have 100% confirmation of fairing sep from SpaceX.

I wholeheartedly believe that the F9 performed according to spec.  And I firmly believe that if there was a problem with any part of the F9 vehicle, SpaceX would readily say so.  I merely stated that the fairing deploy confirmation was made, but came longer than expected after the event; and that was more to do with SpaceX learning to navigate the challenges of separating classified vs. unclassified mission events by a public affairs office, rather than a fairing malfunction or covering up something nefarious. 
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 01/18/2018 09:07 pm
Dr. Koenigsmann: "as for the briefing, we will go through the proper channels and follow the protocol."

So we know there will be a briefing... but we already knew that.

There has been no declaration of a mishap as far as Gerst is concerned. So meh.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lobo on 01/18/2018 09:15 pm
Forgive my ignorance on this thread.  I just caught wind of the issues surrounding this launch.  I hadn't been following it.

I read the last few pages of this thread, but not all 80.  Can someone give me the Cliff's Notes version of what we know as of now?  And what major questions there still are?

Do we know for sure Zuma isn't aloft in orbit and operational right now?  Has it been confirmed for certain the payload is inoperable or crashed?  Or is that all just speculation?

From what I've sort of caught, sounds like SpaceX claimed to do everything correctly, the FUS did some sort of maneuver and was disposed of in the Indian ocean?  So did the payload get to orbit?  Or not?  Or has it just not been confirmed one way or the other, leading to speculation?

Sorry, just trying to get a clearer picture of what happened and where we are as of now.

Thanks.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 01/18/2018 09:22 pm
Can someone give me the Cliff's Notes version of what we know as of now?  And what major questions there still are?

Here, by Chris Gebhardt
SpaceX launches clandestine Zuma satellite – questions over spacecraft’s health (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/01/spacex-falcon-9-launch-clandestine-zuma-satellite/)

Off-site at The Space Review, dated January 15 by Jeff Foust
The Mystery of Zuma (http://thespacereview.com/article/3410/1)

I think the question that perhaps can be answered next depends on the amateur satellite observers.  IF they observe an unaccounted-for satellite on-orbit in the coming weeks, and the resulting derived orbit can be connected to Zuma, then we'll see what can be deduced.

If the satellite is not observed, then...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 01/18/2018 09:26 pm
Can someone give me the Cliff's Notes version of what we know as of now?

Nothing.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: AC in NC on 01/18/2018 09:34 pm
Forgive my ignorance on this thread.  I just caught wind of the issues surrounding this launch.  I hadn't been following it.

I read the last few pages of this thread, but not all 80.  Can someone give me the Cliff's Notes version of what we know as of now?  And what major questions there still are?

Do we know for sure Zuma isn't aloft in orbit and operational right now?  Has it been confirmed for certain the payload is inoperable or crashed?  Or is that all just speculation?

From what I've sort of caught, sounds like SpaceX claimed to do everything correctly, the FUS did some sort of maneuver and was disposed of in the Indian ocean?  So did the payload get to orbit?  Or not?  Or has it just not been confirmed one way or the other, leading to speculation?

Sorry, just trying to get a clearer picture of what happened and where we are as of now.

Thanks.

Black payload so principals (Northrup Grumman; Gov't) aren't saying anything.  SpaceX beat the drum quietly on nominal performance of its role.  Leaks from Congress re: Payload reentered with 2nd stage.  Lots of knee-jerk articles of SpaceX failure not understanding nuance of the roles/responsibilities.  Knowledgable feel NG Separation Mechanism is responsible.  No confirmation of anything and lots of speculation.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 01/18/2018 09:41 pm
Leaks from Congress

Correction: claims from journalists that sources in Congress (and elsewhere) have information that they can't possibly have.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Testraindrop on 01/18/2018 09:44 pm
Forgive my ignorance on this thread.  I just caught wind of the issues surrounding this launch.  I hadn't been following it.

I read the last few pages of this thread, but not all 80.  Can someone give me the Cliff's Notes version of what we know as of now?  And what major questions there still are?

Do we know for sure Zuma isn't aloft in orbit and operational right now?  Has it been confirmed for certain the payload is inoperable or crashed?  Or is that all just speculation?

From what I've sort of caught, sounds like SpaceX claimed to do everything correctly, the FUS did some sort of maneuver and was disposed of in the Indian ocean?  So did the payload get to orbit?  Or not?  Or has it just not been confirmed one way or the other, leading to speculation?

Sorry, just trying to get a clearer picture of what happened and where we are as of now.

Thanks.

Short summary:

What we know:
- SpaceX launched and landed stage 1 without any issues as seen in their livestream
- Stage 2 got into (some) orbit and de-orbited itself after ~1.5 orbits
- Fairing separation could be seen in some public footage, confirmed by SpaceX in livestream, even though delayed
- SpaceX claims nominal Falcon 9 performance after reviewing all data (by Shotwell and also in front of congressional hearing)
- SpaceX customer SES says after reviewing all data, they are confident that Falcon 9 performed nominally
- SpaceX customer Matt Desch (Iridium) also says that there were no problems with the launch vehicle
- NASA wasn't briefed of any anomalies of the Falcon 9
- SpaceX continued with their schedule without break for investigations
- Zuma Customer NG "can't comment, classified"
- Payload adapter was build by NG, not SpaceX


Rumors:
- After launch some rumors were spread that Zuma failed and fell back into "some" ocean (Indian/Atlantic depending on the anonymous source)
- Anonymous sources mentioned failure to separate


In general, there is no official reliable statement that Zuma indeed failed, as its "classified".
From SpaceX' point of view everything was done as asked.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lobo on 01/18/2018 09:54 pm

Short summary:

What we know:
- SpaceX launched and landed stage 1 without any issues as seen in their livestream
- Stage 2 got into (some) orbit and de-orbited itself after ~1.5 orbits
- Fairing separation could be seen in some public footage, confirmed by SpaceX in livestream, even though delayed
- SpaceX claims nominal Falcon 9 performance after reviewing all data (by Shotwell and also in front of congressional hearing)
- SpaceX customer SES says after reviewing all data, they are confident that Falcon 9 performed nominally
- SpaceX customer Matt Desch (Iridium) also says that there were no problems with the launch vehicle
- NASA wasn't briefed of any anomalies of the Falcon 9
- SpaceX continued with their schedule without break for investigations
- Zuma Customer NG "can't comment, classified"
- Payload adapter was build by NG, not SpaceX


Rumors:
- After launch some rumors were spread that Zuma failed and fell back into "some" ocean (Indian/Atlantic depending on the anonymous source)
- Anonymous sources mentioned failure to separate


In general, there is no official reliable statement that Zuma indeed failed, as its "classified".
From SpaceX' point of view everything was done as asked.

Ahhh...ok, thanks Testraindrop, and everyone else. 
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Rocket Science on 01/18/2018 10:43 pm
Welcome to the madness... ::)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lar on 01/18/2018 10:55 pm
let's not go round and round too far ok? People coming in late really ought to read the 80000 pages before posting the same speculations again.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Avron on 01/18/2018 10:59 pm
Question did Stage 2 de-orbited itself after ~1.5 orbits in an expected area for that event. Have they used that same location before for de-orbit - and was it as per NOTAM?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: spacetraveler on 01/18/2018 11:01 pm
You just knew Loren Thompson would weigh in at Forbes, this time trying to use ZUMA to claim an increased risk to astronauts in Commercial Crew,

At least he disclosed his interest/relationship to ULA in the article.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lobo on 01/18/2018 11:02 pm
Ok,
So it does seem like ...

Again, just a speculation.   ;)

Now you are contractually and morally obligated to go back and read the 80 pages.

let's not go round and round too far ok? People coming in late really ought to read the 80000 pages before posting the same speculations again.

Ok, I'll apologize and strike my comments from the record.  ;)

Again, thanks to those who caught me up and saved me from all of those 80 pages.  Sounds like I wasn't the only one to have such thoughts.

We'll know more when we know more, and not before.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: JimO on 01/19/2018 12:05 am
Question did Stage 2 de-orbited itself after ~1.5 orbits in an expected area for that event. Have they used that same location before for de-orbit - and was it as per NOTAM?

I think for ISS missions the S2 deorbits almost immediately, on the first rev.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: mme on 01/19/2018 12:17 am
... But Congress wouldn't be asking Hans questions about it they know he can't answer in public hearings if everything was hunky dory.
You're kidding, right? A witness that you know can't answer is perfect for grandstanding.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: cscott on 01/19/2018 12:47 am
Just to compete the recap: we know S2 reentered in approximately the right place and time because its post-burn propellant dump was observed and photographed by an airline pilot in Sudan (and others).

However, Ed Kyle (and others) have questioned whether all was fully nominal with that burn, since the observed propellant dump had a (beautiful) spiral pattern.  There was some inconclusive back-and-forth, but it seems that spinning during the propellant dump hasn't been observed before in completely-nominal missions.  This *could* be a normal but infrequently observed feature of the dump, or it could indicate something else (like perhaps Zuma was still attached to the stage and causing an asymmetry).
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: JimO on 01/19/2018 02:40 am
Just to compete the recap: the know S2 reentered in approximately the right place and time because its post-burn propellant dump was observed and photographed by an airline pilot in Sudan (and others).

However, Ed Kyle (and others) have questioned whether all was fully nominal with that burn, since the observed propellant dump had a (beautiful) spiral pattern.  There was some inconclusive back-and-forth, but it seems that spinning during the propellant dump hasn't been observed before in completely-nominal missions.  This *could* be a normal but infrequently observed feature of the dump, or it could indicate something else (like perhaps Zuma was still attached to the stage and causing an asymmetry).

Which is why I have contacted people in Khartoum to see if there were any active all-sky meteor or weather cameras that pre-dawn, and whether any witnesses saw a brief plume in the NW shortly before the spirals appeared.  I'm in the process of seeking contacts in Juba in South Sudan, which would have been directly below the flight path.

We're definitely in the hunter-gatherer epoch of spaceflight observation cataloguing. It's a very poorly respected new tool of space secrets sleuthing.

Here's an example or two of draft reports on its potential:
http://satobs.org/seesat_ref/misc/KYSS-12.pdf
http://satobs.org/seesat_ref/misc/molniya_clouds_over_south_america.pdf
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/19/2018 03:53 am
Congress is hopping all over the rumor mill and were basically flat out claiming SpaceX had a failed mission with Zuma that would impact commercial crew.
Tribal politics at its ... er ... finest? More "fake news"?
I honestly don't think Congress's behavior here is really partisan.

Congress is weird. They're often cleared (if they're on the relevant committees) to have more info than almost anyone else, but they have a pervasive ignorance of even publicly known information plus some, uh, motivated reasoning, so I feel like in spite of them in principle knowing more, I trust them less than several of the people here when it comes to the fate of Zuma.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 01/19/2018 04:34 am
Congress is weird. They're often cleared (if they're on the relevant committees) to have more info than almost anyone else

I dunno where people are getting this from... NG wouldn't tell anyone in Congress anything unless they were summoned to Congress to do so. That briefing hasn't occurred yet. They haven't even set a date for it. The idea that classified information could flow from NG to Congress to a journalist (or three) is balderdash.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/19/2018 05:05 am
If I remember the user guide correctly, two separation signals are sent to the PAF via different physical cables with loop-backs so verifying that the signal had reached the PAF.

Not sure which users guide you have, but from the 2015 (V2) users guide (the latest publicly available copy), the only loopback I could find is for detecting separation. Note that standard procedure for checking the interface before shipping only requires a mechanical check, electrical checking is not done. I would expect electrical checking is probably done after shipping though.

"5.2.2 Falcon-to-Payload Command Interface

Falcon launch vehicles can provide up to 24 separation device commands, typically implemented as up to 12 redundant commands, as a standard service. More commands can be accommodated as a nonstandard service; please contact SpaceX for details. Separation device commands are used to initiate spacecraft separation from the second stage.

Falcon vehicles are capable of detecting up to 12 separation events through breakwire pairs, and a separation indication signal for each will be included in launch vehicle telemetry. SpaceX requires that at least one circuit on each spacecraft electrical connector be looped back on the spacecraft side for breakwire indication of spacecraft separation within launch vehicle telemetry. Customers may request that any number of circuits on the spacecraft electrical connectors be looped back on the launch vehicle side for breakwire indication of spacecraft separation within spacecraft telemetry."

"5.3 Interface Compatibility Verification Requirements

SpaceX requires that customers verify the compatibility of their systems with the Falcon mechanical and electrical interfaces before shipment to the launch site. As a standard service, SpaceX will support a payload adapter mechanical fit check, including electrical connector location compatibility, at a facility of the customer’s choosing. This interface compatibility verification does not include a shock test or any electrical tests. Second-unit and later flights of similar systems may be subject to reduced pre-ship verification requirements. Nonstandard verification approaches can be developed on a mission-unique basis."
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/19/2018 05:29 am
Ahhh...ok, thanks Testraindrop, and everyone else. 

Other facts is that only one objected was registered in orbit, USA 280. Normally, if the stage does a full orbit, it gets registered as well. SpaceX did give out patches to the media one hour after launch, indicating a successful launch. However, SpaceX latter had the Zuma patches pulled from stores.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: hopalong on 01/19/2018 05:52 am
If I remember the user guide correctly, two separation signals are sent to the PAF via different physical cables with loop-backs so verifying that the signal had reached the PAF.

Not sure which users guide you have, but from the 2015 (V2) users guide (the latest publicly available copy), the only loopback I could find is for detecting separation. Note that standard procedure for checking the interface before shipping only requires a mechanical check, electrical checking is not done. I would expect electrical checking is probably done after shipping though.

"5.2.2 Falcon-to-Payload Command Interface

Falcon launch vehicles can provide up to 24 separation device commands, typically implemented as up to 12 redundant commands, as a standard service. More commands can be accommodated as a nonstandard service; please contact SpaceX for details. Separation device commands are used to initiate spacecraft separation from the second stage.

Falcon vehicles are capable of detecting up to 12 separation events through breakwire pairs, and a separation indication signal for each will be included in launch vehicle telemetry. SpaceX requires that at least one circuit on each spacecraft electrical connector be looped back on the spacecraft side for breakwire indication of spacecraft separation within launch vehicle telemetry. Customers may request that any number of circuits on the spacecraft electrical connectors be looped back on the launch vehicle side for breakwire indication of spacecraft separation within spacecraft telemetry."

"5.3 Interface Compatibility Verification Requirements

SpaceX requires that customers verify the compatibility of their systems with the Falcon mechanical and electrical interfaces before shipment to the launch site. As a standard service, SpaceX will support a payload adapter mechanical fit check, including electrical connector location compatibility, at a facility of the customer’s choosing. This interface compatibility verification does not include a shock test or any electrical tests. Second-unit and later flights of similar systems may be subject to reduced pre-ship verification requirements. Nonstandard verification approaches can be developed on a mission-unique basis."

Thanks Steven, I stand corrected.
I must have picked up the loop-back on the seperation signal from elsewhere and conflated it with the guide.

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: AncientU on 01/19/2018 11:44 am
Ahhh...ok, thanks Testraindrop, and everyone else. 

Other facts is that only one objected was registered in orbit, USA 280. Normally, if the stage does a full orbit, it gets registered as well. SpaceX did give out patches to the media one hour after launch, indicating a successful launch. However, SpaceX latter had the Zuma patches pulled from stores.

Only one object was reported.  We know that the stage was there for 1.5 orbits.
Couldn't the payload be a separate, unreported object at some high level (also classified) request?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/19/2018 12:27 pm
If I remember the user guide correctly, two separation signals are sent to the PAF via different physical cables with loop-backs so verifying that the signal had reached the PAF.

Not sure which users guide you have, but from the 2015 (V2) users guide (the latest publicly available copy), the only loopback I could find is for detecting separation. Note that standard procedure for checking the interface before shipping only requires a mechanical check, electrical checking is not done. I would expect electrical checking is probably done after shipping though.

"5.2.2 Falcon-to-Payload Command Interface

Falcon launch vehicles can provide up to 24 separation device commands, typically implemented as up to 12 redundant commands, as a standard service. More commands can be accommodated as a nonstandard service; please contact SpaceX for details. Separation device commands are used to initiate spacecraft separation from the second stage.

Falcon vehicles are capable of detecting up to 12 separation events through breakwire pairs, and a separation indication signal for each will be included in launch vehicle telemetry. SpaceX requires that at least one circuit on each spacecraft electrical connector be looped back on the spacecraft side for breakwire indication of spacecraft separation within launch vehicle telemetry. Customers may request that any number of circuits on the spacecraft electrical connectors be looped back on the launch vehicle side for breakwire indication of spacecraft separation within spacecraft telemetry."

"5.3 Interface Compatibility Verification Requirements

SpaceX requires that customers verify the compatibility of their systems with the Falcon mechanical and electrical interfaces before shipment to the launch site. As a standard service, SpaceX will support a payload adapter mechanical fit check, including electrical connector location compatibility, at a facility of the customer’s choosing. This interface compatibility verification does not include a shock test or any electrical tests. Second-unit and later flights of similar systems may be subject to reduced pre-ship verification requirements. Nonstandard verification approaches can be developed on a mission-unique basis."
That is just the standard service.
The spacecraft may elect to do some electrical tests with the launch vehicle harness.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 01/19/2018 02:15 pm
Congress is weird. They're often cleared (if they're on the relevant committees) to have more info than almost anyone else

I dunno where people are getting this from... NG wouldn't tell anyone in Congress anything unless they were summoned to Congress to do so. That briefing hasn't occurred yet. They haven't even set a date for it. The idea that classified information could flow from NG to Congress to a journalist (or three) is balderdash.

Most likely some congressmen and relevant staffers have known about Zuma since long before the launch and were told of the mission status.  They would be the ones on the relevant committee, which probably has little overlap with the set of congressmen we saw asking about it yesterday.  Assertions that no congressmen or staffers would have been briefed on this stuff after the launch are probably not true.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 01/19/2018 02:46 pm
let's not go round and round too far ok? People coming in late really ought to read the 80000 pages before posting the same speculations again.
Be nice if we could put up a sticky note at the top of the thread of what is and is not know.  Might save a bunch of whhhhatttaaaa????
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: AncientU on 01/19/2018 02:49 pm
New article:
Quote
The Zuma failure has emboldened critics of SpaceX

Quote
Taxpayers are tired of getting ripped off," a professional coalition builder wrote.

Quote
Now, at least one of the post-Zuma criticisms can be linked to SpaceX's competitors in the launch industry: Boeing and Lockheed Martin, the parent companies of United Launch Alliance. A recent opinion article in Forbes raised like-minded concerns about SpaceX's reliability under the rubric of "doubts." This was authored by Loren Thompson, chief operating officer of The Lexington Institute, which derives revenue from contributions by Lockheed, Boeing, and other major defense companies.

Thompson's article appeared to be coordinated with a hearing on commercial spaceflight this week in the US House. While most representatives asked good, probing questions about delays in the commercial crew program—the effort by Boeing and SpaceX to build spacecraft to carry astronauts to the International Space Station—Congressman Mo Brooks was an exception.

Brooks represents the northern tier of Alabama, including the Decatur region where United Launch Alliance builds its rockets. During the hearing, Brooks said, "I'm going to read from an article that was published earlier this week, entitled 'Doubts about SpaceX reliability persist as astronaut missions approach,' it was in Forbes magazine." Brooks, who has received about $70,000 in donations from Lockheed and Boeing during his Congressional career, then went on to read critical parts of the piece into the record.
bold mine

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/the-zuma-failure-has-emboldened-critics-of-spacex/
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lar on 01/19/2018 03:50 pm
That is just the standard service.
The spacecraft may elect to do some electrical tests with the launch vehicle harness.
Do you mean the spacecraft vendor or owner may make that election? Else AI is farther along than I thought!
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 01/19/2018 03:56 pm
If I remember the user guide correctly, two separation signals are sent to the PAF via different physical cables with loop-backs so verifying that the signal had reached the PAF.

Not sure which users guide you have, but from the 2015 (V2) users guide (the latest publicly available copy), the only loopback I could find is for detecting separation. Note that standard procedure for checking the interface before shipping only requires a mechanical check, electrical checking is not done. I would expect electrical checking is probably done after shipping though.

"5.2.2 Falcon-to-Payload Command Interface

Falcon launch vehicles can provide up to 24 separation device commands, typically implemented as up to 12 redundant commands, as a standard service. More commands can be accommodated as a nonstandard service; please contact SpaceX for details. Separation device commands are used to initiate spacecraft separation from the second stage.

Falcon vehicles are capable of detecting up to 12 separation events through breakwire pairs, and a separation indication signal for each will be included in launch vehicle telemetry. SpaceX requires that at least one circuit on each spacecraft electrical connector be looped back on the spacecraft side for breakwire indication of spacecraft separation within launch vehicle telemetry. Customers may request that any number of circuits on the spacecraft electrical connectors be looped back on the launch vehicle side for breakwire indication of spacecraft separation within spacecraft telemetry."

"5.3 Interface Compatibility Verification Requirements

SpaceX requires that customers verify the compatibility of their systems with the Falcon mechanical and electrical interfaces before shipment to the launch site. As a standard service, SpaceX will support a payload adapter mechanical fit check, including electrical connector location compatibility, at a facility of the customer’s choosing. This interface compatibility verification does not include a shock test or any electrical tests. Second-unit and later flights of similar systems may be subject to reduced pre-ship verification requirements. Nonstandard verification approaches can be developed on a mission-unique basis."
That is just the standard service.
The spacecraft may elect to do some electrical tests with the launch vehicle harness.

The quoted service is also at the customer's site, not at the launch site.  That would not preclude doing electrical tests during the actual integration.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: russianhalo117 on 01/19/2018 04:01 pm
That is just the standard service.
The spacecraft may elect to do some electrical tests with the launch vehicle harness.
Do you mean the spacecraft vendor or owner may make that election? Else AI is farther along than I thought!
Customer (reference Eurockot Users Guide et al). I do believe that this was the first Falcon 9 to fly a NG Payload Attach Fitting (PAF) and NG SC Bus thus you would think that the customer would perform additional tests.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: russianhalo117 on 01/19/2018 04:53 pm
Customer (reference Eurockot Users Guide et al). I do believe that this was the first Falcon 9 to fly a NG Payload Attach Fitting (PAF) and NG SC Bus thus you would think that the customer would perform additional tests.
NG Payload Attach Fitting (PAF) or NG payload adapter?
either or both. Some payloads mate directly to the PAF and some with smaller separation rings use a PA. We do not know the bus used and the bus separation ring size.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lobo on 01/19/2018 10:18 pm
Ahhh...ok, thanks Testraindrop, and everyone else. 

Other facts is that only one objected was registered in orbit, USA 280. Normally, if the stage does a full orbit, it gets registered as well. SpaceX did give out patches to the media one hour after launch, indicating a successful launch. However, SpaceX latter had the Zuma patches pulled from stores.

Only one object was reported.  We know that the stage was there for 1.5 orbits.
Couldn't the payload be a separate, unreported object at some high level (also classified) request?

If the intent was to get the payload in orbit without other entities knowing where it was, one might assume they wouldn't report it's info.

Big "if" there.

And no idea what the patch things means, but it is odd.  Something a commercial company might do if they found out later the payload was a failure.  Even if not the fault of the rocket, the association reminder is still there on the patch.
Or not.  Dunno.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: russianhalo117 on 01/19/2018 10:38 pm
Ahhh...ok, thanks Testraindrop, and everyone else. 

Other facts is that only one objected was registered in orbit, USA 280. Normally, if the stage does a full orbit, it gets registered as well. SpaceX did give out patches to the media one hour after launch, indicating a successful launch. However, SpaceX latter had the Zuma patches pulled from stores.

Only one object was reported.  We know that the stage was there for 1.5 orbits.
Couldn't the payload be a separate, unreported object at some high level (also classified) request?

If the intent was to get the payload in orbit without other entities knowing where it was, one might assume they wouldn't report it's info.

Big "if" there.

And no idea what the patch things means, but it is odd.  Something a commercial company might do if they found out later the payload was a failure.  Even if not the fault of the rocket, the association reminder is still there on the patch.
Or not.  Dunno.
or patches were recalled after public perception of failure.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris Bergin on 01/19/2018 11:19 pm
Long thread. Not a party thread (more so due to the "Where's Zuma?" element). Make sure your posts add something.

Memes do not.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: foragefarmer on 01/20/2018 10:07 am
SES has officially weighed in on Falcon 9 performance during the Zuma mission.

https://twitter.com/SES_Satellites/status/953732417810034688


Looking forward to @GovSatLu 1st #satellite launch with @SpaceX. Following Zuma mission, our engineering staff have reviewed all relevant launch vehicle flight data following last Falcon-9 launcher mission. We are confident on SpaceX readiness & set for Govsat-1 launch late Jan!

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Seamus on 01/20/2018 01:28 pm
Ahhh...ok, thanks Testraindrop, and everyone else. 

Other facts is that only one objected was registered in orbit, USA 280. Normally, if the stage does a full orbit, it gets registered as well. SpaceX did give out patches to the media one hour after launch, indicating a successful launch. However, SpaceX latter had the Zuma patches pulled from stores.

Only one object was reported.  We know that the stage was there for 1.5 orbits.
Couldn't the payload be a separate, unreported object at some high level (also classified) request?

If the intent was to get the payload in orbit without other entities knowing where it was, one might assume they wouldn't report it's info.

Big "if" there.

And no idea what the patch things means, but it is odd.  Something a commercial company might do if they found out later the payload was a failure.  Even if not the fault of the rocket, the association reminder is still there on the patch.
Or not.  Dunno.
or patches were recalled after public perception of failure.

That original link to the note about them being recalled indicated SpaceX was doing it at the request of the customer, or something along those lines.  Of course it was just a random seller saying that, so should be taken with a grain of salt.  But it definitely indicated it was more related to the customer than to SpaceX.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: FinalFrontier on 01/21/2018 05:14 am
I suppose we will all know soon enough what really happened here. If there is a design flaw or processing flaw/quality assurance flaw with regard to Falcon 9, you can expect to see a similar failure mode on one of the upcoming flights. Of course it's possible they lied, found the problems, and fixed them, but in all honesty that theory just doesn't hold water no matter how you slice it. They would have to have incurred a major delay.

We will find out soon enough. With the exception of Falcon Heavy, the other upcoming flights now have new significance.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: AncientU on 01/21/2018 01:50 pm
I suppose we will all know soon enough what really happened here. If there is a design flaw or processing flaw/quality assurance flaw with regard to Falcon 9, you can expect to see a similar failure mode on one of the upcoming flights. Of course it's possible they lied, found the problems, and fixed them, but in all honesty that theory just doesn't hold water no matter how you slice it. They would have to have incurred a major delay.

We will find out soon enough. With the exception of Falcon Heavy, the other upcoming flights now have new significance.

You are begging the question.  Upcoming flights don't have 'new significance' -- they are simply upcoming flights. The fact that their schedules did not change is all the knowing soon enough we need.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: foragefarmer on 01/21/2018 02:56 pm
I suppose we will all know soon enough what really happened here. If there is a design flaw or processing flaw/quality assurance flaw with regard to Falcon 9, you can expect to see a similar failure mode on one of the upcoming flights. Of course it's possible they lied, found the problems, and fixed them, but in all honesty that theory just doesn't hold water no matter how you slice it. They would have to have incurred a major delay.

We will find out soon enough. With the exception of Falcon Heavy, the other upcoming flights now have new significance.

You are begging the question.  Upcoming flights don't have 'new significance' -- they are simply upcoming flights. The fact that their schedules did not change is all the knowing soon enough we need.

I am replying to both of you. Read my post above. Engineers for a third party; SES, have looked at the relevant telemetry and SES is go for launch with their payload.

For anyone that has been reading these forums for a period of time; that should be about as definitive as it will get, since they would know the level of insight Spacex has granted SES over the years in order to secure their business and get them to be the first to fly on a reused booster.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 01/21/2018 03:36 pm
I suppose we will all know soon enough what really happened here. If there is a design flaw or processing flaw/quality assurance flaw with regard to Falcon 9, you can expect to see a similar failure mode on one of the upcoming flights. Of course it's possible they lied, found the problems, and fixed them, but in all honesty that theory just doesn't hold water no matter how you slice it. They would have to have incurred a major delay.

We will find out soon enough. With the exception of Falcon Heavy, the other upcoming flights now have new significance.

You are begging the question.  Upcoming flights don't have 'new significance' -- they are simply upcoming flights. The fact that their schedules did not change is all the knowing soon enough we need.

I am replying to both of you. Read my post above. Engineers for a third party; SES, have looked at the relevant telemetry and SES is go for launch with their payload.

For anyone that has been reading these forums for a period of time; that should be about as definitive as it will get, since they would know the level of insight Spacex has granted SES over the years in order to secure their business and get them to be the first to fly on a reused booster.

You really think SES engineers looked at the second stage and payload deploy telemetry for a classified mission?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: pb2000 on 01/21/2018 03:48 pm
I suppose we will all know soon enough what really happened here. If there is a design flaw or processing flaw/quality assurance flaw with regard to Falcon 9, you can expect to see a similar failure mode on one of the upcoming flights. Of course it's possible they lied, found the problems, and fixed them, but in all honesty that theory just doesn't hold water no matter how you slice it. They would have to have incurred a major delay.

We will find out soon enough. With the exception of Falcon Heavy, the other upcoming flights now have new significance.

You are begging the question.  Upcoming flights don't have 'new significance' -- they are simply upcoming flights. The fact that their schedules did not change is all the knowing soon enough we need.

I am replying to both of you. Read my post above. Engineers for a third party; SES, have looked at the relevant telemetry and SES is go for launch with their payload.

For anyone that has been reading these forums for a period of time; that should be about as definitive as it will get, since they would know the level of insight Spacex has granted SES over the years in order to secure their business and get them to be the first to fly on a reused booster.

You really think SES engineers looked at the second stage and payload deploy telemetry for a classified mission?

Anything that would hint at the orbit or payload would be redacted, but the rest of it would be fair game.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 01/21/2018 03:54 pm
I suppose we will all know soon enough what really happened here. If there is a design flaw or processing flaw/quality assurance flaw with regard to Falcon 9, you can expect to see a similar failure mode on one of the upcoming flights. Of course it's possible they lied, found the problems, and fixed them, but in all honesty that theory just doesn't hold water no matter how you slice it. They would have to have incurred a major delay.

We will find out soon enough. With the exception of Falcon Heavy, the other upcoming flights now have new significance.

You are begging the question.  Upcoming flights don't have 'new significance' -- they are simply upcoming flights. The fact that their schedules did not change is all the knowing soon enough we need.

I am replying to both of you. Read my post above. Engineers for a third party; SES, have looked at the relevant telemetry and SES is go for launch with their payload.

For anyone that has been reading these forums for a period of time; that should be about as definitive as it will get, since they would know the level of insight Spacex has granted SES over the years in order to secure their business and get them to be the first to fly on a reused booster.

You really think SES engineers looked at the second stage and payload deploy telemetry for a classified mission?
If properly scrubbed, why not?

For example, suppose the NGC or whatever is in charge keeps an overall "status" field that reports the overall health of the spacecraft and its adherence to the flight plan.

You can show that, and you haven't revealed squat about the payload - it's only an electronic version of the spoken "all went well".

If anything had gone wrong, that status would change from OK to Fault.

You can also generate this artificially from the datastream and present that.

Various ways to sanitize the data so you support your no-fault assertion w/o revealing anything.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 01/22/2018 02:25 pm
I’ve not seen reference to this article on NSF yet, so if it’s a repeat mods please delete.

A balanced, well worded write up on Zuma and the slants taken at SpaceX by various reporters / media outlets.

https://medium.com/@rogerstigers/on-the-targeting-of-spacex-6e99370fa875
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/22/2018 07:50 pm

For example, suppose the NGC or whatever is in charge keeps an overall "status" field that reports the overall health of the spacecraft and its adherence to the flight plan.

You can show that, and you haven't revealed squat about the payload - it's only an electronic version of the spoken "all went well".

If anything had gone wrong, that status would change from OK to Fault.

You can also generate this artificially from the datastream and present that.

Various ways to sanitize the data so you support your no-fault assertion w/o revealing anything.


SpaceX would not have access to spacecraft data 
A.  Most spacecraft are quiescent during the ride to orbit.  there is no status or telemetry sent to the launch vehicle.
b.  The few that interleave a low data rate stream into the launch vehicle stream, the launch vehicle has no insight of what is in the stream.  And even if isn't encrypted, the launch vehicle still doesn't have key to decode the spacecraft telemetry.

In fact, there is no case that the spacecraft status is ever sent to the launch vehicle.  The only "status" the launch vehicle ever sees is the separation breakwires
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: AncientU on 01/22/2018 08:07 pm
I’ve not seen reference to this article on NSF yet, so if it’s a repeat mods please delete.

A balanced, well worded write up on Zuma and the slants taken at SpaceX by various reporters / media outlets.

https://medium.com/@rogerstigers/on-the-targeting-of-spacex-6e99370fa875

Also has a nice callout for NSF: :)
Quote
NASA Space Flight — This outlet offers articles covering every aspect of space flight and prides itself on journalistic integrity. In addition, the site provides a very rich forum filled with experts on every space subject.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: tvg98 on 01/22/2018 09:45 pm
More good news:

SpaceX gets good news from the Air Force on the Zuma mission

Quote
"Based on the data available, our team did not identify any information that would change SpaceX's Falcon 9 certification status," Lieutenant General John Thompson, commander of the Space and Missile Systems Center, told Bloomberg News. This qualified conclusion came after a preliminary review of data from the Zuma launch. That's according to Thompson, who said the Air Force will continue to review data from all launches.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/spacex-gets-good-news-from-the-air-force-on-the-zuma-mission/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/spacex-gets-good-news-from-the-air-force-on-the-zuma-mission/)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 01/22/2018 10:12 pm

For example, suppose the NGC or whatever is in charge keeps an overall "status" field that reports the overall health of the spacecraft and its adherence to the flight plan.

You can show that, and you haven't revealed squat about the payload - it's only an electronic version of the spoken "all went well".

If anything had gone wrong, that status would change from OK to Fault.

You can also generate this artificially from the datastream and present that.

Various ways to sanitize the data so you support your no-fault assertion w/o revealing anything.


SpaceX would not have access to spacecraft data 
A.  Most spacecraft are quiescent during the ride to orbit.  there is no status or telemetry sent to the launch vehicle.
b.  The few that interleave a low data rate stream into the launch vehicle stream, the launch vehicle has no insight of what is in the stream.  And even if isn't encrypted, the launch vehicle still doesn't have key to decode the spacecraft telemetry.

In fact, there is no case that the spacecraft status is ever sent to the launch vehicle.  The only "status" the launch vehicle ever sees is the separation breakwires
Right, but I was referring to launch vehicle data.

Showing lack of errors or warnings through separation tells a story without revealing anything about the paylaod
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Nomadd on 01/22/2018 10:16 pm
 So, the best guess to date is that SpaceX knows there was no separation, but the command was sent and there was nothing they could do about it?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 01/22/2018 10:57 pm
The best guess is that space reporters shouldn't repeat rumours that can't possibly be substantiated.

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: docmordrid on 01/22/2018 11:04 pm
The best guess is that space reporters shouldn't repeat rumours that can't possibly be substantiated.

Glad you used "reporters" and not "journalists." Today's media largely doesn't have a clue what the latter actually means. We're blessed to have Chris B, Chris G etc.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lar on 01/22/2018 11:14 pm
I’ve not seen reference to this article on NSF yet, so if it’s a repeat mods please delete.

A balanced, well worded write up on Zuma and the slants taken at SpaceX by various reporters / media outlets.

https://medium.com/@rogerstigers/on-the-targeting-of-spacex-6e99370fa875
Matt Desch cited it as a good source of balance

https://twitter.com/IridiumBoss/status/955072781728800769

Quote
This is an excellent summary piece of this issue. Takeaway for @SpaceX and it's customers? Heads down (or better, up!), ignore the skeptics, and keep delivering results.

Yaay @IridumBoss... the best companies have customers that go to bat for them, because they get great service from them.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ulm_atms on 01/22/2018 11:21 pm
Can we make sure Senator Shelby gets a copy of that medium article...or the Air Force's report?  :P
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Coastal Ron on 01/22/2018 11:39 pm
More good news:

SpaceX gets good news from the Air Force on the Zuma mission

Quote
"Based on the data available, our team did not identify any information that would change SpaceX's Falcon 9 certification status," Lieutenant General John Thompson, commander of the Space and Missile Systems Center, told Bloomberg News. This qualified conclusion came after a preliminary review of data from the Zuma launch. That's according to Thompson, who said the Air Force will continue to review data from all launches.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/spacex-gets-good-news-from-the-air-force-on-the-zuma-mission/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/spacex-gets-good-news-from-the-air-force-on-the-zuma-mission/)

Bloomberg has a write-up on it also - maybe nothing new to add, but more visible to the business and government crowd than Ars:

SpaceX Keeps U.S. Air Force's Confidence After Satellite's Loss (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-22/spacex-keeps-u-s-air-force-s-confidence-after-satellite-s-loss) - Bloomberg

Regardless what everything THINKS may have happened, the RESULT is that nothing has changed in the eyes of the USAF or NASA about the reliability of the Falcon 9.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: mn on 01/23/2018 02:39 am
More good news:

SpaceX gets good news from the Air Force on the Zuma mission

Quote
"Based on the data available, our team did not identify any information that would change SpaceX's Falcon 9 certification status," Lieutenant General John Thompson, commander of the Space and Missile Systems Center, told Bloomberg News. This qualified conclusion came after a preliminary review of data from the Zuma launch. That's according to Thompson, who said the Air Force will continue to review data from all launches.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/spacex-gets-good-news-from-the-air-force-on-the-zuma-mission/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/spacex-gets-good-news-from-the-air-force-on-the-zuma-mission/)

Bloomberg has a write-up on it also - maybe nothing new to add, but more visible to the business and government crowd than Ars:

SpaceX Keeps U.S. Air Force's Confidence After Satellite's Loss (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-22/spacex-keeps-u-s-air-force-s-confidence-after-satellite-s-loss) - Bloomberg

Regardless what everything THINKS may have happened, the RESULT is that nothing has changed in the eyes of the USAF or NASA about the reliability of the Falcon 9.

Notice that Bloomberg is saying very definitively that the satellite was lost.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 01/23/2018 02:45 am
Up until now all of the bad-mouthing and rumor propagation came from politicians and organizations that are not necessarily aligned with NG.

It was more of trying to drag this into the larger SpaceX vs. saga.

NG were absolutely silent, as they should be, given the nature of the mission.

Now with this latest statement from the AF, the right thing for NG to do is simply issue a "thank you for the ride" statement and end this stupid saga.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 01/23/2018 04:15 am
Notice that Bloomberg is saying very definitively that the satellite was lost.

The headline is, but that's written by an editor - so you know what that's worth. The more interesting part of this article is:

Quote
Lieutenant General Arnold Bunch, the Air Force’s top uniformed acquisition official, said in a separate interview, “I can’t say a whole lot about what all happened” but for “anything that goes forward” in terms of a formal investigation “we’ll be involved in the process” of analyzing data.

I read that as saying this wasn't an Air Force bird.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: jpo234 on 01/23/2018 08:16 am
Yaay @IridumBoss... the best companies have customers that go to bat for them, because they get great service from them.

Has anybody checked, whether the @StarlinkBoss handle has been reserved? And by whom?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: su27k on 01/23/2018 09:24 am
More good news:

SpaceX gets good news from the Air Force on the Zuma mission

Quote
"Based on the data available, our team did not identify any information that would change SpaceX's Falcon 9 certification status," Lieutenant General John Thompson, commander of the Space and Missile Systems Center, told Bloomberg News. This qualified conclusion came after a preliminary review of data from the Zuma launch. That's according to Thompson, who said the Air Force will continue to review data from all launches.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/spacex-gets-good-news-from-the-air-force-on-the-zuma-mission/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/spacex-gets-good-news-from-the-air-force-on-the-zuma-mission/)

I'm not sure this qualifies as good news though, the AF simply said there's no change to F9's certification status, but would the certification status change if there's a failure? I would assume the answer is no, you don't get kicked out of the NSS club for a failure. So it seems to me this statement doesn't carry any useful information.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: SimonFD on 01/23/2018 10:00 am
More good news:

SpaceX gets good news from the Air Force on the Zuma mission

Quote
"Based on the data available, our team did not identify any information that would change SpaceX's Falcon 9 certification status," Lieutenant General John Thompson, commander of the Space and Missile Systems Center, told Bloomberg News. This qualified conclusion came after a preliminary review of data from the Zuma launch. That's according to Thompson, who said the Air Force will continue to review data from all launches.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/spacex-gets-good-news-from-the-air-force-on-the-zuma-mission/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/spacex-gets-good-news-from-the-air-force-on-the-zuma-mission/)

I'm not sure this qualifies as good news though, the AF simply said there's no change to F9's certification status, but would the certification status change if there's a failure? I would assume the answer is no, you don't get kicked out of the NSS club for a failure. So it seems to me this statement doesn't carry any useful information.

I would say it certainly isn't bad news for SpaceX.
Here we have what the public could see as an endorsement of SpaceX by an entity in-the-know (even if they're not).
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: jpo234 on 01/23/2018 10:13 am
I'm not sure this qualifies as good news though, the AF simply said there's no change to F9's certification status, but would the certification status change if there's a failure? I would assume the answer is no, you don't get kicked out of the NSS club for a failure. So it seems to me this statement doesn't carry any useful information.

The original Bloomberg article says more. The quote is:

Quote
"Based on the data available, our team did not identify any information that would change SpaceX’s Falcon 9 certification status” after “a preliminary review of telemetry that was available to us”

I interpret this as "we looked at the data and there was nothing wrong". If something had been wrong, the quote would have qualifiers like "Based on the data we evaluate the consequences for the certification status" or something like this.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 01/23/2018 11:20 am
More good news:

SpaceX gets good news from the Air Force on the Zuma mission

Quote
"Based on the data available, our team did not identify any information that would change SpaceX's Falcon 9 certification status," Lieutenant General John Thompson, commander of the Space and Missile Systems Center, told Bloomberg News. This qualified conclusion came after a preliminary review of data from the Zuma launch. That's according to Thompson, who said the Air Force will continue to review data from all launches.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/spacex-gets-good-news-from-the-air-force-on-the-zuma-mission/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/spacex-gets-good-news-from-the-air-force-on-the-zuma-mission/)

I'm not sure this qualifies as good news though, the AF simply said there's no change to F9's certification status, but would the certification status change if there's a failure? I would assume the answer is no, you don't get kicked out of the NSS club for a failure. So it seems to me this statement doesn't carry any useful information.

Emphasis mine.

Your assessment is correct. Remember when AMOS-6 happened? Guess what the Air Force stated two weeks later:

http://spacenews.com/falcon-9-accident-wont-affect-air-force-certification/

And that most certainly was a F9 failure.

So basically, this latest statement from USAF does nothing to exonerate Falcon 9.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: JamesH65 on 01/23/2018 01:09 pm
More good news:

SpaceX gets good news from the Air Force on the Zuma mission

Quote
"Based on the data available, our team did not identify any information that would change SpaceX's Falcon 9 certification status," Lieutenant General John Thompson, commander of the Space and Missile Systems Center, told Bloomberg News. This qualified conclusion came after a preliminary review of data from the Zuma launch. That's according to Thompson, who said the Air Force will continue to review data from all launches.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/spacex-gets-good-news-from-the-air-force-on-the-zuma-mission/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/spacex-gets-good-news-from-the-air-force-on-the-zuma-mission/)

I'm not sure this qualifies as good news though, the AF simply said there's no change to F9's certification status, but would the certification status change if there's a failure? I would assume the answer is no, you don't get kicked out of the NSS club for a failure. So it seems to me this statement doesn't carry any useful information.

Emphasis mine.

Your assessment is correct. Remember when AMOS-6 happened? Guess what the Air Force stated two weeks later:

http://spacenews.com/falcon-9-accident-wont-affect-air-force-certification/

And that most certainly was a F9 failure.

So basically, this latest statement from USAF does nothing to exonerate Falcon 9.

It doesn't need exonerating. It worked to the specification. This is the only public fact.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: AC in NC on 01/23/2018 02:07 pm
So basically, this latest statement from USAF does nothing to exonerate Falcon 9.
It doesn't need exonerating. It worked to the specification. This is the only public fact.

If you are going to be this picky, then it's not a public fact that it worked to specification.  It's the only un-rebutted public assertion.  Conclusion:  Don't be that picky.  His point about what you can take away from the AF statement is reasonable and doesn't need to be challenged.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: AncientU on 01/23/2018 05:17 pm
So much for 'self-insurance':
Quote
SpaceX Lost Satellite on U.S. Mission Was Uninsured
Quote
“The policy of the U.S. government has been that they do not buy insurance. They rely on the taxpayer to foot the bill when things go wrong.”

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2018/01/23/478112.htm

Edit: added reference
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: abaddon on 01/23/2018 05:19 pm
So much for 'self-insurance':
Quote
SpaceX Lost Satellite on U.S. Mission Was Uninsured
Quote
“The policy of the U.S. government has been that they do not buy insurance. They rely on the taxpayer to foot the bill when things go wrong.”
Not sure why the confusion, that's exactly what self-insurance means.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: AncientU on 01/23/2018 05:30 pm
So much for 'self-insurance':
Quote
SpaceX Lost Satellite on U.S. Mission Was Uninsured
Quote
“The policy of the U.S. government has been that they do not buy insurance. They rely on the taxpayer to foot the bill when things go wrong.”
Not sure why the confusion, that's exactly what self-insurance means.

Quote
Self-insure is a method of managing risk by setting aside a pool of money to be used if an unexpected loss occurs. Theoretically, one can self-insure against any type of loss. However, in practice, most people choose to buy insurance against potentially large, infrequent losses.

Lacking the foresight to set aside this pool of money is called 'no insurance'
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: abaddon on 01/23/2018 05:39 pm
Lacking the foresight to set aside this pool of money is called 'no insurance'
It's not lacking foresight, it's making a risk assessment and a decision.  Setting aside that pool of money means you have to budget for that in the first place, and it's sitting idle, which doesn't work well with federal procurement.  Building a duplicate means you are potentially wasting money on duplicate hardware.

NASA lost an IDA in CRS-7 and had to go back and build another one.  There wasn't money "set aside" for insurance for that item.  It's not unusual to make these decisions.

I'm sure if Zuma is considered a critical asset they'll build another.  Whether that money was "set aside" from the beginning or will require a new black budgetary line item is irrelevant.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/23/2018 05:43 pm
So much for 'self-insurance':
Quote
SpaceX Lost Satellite on U.S. Mission Was Uninsured
Quote
“The policy of the U.S. government has been that they do not buy insurance. They rely on the taxpayer to foot the bill when things go wrong.”
Not sure why the confusion, that's exactly what self-insurance means.

Quote
Self-insure is a method of managing risk by setting aside a pool of money to be used if an unexpected loss occurs. Theoretically, one can self-insure against any type of loss. However, in practice, most people choose to buy insurance against potentially large, infrequent losses.

Lacking the foresight to set aside this pool of money is called 'no insurance'

Wrong. Just stop.  You really don't know what you are talking.  This is how the gov't has managed space launch since the beginning.   Certification is part of the self-insurance.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 01/23/2018 05:57 pm
So much for 'self-insurance':
Quote
SpaceX Lost Satellite on U.S. Mission Was Uninsured
Quote
“The policy of the U.S. government has been that they do not buy insurance. They rely on the taxpayer to foot the bill when things go wrong.”

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2018/01/23/478112.htm

Edit: added reference

Hardly new news I posted an article about this several days ago that the US taxpayers will be picking up the news for any loss.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: the_other_Doug on 01/23/2018 06:04 pm
And this is yet another case of the common unsubstantiated assumption of blame getting featured in the article headline:  "SpaceX Lost Satellite..."

SpaceX could, in actuality, start suing these publications for libel if this assumption continues to be featured in the media, especially since they have stated officially that the assumption is "categorically false".  Having made that kind of strong statement, publications which ignore it do so at their own legal risk.  SpaceX as an entity is not a celebrity, about whom tabloids have printed libelous articles for years.  You can slide by when libeling a celebrity, even though tabloids are occasionally (and successfully) sued by them.  Libel laws are taken more seriously in the courts when the victim of the libel is a corporate entity.

SpaceX likely won't sue anyone, but they'd have a good case if they chose to do so.  I wouldn't be all that surprised if one "set an example" suit gets filed, just to make other publishers think twice about allowing their publications to repeat unsubstantiated assumptions as fact.

It would surely be a better case than suing Jeremy Clarkson for libel over his opinion segment re Tesla.  Which Musk did.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: docmordrid on 01/23/2018 06:31 pm
ISTM SpaceX wouldn't sue because pre-trial discovery could reveal things ZUMA_Owner rather not be made  public.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 01/23/2018 06:40 pm
ISTM SpaceX wouldn't sue because pre-trial discovery could reveal things ZUMA_Owner rather not be made  public.
All of it would be mooted by national security concerns. There is very little chance such a suit would ever make it past a motion to dismiss, not to mention SpaceX would have to demonstrate damages - an essential element of any cognizable claim. And that they cannot do - customers aren’t leaving, there is no publicly traded stock to tank, and therefore no market capitalization to measure ...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 01/23/2018 06:55 pm
So one of the things that's been bothering me is something I can't back up with a reference because I can no longer track it down - so therefore mark this one up as speculation based on an imperfect memory...

... When we first heard about Zuma it was before we actually knew the name. As memory serves, at that time it was mentioned that whatever Zuma was, the "client", for lack of a better word, didn't have very deep pockets and covering the cost of the launch as an issue, but SpaceX had decided to make it happen regardless because of the importance of this mission.

Again - that's my recollection - and it doesn't jive with anything we've heard recently about Zuma. Then again, most of what we've heard is based on limited to no facts, and it's been a self-feeding process.

Does anyone else have this recollection? I mean, lord knows I've suffered through decompression sickness and all that, but...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: jpo234 on 01/23/2018 06:56 pm



Lacking the foresight to set aside this pool of money is called 'no insurance'

The pool of money is called "Federal budget".
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: the_other_Doug on 01/23/2018 06:59 pm
ISTM SpaceX wouldn't sue because pre-trial discovery could reveal things ZUMA_Owner rather not be made  public.
All of it would be mooted by national security concerns. There is very little chance such a suit would ever make it past a motion to dismiss, not to mention SpaceX would have to demonstrate damages - an essential element of any cognizable claim. And that they cannot do - customers aren’t leaving, there is no publicly traded stock to tank, and therefore no market capitalization to measure ...

Yep, which is why I said they almost definitely won't do so.  It has to try Musk's patience to see the libelous assumptions being read into the Congressional record, though.  If it was my company, I'd be chomping at the bit to find a way to stop people libeling my company.

Injustice just angers me a lot, is all.  And the constant repetition of the unsubstantiated assumption of blame lands on me like specific, knowing, targeted injustice.  Bugs the living s@#t out of me, is all.  Should not be easy for any person with a set of morals to just sit and watch happen, but as I sometimes suspect, I may be the only American left who thinks it's important to fight against injustice.  Certainly would think so based on e everyone who tells me to shut up, injustice is a fact of life, just accept it and stop trying to rock the boat... sigh...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: tvg98 on 01/23/2018 07:19 pm
So one of the things that's been bothering me is something I can't back up with a reference because I can no longer track it down - so therefore mark this one up as speculation based on an imperfect memory...

... When we first heard about Zuma it was before we actually knew the name. As memory serves, at that time it was mentioned that whatever Zuma was, the "client", for lack of a better word, didn't have very deep pockets and covering the cost of the launch as an issue, but SpaceX had decided to make it happen regardless because of the importance of this mission.

Again - that's my recollection - and it doesn't jive with anything we've heard recently about Zuma. Then again, most of what we've heard is based on limited to no facts, and it's been a self-feeding process.

Does anyone else have this recollection? I mean, lord knows I've suffered through decompression sickness and all that, but...

I've found comments which do support those recollections. However, I'm assuming that the "client" in this case is NG. Now, I'm no expert but they don't seem that cash-strapped to me?

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Lar on 01/23/2018 07:21 pm
ISTM SpaceX wouldn't sue because pre-trial discovery could reveal things ZUMA_Owner rather not be made  public.

This isn't at all analogous to the Musk/Tesla situation. Tesla didn't have giant government customers that might get quite upset.

That said I doubt discovery would get anywhere, any lines of questioning that got anywhere close to secret information would be squashed.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 01/23/2018 08:15 pm
So one of the things that's been bothering me is something I can't back up with a reference because I can no longer track it down - so therefore mark this one up as speculation based on an imperfect memory...

... When we first heard about Zuma it was before we actually knew the name. As memory serves, at that time it was mentioned that whatever Zuma was, the "client", for lack of a better word, didn't have very deep pockets and covering the cost of the launch as an issue, but SpaceX had decided to make it happen regardless because of the importance of this mission.

Again - that's my recollection - and it doesn't jive with anything we've heard recently about Zuma. Then again, most of what we've heard is based on limited to no facts, and it's been a self-feeding process.

Does anyone else have this recollection? I mean, lord knows I've suffered through decompression sickness and all that, but...

I've found comments which do support those recollections. However, I'm assuming that the "client" in this case is NG. Now, I'm no expert but they don't seem that cash-strapped to me?
Definitely not. However I still think NG as the manufacturer rather than the client. Can you put your hands on any of those comments?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/23/2018 08:25 pm
So one of the things that's been bothering me is something I can't back up with a reference because I can no longer track it down - so therefore mark this one up as speculation based on an imperfect memory...

... When we first heard about Zuma it was before we actually knew the name. As memory serves, at that time it was mentioned that whatever Zuma was, the "client", for lack of a better word, didn't have very deep pockets and covering the cost of the launch as an issue, but SpaceX had decided to make it happen regardless because of the importance of this mission.

Again - that's my recollection - and it doesn't jive with anything we've heard recently about Zuma. Then again, most of what we've heard is based on limited to no facts, and it's been a self-feeding process.

Does anyone else have this recollection? I mean, lord knows I've suffered through decompression sickness and all that, but...

I've found comments which do support those recollections. However, I'm assuming that the "client" in this case is NG. Now, I'm no expert but they don't seem that cash-strapped to me?
Definitely not. However I still think NG as the manufacturer rather than the client. Can you put your hands on any of those comments?

NROL-76, Ball was the spacecraft manufacturer and the launch service client. 
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: tvg98 on 01/23/2018 08:31 pm
So one of the things that's been bothering me is something I can't back up with a reference because I can no longer track it down - so therefore mark this one up as speculation based on an imperfect memory...

... When we first heard about Zuma it was before we actually knew the name. As memory serves, at that time it was mentioned that whatever Zuma was, the "client", for lack of a better word, didn't have very deep pockets and covering the cost of the launch as an issue, but SpaceX had decided to make it happen regardless because of the importance of this mission.

Again - that's my recollection - and it doesn't jive with anything we've heard recently about Zuma. Then again, most of what we've heard is based on limited to no facts, and it's been a self-feeding process.

Does anyone else have this recollection? I mean, lord knows I've suffered through decompression sickness and all that, but...

I've found comments which do support those recollections. However, I'm assuming that the "client" in this case is NG. Now, I'm no expert but they don't seem that cash-strapped to me?
Definitely not. However I still think NG as the manufacturer rather than the client. Can you put your hands on any of those comments?

The ones I've seen were made by reddit user ASTRALsunder. Here's a few:

Quote
No, nothing my friends told me gave me the feeling that the customer was established. One friend did mention that the customer was pretty open and up front with SpaceX about their financial situation to give them an idea on how extremely crucial this flight was for them. I guess it was enough for SpaceX to squeeze them in risking the ire of their backlogged customers.

Quote
That I do not know, my friend. I did not press my sources for more details. The extent of my knowledge is the flight is named ZUMA/Zuma and the NET is November 15th. Customer contract details and what kind of satellite I do not know. They just emphasized the on-time part of the launch, it would be out of 39A, and on a new booster.

My friends did say CRS-13's new NET is December 4th out of LC-40. SpaceX pitched the idea of a flown booster for CRS-13 to NASA and they will give them an answer in early November.

Quote
I don't know if this is a new customer or not, but yes, the customer would be able to hit their revenue forecasts for the next fiscal year, and SpaceX would most likely be bestowed many future contracts. Personally, I think SpaceX's launch cadence and reliability in 2017 has impressed many customers who are now eager to sign up.

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/76c3gw/spacex_has_an_approved_license_for_10_nov_launch/dofpocd/?context=3 (https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/76c3gw/spacex_has_an_approved_license_for_10_nov_launch/dofpocd/?context=3)

Quote
Yup, critical for the operator in this case. They have revenue targets to hit and shareholders to keep happy.

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/76c3gw/spacex_has_an_approved_license_for_10_nov_launch/doe2ymt/?context=3 (https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/76c3gw/spacex_has_an_approved_license_for_10_nov_launch/doe2ymt/?context=3)

Quote
I trust the folks to told me 100%. All had the same info. It would be something if only one told me, but all told me the same. We'll find out in a month.. =)

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/76c3gw/spacex_has_an_approved_license_for_10_nov_launch/doe2uuo/?context=1 (https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/76c3gw/spacex_has_an_approved_license_for_10_nov_launch/doe2uuo/?context=1)

Quote
True, but my friends seemed to emphasize this one more than the others. We'll find out in a month.

Edit: They super emphasized the on-time bit.

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/76c3gw/spacex_has_an_approved_license_for_10_nov_launch/dod9yjf/?context=2 (https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/76c3gw/spacex_has_an_approved_license_for_10_nov_launch/dod9yjf/?context=2)

(Links will take you to the discussion so you can get more context as to what he's talking about)

Based on his other comments he does seem to have reliable sources, so perhaps these comments are worth considering.


Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: psionedge on 01/23/2018 08:49 pm
Just sounds like perhaps NG had some payment milestones based on meeting a certain launch date.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 01/23/2018 09:09 pm
So one of the things that's been bothering me is something I can't back up with a reference because I can no longer track it down - so therefore mark this one up as speculation based on an imperfect memory...

... When we first heard about Zuma it was before we actually knew the name. As memory serves, at that time it was mentioned that whatever Zuma was, the "client", for lack of a better word, didn't have very deep pockets and covering the cost of the launch as an issue, but SpaceX had decided to make it happen regardless because of the importance of this mission.

Again - that's my recollection - and it doesn't jive with anything we've heard recently about Zuma. Then again, most of what we've heard is based on limited to no facts, and it's been a self-feeding process.

Does anyone else have this recollection? I mean, lord knows I've suffered through decompression sickness and all that, but...

I've found comments which do support those recollections. However, I'm assuming that the "client" in this case is NG. Now, I'm no expert but they don't seem that cash-strapped to me?
Definitely not. However I still think NG as the manufacturer rather than the client. Can you put your hands on any of those comments?

The ones I've seen were made by reddit user ASTRALsunder. Here's a few:

Quote
No, nothing my friends told me gave me the feeling that the customer was established. One friend did mention that the customer was pretty open and up front with SpaceX about their financial situation to give them an idea on how extremely crucial this flight was for them. I guess it was enough for SpaceX to squeeze them in risking the ire of their backlogged customers.

Quote
That I do not know, my friend. I did not press my sources for more details. The extent of my knowledge is the flight is named ZUMA/Zuma and the NET is November 15th. Customer contract details and what kind of satellite I do not know. They just emphasized the on-time part of the launch, it would be out of 39A, and on a new booster.

My friends did say CRS-13's new NET is December 4th out of LC-40. SpaceX pitched the idea of a flown booster for CRS-13 to NASA and they will give them an answer in early November.

Quote
I don't know if this is a new customer or not, but yes, the customer would be able to hit their revenue forecasts for the next fiscal year, and SpaceX would most likely be bestowed many future contracts. Personally, I think SpaceX's launch cadence and reliability in 2017 has impressed many customers who are now eager to sign up.

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/76c3gw/spacex_has_an_approved_license_for_10_nov_launch/dofpocd/?context=3 (https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/76c3gw/spacex_has_an_approved_license_for_10_nov_launch/dofpocd/?context=3)

Quote
Yup, critical for the operator in this case. They have revenue targets to hit and shareholders to keep happy.

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/76c3gw/spacex_has_an_approved_license_for_10_nov_launch/doe2ymt/?context=3 (https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/76c3gw/spacex_has_an_approved_license_for_10_nov_launch/doe2ymt/?context=3)

Quote
I trust the folks to told me 100%. All had the same info. It would be something if only one told me, but all told me the same. We'll find out in a month.. =)

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/76c3gw/spacex_has_an_approved_license_for_10_nov_launch/doe2uuo/?context=1 (https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/76c3gw/spacex_has_an_approved_license_for_10_nov_launch/doe2uuo/?context=1)

Quote
True, but my friends seemed to emphasize this one more than the others. We'll find out in a month.

Edit: They super emphasized the on-time bit.

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/76c3gw/spacex_has_an_approved_license_for_10_nov_launch/dod9yjf/?context=2 (https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/76c3gw/spacex_has_an_approved_license_for_10_nov_launch/dod9yjf/?context=2)

(Links will take you to the discussion so you can get more context as to what he's talking about)

Based on his other comments he does seem to have reliable sources, so perhaps these comments are worth considering.
Thank you - that was exactly what I was looking for...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: gongora on 01/23/2018 09:14 pm
Thank you - that was exactly what I was looking for...

And all of that is almost certainly bulls---.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: tvg98 on 01/23/2018 09:16 pm
Thank you - that was exactly what I was looking for...

And all of that is almost certainly bulls---.

Very likely despite what I said.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/23/2018 09:21 pm
Thank you - that was exactly what I was looking for...

And all of that is almost certainly bulls---.

Definitely
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: the_other_Doug on 01/23/2018 09:27 pm
When a lot of people are fed a line simultaneously, it often is more likely evidence of a coordinated plan of obfuscation than a well-confirmed tidbit of truth.  Especially about a classified project.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 01/24/2018 01:44 am
So much for 'self-insurance':
Quote
SpaceX Lost Satellite on U.S. Mission Was Uninsured
Quote
“The policy of the U.S. government has been that they do not buy insurance. They rely on the taxpayer to foot the bill when things go wrong.”

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2018/01/23/478112.htm

Edit: added reference

Hardly new news I posted an article about this several days ago that the US taxpayers will be picking up the news for any loss.
Come on, that's not fair.

By the same logic, the US tax payer has been stuffing their pockets with saved insurance premiums.

Self insurance simply means what it says.  You are the insurance company, for better and for worse, and irrespective of how you (mis)manage your budget.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: deruch on 01/24/2018 04:02 am
So much for 'self-insurance':
Quote
SpaceX Lost Satellite on U.S. Mission Was Uninsured
Quote
“The policy of the U.S. government has been that they do not buy insurance. They rely on the taxpayer to foot the bill when things go wrong.”

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2018/01/23/478112.htm

Edit: added reference

Hardly new news I posted an article about this several days ago that the US taxpayers will be picking up the news for any loss.

I've seen comments/reports saying that Zuma was a billion dollar satellite but, just to be super conservative, let's say it was a $2B sat.  The US Gov. annual budget is about $4 Trillion.  That means Zuma would represent 0.0005 of total annual spending.  If you spent $100,000 a year, this would represent an expenditure of $50.  Still think insurance is a big deal?  You could make a more conservative estimate by basing it on just the discretionary spending of the budget-- ~$1.25 Trillion.  There, Zuma represents ~0.0016 of discretionary spending.  Still not a huge amount. 

The second thing to keep in mind is that insurance companies make money.  This means that on the aggregate, it is a money loser to buy insurance so long as you can afford to absorb the losses.  For individual companies or for a homeowner, etc., this doesn't work because the risk is too high.  But at the government's scale and the fact that there isn't any real financial risk, the government self insuring is both no big deal and an overall, long-term financial win.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 01/24/2018 04:04 am
How would you insure a black program?

I think we're reaching the bottom of the barrel here.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Nomadd on 01/24/2018 04:23 am
How would you insure a black program?

I think we're reaching the bottom of the barrel here.

No, we've gone through the bottom of the barrel, through the floor under the barrel and half way to the earth's outer core. There's more baseless nonsense popping up here than the CNN comments section.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: pb2000 on 01/24/2018 05:23 am
Just as a minor aside, the sunk cost on the program that produced Zuma might be $1B, but that cost could have been largely R&D, which isn't lost with the satellite.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: georgegassaway on 01/24/2018 07:13 am
There's more baseless nonsense popping up here than the CNN comments section.
Clearly you have not looked at the comments section on Fox News' Zuma failure report.   :)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: psionedge on 01/24/2018 07:21 am
So much for 'self-insurance':
Quote
SpaceX Lost Satellite on U.S. Mission Was Uninsured
Quote
“The policy of the U.S. government has been that they do not buy insurance. They rely on the taxpayer to foot the bill when things go wrong.”

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2018/01/23/478112.htm

Edit: added reference

Hardly new news I posted an article about this several days ago that the US taxpayers will be picking up the news for any loss.
Come on, that's not fair.

By the same logic, the US tax payer has been stuffing their pockets with saved insurance premiums.

Self insurance simply means what it says.  You are the insurance company, for better and for worse, and irrespective of how you (mis)manage your budget.
Stop assuming the government budget works the same as a household or even company budget.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: docmordrid on 01/24/2018 08:17 am
For beginners homeowners & businesses can't print their own money, devaluing their debts and losses over time.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris Bergin on 01/24/2018 11:54 am
This thread has run its course and needs locking and archiving given there's obviously not going to be any more information and that leads to a diluted conversation.

The above posts have been left on the thread to prove the point. ;)

I think someone said there were a few last checks to confirm no Zuma via those tracking guys, but we could use the update thread if something turns up (we all know that's doubtful) and the update thread could be used if by some chance NG or one of the official entities says something.

If there is a big update posted on there, we can always start a new discussion thread, linking back to this one, so nothing is lost.

"Read 429097 times" <---Heh, just noticed that. Poor Zuma. We hardly knew you, but we won't forget you.

Anyway, let's move on.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: su27k on 04/09/2018 04:44 am
Found article today by Mr Pasztor that wasn't critical of SpaceX. 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/probes-point-to-northrop-grumman-errors-in-january-spy-satellite-failure-1523220500?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=1 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/probes-point-to-northrop-grumman-errors-in-january-spy-satellite-failure-1523220500?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=1)

Looks like the data is pointing towards a issue with the payload adapter.

Quote
But now, these people said, two separate teams of federal and industry investigators have pinpointed reasons for the high-profile loss to problems with a Northrop-modified part -- called a payload adapter -- that failed to operate properly in space.

Hopefully this quote doesn't violate any rules, it's too interesting to pass up:

Quote
Sensors on board failed to immediately report what happened, this person said, so officials tracking the launch weren’t aware of the major malfunction until the satellite was dragged back into the atmosphere by the returning second stage. The satellite ultimately broke free, but by then had dropped to an altitude that was too low for a rescue.

I wonder if they'll reconsider putting a camera up there to show payload separation.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 04/09/2018 07:05 am
Found article today by Mr Pasztor that wasn't critical of SpaceX. 

Well, I suppose there is a first for everything...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: CorvusCorax on 04/09/2018 07:07 am
Google found this non-paywalled copy of above quote here edit: link went dead :(
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 04/09/2018 08:57 am
Basic run-down of the article (for what it's worth):

- NG bought a payload adapter from a third party.
- NG modified the payload adapter to suit Zuma.
- NG tested the modified payload adapter with positive results
- Modified adapter however failed to function properly in zero-G
- Both government and industry investigation teams have reached same conclusion: NG is to blame for loss of Zuma
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Semmel on 04/09/2018 09:11 am
Basic run-down of the article (for what it's worth):

- NG bought a payload adapter from a third party.
- NG modified the payload adapter to suit Zuma.
- NG tested the modified payload adapter with positive results
- Modified adapter however failed to function properly in zero-G
- Both government and industry investigation teams have reached same conclusion: NG is to blame for loss of Zuma

Thanks for the rundown. The non-paywall article also speculates that Zuma costs $3.5B to develop and build, which is a number that I have not seen around before. Maybe I missed it.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Frogstar_Robot on 04/09/2018 10:35 am
If the problem had been detected at the time, could the sat have been saved before deorbiting the second stage?

Also, I guess they would only have video on the payload if the video data was sent via secure encrypted link.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: CorvusCorax on 04/09/2018 10:55 am
If the problem had been detected at the time, could the sat have been saved before deorbiting the second stage?

Also, I guess they would only have video on the payload if the video data was sent via secure encrypted link.

Answering that (speculatively) would require to reopen the Discussion thread. Maybe mods can move some stuff there later :)

The article suggests that the sat broke free in the early phases of reentry, that in turn suggests the sat only needed a small nudge. It also suggests the sat thought it was released, when it was in reality still attached. As such, maybe it could have supplied that "nudge" with a bit of thruster firing. (Considering the error only ever occurred in zero g but not when ground testing also suggests a relatively small force would have sufficed to get them apart, but in zero-g that wasn't present)

On the other hand, it did not come free yet, when the F9 US reoriented for de-orbitting and did its retro-burn (but then again that were likely compressive loads on the adapter, while pulling it off required shear loads)

I guess with detailed enough design specs of the adapter one could attempt to re-produce the fault-case on the ground by more accurately simulating the zero-g environment. Maybe NG already did that. When you have that you could also run simulations what could have possibly mitigated the issue in flight.

All that are could have / would have 's that don't help this mission. But it might help in future missions to solve 2 falt-scenarios:

1. The payload should have some means to detect a situation where it gets signalled a release has/should have happened but is in fact still physically attached. Cross-checking IMU sensor signature during payload release could give some heuristic indications. Double-checks are possible by actuating thrusters or reaction wheels and sensing the incorrect COG/mass fingerprint

2.  With 1 in place a payload could try some desperate active separation measures, such a thruster pulses. This of course should only happen if theres a clear indication that a) the payload is in orbit, b) separation should have occured, and c) it didn't

Last but not least the question is if this failure case is common enough to justify these counter-measures for future payloads.

Its just a bit like the contingency parachute release in Dragon in case of launch abort/premature separation. Noone thinks thats a likely enough scenario to justify it - until it actually happens.

It might be worth it if you combine
a) high value science/natsec payloads
b) unreliable, untested or first-of-a-kind hardware involved in payload separation

both of which was the case in Zuma.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: AncientU on 04/09/2018 10:57 am
If the problem had been detected at the time, could the sat have been saved before deorbiting the second stage?

Also, I guess they would only have video on the payload if the video data was sent via secure encrypted link.

The $200 GoPro feeds would have told them the $3.5B satellite was still attached... They may have been able to dislodge it with a payload or stage maneuver.

Ironic, isn't it.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Nomadd on 04/09/2018 11:12 am
 It really fills me with confidence that they'll ever manage to get the JWST sorted.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: DistantTemple on 04/09/2018 11:27 am
Sounds like SX were not allowed any video of the adaptor or payload even for cleared individuals. If it was just jammed, SX would have 1. Delayed reentry, 2. Shook it about a bit!!! (main engine + thrusters) ...despite the hint that it needed extra vibration protection. Seems criminal that NG didn't know enough about what was going on to at least ask SX to delay reentry!
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: jjyach on 04/09/2018 11:32 am
There is no way to delay reentry.  It flies a preprogramed course flight profile regardless of what they may see.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: DistantTemple on 04/09/2018 11:47 am
There is no way to delay reentry.  It flies a preprogramed course flight profile regardless of what they may see.
Oh... now you say it , I remember I heard that before... so also that invalidates the rest of my statement, as they could not do additional burns, or thruster firings, if its preprogrammed/on autopilot.

However this scenario is an argument for having the ability to interrupt/override/update program, before deorbit begins. It does seem limiting. Is it because of regulations? I would expect SX to (want to) maintain an intervention channel if at all possible!
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: AncientU on 04/09/2018 12:06 pm
It really fills me with confidence that they'll ever manage to get the JWST sorted.

Would be interesting to know if there was/is any commonality with the JWST adaptor NG is using...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 04/09/2018 12:17 pm
However this scenario is an argument for having the ability to interrupt/override/update program, before deorbit begins.

I would say it's more of an argument toward ensuring that your payload adapter actually... works.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: rpapo on 04/09/2018 12:36 pm
There is no way to delay reentry.  It flies a preprogramed course flight profile regardless of what they may see.
Then what happened on CRS-1?  The second burn for Orbcomm was cancelled from the ground.  That tells me the programming can be preempted from the ground.

EDIT: Woods170 says the decision was made automatically, and I have a strong tendency to believe him.  I simply took the rhetoric of the time as indicating that NASA had made the call then and there.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: JBF on 04/09/2018 12:39 pm
There is no way to delay reentry.  It flies a preprogramed course flight profile regardless of what they may see.
Then what happened on CRS-1?  The second burn for Orbcomm was cancelled from the ground.  That tells me the programming can be preempted from the ground.

We can't assume that; it was probably a preprogramed limit.  If < X amount of fuel is present switch to program B.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: DistantTemple on 04/09/2018 12:48 pm
There is no way to delay reentry.  It flies a preprogramed course flight profile regardless of what they may see.
Then what happened on CRS-1?  The second burn for Orbcomm was cancelled from the ground.  That tells me the programming can be preempted from the ground.

We can't assume that it was probably a preprogramed limit.  If < X amount of fuel is present switch to program B.
A wild guess... NASA required the ability to make this decision, and two (or so) choices of flight profile were programmed in. Sending a command to choose "abort second payload" would be easier than detailed intervention. Also on a NASA mission are more resources deployed to keep in more continuous contact with the spacecraft? AIUI SX routinely has gaps in communication during orbit.  I have just noticed this is not a discussion thread!
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 04/09/2018 01:20 pm
There is no way to delay reentry.  It flies a preprogramed course flight profile regardless of what they may see.
Then what happened on CRS-1?  The second burn for Orbcomm was cancelled from the ground.  That tells me the programming can be preempted from the ground.
Incorrect. The burn was not cancelled from the ground. It was cancelled by the on-board flight computer, based on pre-programmed instructions to NOT initiate the second burn if there is insufficient propellant to complete the mission.

The on-board computer keeps track of how long the first burn was for completion of the primary mission (getting Cargo Dragon on its way to ISS). Orbcomm was the secondary mission. Based on the extended burn required to get the target delta-V for Cargo Dragon it was clear to the onboard-computer that there was insufficient propellant left for the second burn. And thus that second burn was not initiated.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 04/09/2018 01:29 pm
It really fills me with confidence that they'll ever manage to get the JWST sorted.

Would be interesting to know if there was/is any commonality with the JWST adaptor NG is using...

No commonality whatsoever. For JWST both the cone 3936 and the PAS (Payload Adapter System) 2624VS are supplied as stock items from Arianespace.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: deruch on 04/09/2018 06:13 pm
There is no way to delay reentry.  It flies a preprogramed course flight profile regardless of what they may see.
Then what happened on CRS-1?  The second burn for Orbcomm was cancelled from the ground.  That tells me the programming can be preempted from the ground.
Incorrect. The burn was not cancelled from the ground. It was cancelled by the on-board flight computer, based on pre-programmed instructions to NOT initiate the second burn if there is insufficient propellant to complete the mission.

The on-board computer keeps track of how long the first burn was for completion of the primary mission (getting Cargo Dragon on its way to ISS). Orbcomm was the secondary mission. Based on the extended burn required to get the target delta-V for Cargo Dragon it was clear to the onboard-computer that there was insufficient propellant left for the second burn. And thus that second burn was not initiated.

IIRC, it wasn't that there was insufficient propellant left for the second burn but rather that they were required to maintain a strict amount of additional margin beyond what was actually required for the burn.  This was where there was a shortfall.  So, they could have done the burns fine (assuming they went nominally) but would have ended up with less propellant remaining than was required by NASA's safety restrictions to be kept for contingencies on the mission.  My reading between the lines was that SpaceX felt the margin required was somewhat excessive, but as it was their first CRS delivery mission and still early in the F9's operational life NASA wasn't willing to take much risk.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 04/09/2018 07:40 pm
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/983319308943200258?s=20

Quote
Jeff Foust
@jeff_foust
Wonder how many people who blamed SpaceX for the failed Zuma launch will offer mea culpas now that investigations reportedly show a Northrop-provided payload adapter was to blame?

I don’t think any more need to be said in relation to this bit.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 04/09/2018 07:42 pm
Google found this non-paywalled copy of above quote here (https://research.tdameritrade.com/grid/public/markets/news/story.asp?fromPage=results&docKey=1-SN20180408000981&provider=CBSMarketWatch)

Nothing there except a search box?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: speedevil on 04/09/2018 07:55 pm
There is no way to delay reentry.  It flies a preprogramed course flight profile regardless of what they may see.

Clearly there are parts of the trajectory that must be preprogrammed and changing stuff mid-flight is actively dangerous and happening so fast it needs to be preprogrammed - boost phase. And it needs to be secure.

But having the capability to debug in-flight seems like an odd capability to leave out - if only that it can help get you to the nominal flight profile after hardware failures. As an obvious example, the stage may not if Zuma had been somewhat further out, been able to reenter with it attached as it had inadequate delta-v.

Is this legislatively required?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: WindnWar on 04/09/2018 08:25 pm
There is no way to delay reentry.  It flies a preprogramed course flight profile regardless of what they may see.

Clearly there are parts of the trajectory that must be preprogrammed and changing stuff mid-flight is actively dangerous and happening so fast it needs to be preprogrammed - boost phase. And it needs to be secure.

But having the capability to debug in-flight seems like an odd capability to leave out - if only that it can help get you to the nominal flight profile after hardware failures. As an obvious example, the stage may not if Zuma had been somewhat further out, been able to reenter with it attached as it had inadequate delta-v.

Is this legislatively required?

I would think that unless such control can be proven secure, especially for such a payload, even if it existed for a commercial sat, it would probably be required to be disabled for a mission like Zuma.

But we are discussing a capability that as far as any of us knows, doesn't exist currently unless someone can state that it does.

I am curious why a third party adapter was used and modified rather than modifying SpaceX's standard adapter if need be. Were the vibration and shock dampening stated as the reason for using the third party adapter not possible to achieve with SpaceX's adapter? How much shock does an adapter impart compared to the launch environment? Just staging alone would seem to be more of an issue than payload sep... To date SpaceX has launched many of their payload adapters with no failures to date.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: rst on 04/09/2018 08:33 pm
Basic run-down of the article (for what it's worth):

- NG bought a payload adapter from a third party.
- NG modified the payload adapter to suit Zuma.
- NG tested the modified payload adapter with positive results
- Modified adapter however failed to function properly in zero-G
- Both government and industry investigation teams have reached same conclusion: NG is to blame for loss of Zuma

Thanks for the rundown. The non-paywall article also speculates that Zuma costs $3.5B to develop and build, which is a number that I have not seen around before. Maybe I missed it.

Hindsight is 20/20, but if that $3.5B budget is accurate, it might not have been a total budget-buster for them to get a test launch of the adapter and instrumented test articles (before launching the final payload), just to verify that it all performed as expected under actual launch conditions and stresses. (Or not.)

(This would presumably be more expensive just as a launch than SpaceX standard commercial rates, due to security concerns, etc., to which you'd have to add the cost of the second adapter, test articles, etc. And $150M or so -- wild-ass guess -- is not exactly cheap as an insurance premium. But neither is the program as a whole...)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: R.Simko on 04/09/2018 08:39 pm
Two questions.

1.  If NG is determined to be responsible for this satellite failure, will it cost them any money?

2.  Will this article now be read into the congressional record, as was done with SX?

Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: AnalogMan on 04/09/2018 08:49 pm
Google found this non-paywalled copy of above quote here (https://research.tdameritrade.com/grid/public/markets/news/story.asp?fromPage=results&docKey=1-SN20180408000981&provider=CBSMarketWatch)

Nothing there except a search box?

This link (https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RTElQZFDkjYJ:https://research.tdameritrade.com/grid/public/markets/news/story.asp%3FdocKey%3D1-SN20180408000981%26provider%3DCBSMarketWatch+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk) may work for a little while (give the page few seconds to fully load).
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: speedevil on 04/09/2018 08:59 pm
Having the capability to debug in-flight seems like an odd capability to leave out - if only that it can help get you to the nominal flight profile after hardware failures. As an obvious example, the stage may not if Zuma had been somewhat further out, been able to reenter with it attached as it had inadequate delta-v.

Is this legislatively required?

I would think that unless such control can be proven secure, especially for such a payload, even if it existed for a commercial sat, it would probably be required to be disabled for a mission like Zuma.

But we are discussing a capability that as far as any of us knows, doesn't exist currently unless someone can state that it does.

I'm not arguing it does exist, just that it seems far from clear it can't be there, unless there are specific reasons mandating its absence.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: docmordrid on 04/09/2018 09:00 pm
CNBC has a non-paywalled story

Link... (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/09/northrop-grumman-reportedly-at-fault-for-loss-of-zuma-satellite.html)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Norm38 on 04/09/2018 09:33 pm
However this scenario is an argument for having the ability to interrupt/override/update program, before deorbit begins.

I would say it's more of an argument toward ensuring that your payload adapter actually... works.

Sure, but this is also going to be a crew rated system.  If Crewed Dragon fails to detach from the second stage, it doesn't do anyone any good to say "well, should have designed it better", as the crew are dragged down to their deaths by the pre-programmed second stage.  There had better be an override, so why not offer it to all payloads?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: rpapo on 04/09/2018 09:41 pm
However this scenario is an argument for having the ability to interrupt/override/update program, before deorbit begins.

I would say it's more of an argument toward ensuring that your payload adapter actually... works.

Sure, but this is also going to be a crew rated system.  If Crewed Dragon fails to detach from the second stage, it doesn't do anyone any good to say "well, should have designed it better", as the crew are dragged down to their deaths by the pre-programmed second stage.  There had better be an override, so why not offer it to all payloads?
The attachment of the Dragon to the second stage is quite different from the attachment of any other payload.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Norm38 on 04/09/2018 10:01 pm
It doesn't matter if it's different. And I don't care what the RPN numbers are on the DFMEA.  The Dragon CAN fail to detach.  And if it CAN, then the 2nd stage MUST be able to abort the deorbit burn.  So they have to plan for that anyways, and can provide that option to all payloads.

Given what just happened to Zuma, what customer would say "No, that's fine, I don't want the abort option"?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: WindnWar on 04/09/2018 10:08 pm

However this scenario is an argument for having the ability to interrupt/override/update program, before deorbit begins.

I would say it's more of an argument toward ensuring that your payload adapter actually... works.

Sure, but this is also going to be a crew rated system.  If Crewed Dragon fails to detach from the second stage, it doesn't do anyone any good to say "well, should have designed it better", as the crew are dragged down to their deaths by the pre-programmed second stage.  There had better be an override, so why not offer it to all payloads?
The attachment of the Dragon to the second stage is quite different from the attachment of any other payload.

Not to mention the crew system has to have a means to abort and that abort system will obviously include separation from the second stage, or from the trunk if need be. Any overriding of pre-planned burns of the second stage can be part of the abort system, and would not necessarily exist without Dragon. It also would not need to be able to be triggered from the ground, which has obvious security risks.

It doesn't matter if it's different. And I don't care what the RPN numbers are on the DFMEA.  The Dragon CAN fail to detach.  And if it CAN, then the 2nd stage MUST be able to abort the deorbit burn.  So they have to plan for that anyways, and can provide that option to all payloads.

Given what just happened to Zuma, what customer would say "No, that's fine, I don't want the abort option"?

So equating abort options part of Crew Dragon launches to a option for non crew launches doesn't necessarily add up.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Norm38 on 04/09/2018 10:14 pm
If a failed Dragon separation hung up mechanically but the break wires had severed, could Dragon still command the second stage wirelessly?  If not, the 2nd stage isn't off the hook.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: WindnWar on 04/09/2018 10:17 pm
The other thing missing from the musing of whether it could be commanded to not re-enter, there is a limited amount of time the second stage can stay on orbit, if your payload adapter fails, unless you can come up with a fix asap that doesn't risk the second stage colliding with the payload or putting the payload into a spin that could damage it or send it out of control, not commanding a re-entry only buys you a limited amount of time before the stage batteries run out and the stage has to vent it's propellent.

Essentially the options would be very limited, with a limited time window, with a lot of potential debris risks.

How often do payload adapters fail? Is doesn't seem like a common failure.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: WindnWar on 04/09/2018 10:23 pm
If a failed Dragon separation hung up mechanically but the break wires had severed, could Dragon still command the second stage wirelessly?  If not, the 2nd stage isn't off the hook.

It doesn't matter, again, Dragon is attached to the trunk and the trunk is attached to the second stage, either could separate and while the mission would be affected if you had to separate the trunk your ability to separate essentially has redundancy. If both fail you have far worse issues to deal with. As long as you can separate the trunk you would abort after a reaching a place in orbit suitable to re-enter.

Your also looking at attachments that due to their nature will probably have multiple redundancies.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 04/09/2018 10:40 pm

I am curious why a third party adapter was used and modified rather than modifying SpaceX's standard adapter if need be. Were the vibration and shock dampening stated as the reason for using the third party adapter not possible to achieve with SpaceX's adapter? How much shock does an adapter impart compared to the launch environment? Just staging alone would seem to be more of an issue than payload sep... To date SpaceX has launched many of their payload adapters with no failures to date.

I'm guessing you were referring to this quote:

Quote
The unique design of Zuma, according to officials, means it was built in such a way that made it particularly fragile. Northrop reportedly modified its payload adapter to help absorb vibrations that might damage the satellite.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/09/northrop-grumman-reportedly-at-fault-for-loss-of-zuma-satellite.html

Re your question about how much shock the adapter imparts vs. the launch environment, it's impossible to know exactly which "vibrations" they were trying to damp. It all depends on the natural modes of the payload and which frequencies it was most sensitive to. The vehicle vibrations transmitted through the adapter during ascent tend to be of lower frequency than the shock typically imparted by the sep system (usually Marman ring) banging open. But either can be damaging to a satellite depending on its natural frequencies, so it all depends.

I'd guess Zuma may have had some super-sensitive instruments that couldn't be sufficiently decoupled from the vibe/shock loads of ascent or separation, so they had to design the damping into the adapter.

I'd also guess the damping required some unusual low-shock (ie non-Marman-ring)  separation mechanism, which makes trying to use a SpaceX adapter pointless, because you have to redesign the important part of it anyway, so you may as well start from scratch.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 04/09/2018 10:49 pm
How often do payload adapters fail? Is doesn't seem like a common failure.

Adapters themselves virtually never fail, because they're dumb structures that are easy to design and manufacture. The separation system attached to the adapter, however, is a not-uncommon failure point.

The standard Marman ring sep system is pretty fool-proof, but when people try re-inventing the wheel (apparently what NG did in this case) without adequate testing, that's when failures get much more likely.

Here's an excellent summary article on payload separation failures, written shortly after the Zuma failure:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3439/1
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 04/09/2018 11:00 pm
Will the government be looking to claw back any of the $3.5 billion of taxpayers money from NG if in the final analysis it is categorically their fault for the payload loss?

Or as will more likely will happen the federal government will give them another $3.5 billion to build a replacement if its mission was high priority.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: envy887 on 04/09/2018 11:20 pm
However this scenario is an argument for having the ability to interrupt/override/update program, before deorbit begins.

I would say it's more of an argument toward ensuring that your payload adapter actually... works.

Sure, but this is also going to be a crew rated system.  If Crewed Dragon fails to detach from the second stage, it doesn't do anyone any good to say "well, should have designed it better", as the crew are dragged down to their deaths by the pre-programmed second stage.  There had better be an override, so why not offer it to all payloads?

Failure of Dragon to detach from the second stage will result in LOM but not LOCV, since Dragon can be commanded to detach from the trunk and enter immediately.

A payload like Zuma wouldn't have that option. It might now have any options that are worth programming into the second stage.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: speedevil on 04/09/2018 11:45 pm
A payload like Zuma wouldn't have that option. It might now have any options that are worth programming into the second stage.

High rotation rates, in various axes, shaking with the RCS, high throttle pulse of the engine, ...
But first you need to know what's happened. You're not going to have days to analyse this, but you may have ten minutes.

You may be able to vent the stage and live with the fact that it's going to be attached to the satellite, and some might be able to cope.

The system would not be for detachment failures, but for all sorts of failure from INS on through 'oops we programmed it 20 degrees off'.

There are reasonable arguments why such a system should not be able to modify things, but there are arguments on the other side too. Especially post boost phase.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: LouScheffer on 04/09/2018 11:54 pm
The other thing missing from the musing of whether it could be commanded to not re-enter, there is a limited amount of time the second stage can stay on orbit, if your payload adapter fails, unless you can come up with a fix asap that doesn't risk the second stage colliding with the payload or putting the payload into a spin that could damage it or send it out of control, not commanding a re-entry only buys you a limited amount of time before the stage batteries run out and the stage has to vent it's propellent.

Essentially the options would be very limited, with a limited time window, with a lot of potential debris risks.
We know an unmodified second stage can stay alive for a few hours (the high altitude GTO pictures) and with the extended coast kit, at least 6 hours.  That's enough to try at least a few things, and risky procedures are acceptable when the alternative is certain doom.


Quote
The unique design of Zuma, according to officials, means it was built in such a way that made it particularly fragile. Northrop reportedly modified its payload adapter to help absorb vibrations that might damage the satellite.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/09/northrop-grumman-reportedly-at-fault-for-loss-of-zuma-satellite.html

Re your question about how much shock the adapter imparts vs. the launch environment, it's impossible to know exactly which "vibrations" they were trying to damp. It all depends on the natural modes of the payload and which frequencies it was most sensitive to. The vehicle vibrations transmitted through the adapter during ascent tend to be of lower frequency than the shock typically imparted by the sep system (usually Marman ring) banging open. But either can be damaging to a satellite depending on its natural frequencies, so it all depends.
The SpaceX stack has no pyrotechnics and only pusher separation of stages and fairing, so the vibrations from the booster should be all low frequency.  The separation mechanism, on the other hand, could be a short, sharp spike, well coupled to the spacecraft.

This should be a strong hint for what Zuma was about.   What sort of mechanism could withstand 5 Gs or so vertically, at least one G horizontally (from horizontal integration), lots of vibration and noise from ascent, but could not be designed to survive the short, sharp shock of standard release mechanisms?   Considering that large radar and optical satellites have been used for decades, it's not at all clear what generated this requirement.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: LouScheffer on 04/10/2018 12:44 am

Quote
The unique design of Zuma, according to officials, means it was built in such a way that made it particularly fragile. Northrop reportedly modified its payload adapter to help absorb vibrations that might damage the satellite.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/09/northrop-grumman-reportedly-at-fault-for-loss-of-zuma-satellite.html

Re your question about how much shock the adapter imparts vs. the launch environment, it's impossible to know exactly which "vibrations" they were trying to damp. It all depends on the natural modes of the payload and which frequencies it was most sensitive to. The vehicle vibrations transmitted through the adapter during ascent tend to be of lower frequency than the shock typically imparted by the sep system (usually Marman ring) banging open. But either can be damaging to a satellite depending on its natural frequencies, so it all depends.
The SpaceX stack has no pyrotechnics and only pusher separation of stages and fairing, so the vibrations from the booster should be all low frequency.  The separation mechanism, on the other hand, could be a short, sharp spike, well coupled to the spacecraft.

This should be a strong hint for what Zuma was about.   What sort of mechanism could withstand 5 Gs or so vertically, at least one G horizontally (from horizontal integration), lots of vibration and noise from ascent, but could not be designed to survive the short, sharp shock of standard release mechanisms?   Considering that large radar and optical satellites have been used for decades, it's not at all clear what generated this requirement.
The separation mechanism looks like a strong suspect here.   It's what failed, and the standard mechanism induces some pretty big shocks  (1000 G peak according to the SpaceX user manual, and that's pretty gentle compared to some release systems).  These are larger than all other shock events (hold-down release, staging, fairing separation).

There has been lots of work done on low-shock separation, but mostly for small spacecraft (which tend to have bigger problems since they are small and close to the separator):
Comparison of Separation Shock for Explosive and Nonexplosive Release Actuators on a Small Spacecraft Panel  (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19970010358.pdf)
Development of a Reusable, Low-Shock Clamp Band Separation System for Small Spacecraft Release Applications (https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2036&context=smallsat)
The non-explosive ones are better than the explosive bolts, but still have shocks in the SpaceX range.

There's also a lot of work on low-shock non-pyrotechnic actuators: REPORT ON ALTERNATIVE DEVICES TO PYROTECHNICS ON SPACECRAFT (http://klabs.org/DEI/References/avionics/small_sat_conference/1996/pyrotec.pdf)  Some of these, like the ones that work by melting wax, have very low shocks, but are slow to actuate.

My crude search did not find any available low-shock mechanisms for large spacecraft.  Maybe that's why this was a custom job.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: cppetrie on 04/10/2018 12:51 am
Why not just build a shock absorbing coupler that sits between adapter and the satellite and stays with the satellite after separation? Then you can use the standard adapter and not design a one off that hasn’t been tested and becomes a failure mechanism. You can do all sorts of testing on the coupler to ensure it dampens whatever it is you want dampened.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 04/10/2018 01:06 am
Why not just build a shock absorbing coupler that sits between adapter and the satellite and stays with the satellite after separation? Then you can use the standard adapter and not design a one off that hasn’t been tested and becomes a failure mechanism. You can do all sorts of testing on the coupler to ensure it dampens whatever it is you want dampened.

If they could have done it that way, they probably would have. So why would that not have been possible?

One possible reason is that the shock/vibration damper system was complex enough to require a significant axial length (ie it wasn't just a few rubber pads stacked together), and they didn't have enough room inside the fairing envelope to add to the stack height. In that case, the only place to find real estate for the dampers is in the adapter.

Another possible reason is that even with the dampers, the shock from the standard Marman ring would have been too much for the sensitive bits of payload to handle, so they had to design their own low-shock separation system, probably using one of the low-shock devices mentioned by LouScheffer above.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: CorvusCorax on 04/10/2018 06:02 am
Will the government be looking to claw back any of the $3.5 billion of taxpayers money from NG if in the final analysis it is categorically their fault for the payload loss?

Or as will more likely will happen the federal government will give them another $3.5 billion to build a replacement if its mission was high priority.

In any prior government, the only answer to that would have been:

"That information is classified "top secret" and on a strict need to know base for both reasons of national security and to protect NG proprietary assets. Ask again in 50 years or so when that stuff gets declassified... " ;)

Under the current association however theres a non zero chance that both national security interests and relationahips to a top tier NS supplier are sacrificed for political profiliation, and things are handled not-exactly-prodessionally

as such I wouldn't completely rule out that there might be a political mudfight over this in the aftermath, but its still unlikely
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 04/10/2018 07:16 am
There is no way to delay reentry.  It flies a preprogramed course flight profile regardless of what they may see.
Then what happened on CRS-1?  The second burn for Orbcomm was cancelled from the ground.  That tells me the programming can be preempted from the ground.
Incorrect. The burn was not cancelled from the ground. It was cancelled by the on-board flight computer, based on pre-programmed instructions to NOT initiate the second burn if there is insufficient propellant to complete the mission.

The on-board computer keeps track of how long the first burn was for completion of the primary mission (getting Cargo Dragon on its way to ISS). Orbcomm was the secondary mission. Based on the extended burn required to get the target delta-V for Cargo Dragon it was clear to the onboard-computer that there was insufficient propellant left for the second burn. And thus that second burn was not initiated.

IIRC, it wasn't that there was insufficient propellant left for the second burn but rather that they were required to maintain a strict amount of additional margin beyond what was actually required for the burn.  This was where there was a shortfall.  So, they could have done the burns fine (assuming they went nominally) but would have ended up with less propellant remaining than was required by NASA's safety restrictions to be kept for contingencies on the mission.  My reading between the lines was that SpaceX felt the margin required was somewhat excessive, but as it was their first CRS delivery mission and still early in the F9's operational life NASA wasn't willing to take much risk.

The amount of remaining propellant contemplated by the on-board computer includes the margin. So while you are technically correct it is also correct to state that the on-board computer concluded there was insufficient propellant left for the second burn, including the margin.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 04/10/2018 07:17 am
Will the government be looking to claw back any of the $3.5 billion of taxpayers money from NG if in the final analysis it is categorically their fault for the payload loss?

Or as will more likely will happen the federal government will give them another $3.5 billion to build a replacement if its mission was high priority.

In any prior government, the only answer to that would have been:

"That information is classified "top secret" and on a strict need to know base for both reasons of national security and to protect NG proprietary assets. Ask again in 50 years or so when that stuff gets declassified... " ;)

Under the current association however theres a non zero chance that both national security interests and relationahips to a top tier NS supplier are sacrificed for political profiliation, and things are handled not-exactly-prodessionally

as such I wouldn't completely rule out that there might be a political mudfight over this in the aftermath, but its still unlikely

The cynical answer would be how much any rivals wanted to make an issue of it, they all have lobbyists after all. But I suppose this is wandering now into the realm of policy for this thread.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 04/10/2018 07:22 am
However this scenario is an argument for having the ability to interrupt/override/update program, before deorbit begins.

I would say it's more of an argument toward ensuring that your payload adapter actually... works.

Sure, but this is also going to be a crew rated system.  If Crewed Dragon fails to detach from the second stage, it doesn't do anyone any good to say "well, should have designed it better", as the crew are dragged down to their deaths by the pre-programmed second stage.  There had better be an override, so why not offer it to all payloads?

No override needed because in case of Crew Dragon such override already exists: separating the Crew Dragon capsule from the trunk. Followed by quick re-entry of the capsule.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 04/10/2018 07:26 am
If a failed Dragon separation hung up mechanically but the break wires had severed, could Dragon still command the second stage wirelessly?  If not, the 2nd stage isn't off the hook.

I suggest you stop your attempt to still blame Falcon 9 for the Zuma failure.
Second stages are neither commanded from the ground, nor from their payloads. There is no need for it.
Had there been a need for it, than SpaceX, or other aerospace companies before them, would have developed it.
The fact that such capability has not been developed is clear evidence that there is no need for second stage commanding.
 
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 04/10/2018 09:51 am
If a failed Dragon separation hung up mechanically but the break wires had severed, could Dragon still command the second stage wirelessly?  If not, the 2nd stage isn't off the hook.

I suggest you stop your attempt to still blame Falcon 9 for the Zuma failure.
Second stages are neither commanded from the ground, nor from their payloads. There is no need for it.
Had there been a need for it, than SpaceX, or other aerospace companies before them, would have developed it.
The fact that such capability has not been developed is clear evidence that there is no need for second stage commanding.

Why would people think this is anything to do with the manned program as this was clearly a bespoke item used by NG?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: deruch on 04/10/2018 10:15 am
Incorrect. The burn was not cancelled from the ground. It was cancelled by the on-board flight computer, based on pre-programmed instructions to NOT initiate the second burn if there is insufficient propellant to complete the mission.

The on-board computer keeps track of how long the first burn was for completion of the primary mission (getting Cargo Dragon on its way to ISS). Orbcomm was the secondary mission. Based on the extended burn required to get the target delta-V for Cargo Dragon it was clear to the onboard-computer that there was insufficient propellant left for the second burn. And thus that second burn was not initiated.

IIRC, it wasn't that there was insufficient propellant left for the second burn but rather that they were required to maintain a strict amount of additional margin beyond what was actually required for the burn.  This was where there was a shortfall.  So, they could have done the burns fine (assuming they went nominally) but would have ended up with less propellant remaining than was required by NASA's safety restrictions to be kept for contingencies on the mission.  My reading between the lines was that SpaceX felt the margin required was somewhat excessive, but as it was their first CRS delivery mission and still early in the F9's operational life NASA wasn't willing to take much risk.

The amount of remaining propellant contemplated by the on-board computer includes the margin. So while you are technically correct it is also correct to state that the on-board computer concluded there was insufficient propellant left for the second burn, including the margin.

Right.  I just think that in discussing the event, there's a non-trivial difference in the impression given between "not having enough propellants to complete the burn" and "not having enough when including the required safety margin" for maneuvers near the ISS altitude.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 04/10/2018 11:27 am
Incorrect. The burn was not cancelled from the ground. It was cancelled by the on-board flight computer, based on pre-programmed instructions to NOT initiate the second burn if there is insufficient propellant to complete the mission.

The on-board computer keeps track of how long the first burn was for completion of the primary mission (getting Cargo Dragon on its way to ISS). Orbcomm was the secondary mission. Based on the extended burn required to get the target delta-V for Cargo Dragon it was clear to the onboard-computer that there was insufficient propellant left for the second burn. And thus that second burn was not initiated.

IIRC, it wasn't that there was insufficient propellant left for the second burn but rather that they were required to maintain a strict amount of additional margin beyond what was actually required for the burn.  This was where there was a shortfall.  So, they could have done the burns fine (assuming they went nominally) but would have ended up with less propellant remaining than was required by NASA's safety restrictions to be kept for contingencies on the mission.  My reading between the lines was that SpaceX felt the margin required was somewhat excessive, but as it was their first CRS delivery mission and still early in the F9's operational life NASA wasn't willing to take much risk.

The amount of remaining propellant contemplated by the on-board computer includes the margin. So while you are technically correct it is also correct to state that the on-board computer concluded there was insufficient propellant left for the second burn, including the margin.

Right.  I just think that in discussing the event, there's a non-trivial difference in the impression given between "not having enough propellants to complete the burn" and "not having enough when including the required safety margin" for maneuvers near the ISS altitude.

Agreed. That is why my original statement specifically stated:
Quote from: woods170
It was cancelled by the on-board flight computer, based on pre-programmed instructions to NOT initiate the second burn if there is insufficient propellant to complete the mission.
The second burn is just part of said mission.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Joffan on 04/10/2018 01:47 pm
Why not just build a shock absorbing coupler that sits between adapter and the satellite and stays with the satellite after separation? Then you can use the standard adapter and not design a one off that hasn’t been tested and becomes a failure mechanism. You can do all sorts of testing on the coupler to ensure it dampens whatever it is you want dampened.

If they could have done it that way, they probably would have. So why would that not have been possible?

One possible reason is that the shock/vibration damper system was complex enough to require a significant axial length (ie it wasn't just a few rubber pads stacked together), and they didn't have enough room inside the fairing envelope to add to the stack height. In that case, the only place to find real estate for the dampers is in the adapter.

Another possible reason is that even with the dampers, the shock from the standard Marman ring would have been too much for the sensitive bits of payload to handle, so they had to design their own low-shock separation system, probably using one of the low-shock devices mentioned by LouScheffer above.


Another serious objection to the shock absorbing idea: If the separation mechanism relies on the sharp impulse acting on the mass of the spacecraft and producing immediate movement, a shock absorber might mean that it no longer works as consistently as required.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 04/10/2018 02:03 pm

The payload should have some means to detect a situation where it gets signalled a release has/should have happened but is in fact still physically attached. Cross-checking IMU sensor signature during payload release could give some heuristic indications. Double-checks are possible by actuating thrusters or reaction wheels and sensing the incorrect COG/mass fingerprint


It does no good to do any of that.

A spacecraft does not get signaled a release.  The separation mechanism is completely isolated from the spacecraft.  The release signal goes to the adapter only.  The spacecraft knows it is released the break wires in the umbilical connectors open at separation. 
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 04/10/2018 02:06 pm
If the problem had been detected at the time, could the sat have been saved before deorbiting the second stage?

Also, I guess they would only have video on the payload if the video data was sent via secure encrypted link.

The $200 GoPro feeds would have told them the $3.5B satellite was still attached... They may have been able to dislodge it with a payload or stage maneuver.

Ironic, isn't it.

No.  GoPros don't "feed anything  They store the video.  It is not easy to just gather video data and downlink it.

The stage does not receive commands.


And  who knows if separation was even over a ground station to be able to send telemetry or video to.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 04/10/2018 02:11 pm
It really fills me with confidence that they'll ever manage to get the JWST sorted.

Really.   So the success of GRO, AXAF, Aura, Aqua, and other spacecraft mean nothing?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 04/10/2018 02:15 pm
Having the capability to debug in-flight seems like an odd capability to leave out - if only that it can help get you to the nominal flight profile after hardware failures. As an obvious example, the stage may not if Zuma had been somewhat further out, been able to reenter with it attached as it had inadequate delta-v.

Is this legislatively required?

I would think that unless such control can be proven secure, especially for such a payload, even if it existed for a commercial sat, it would probably be required to be disabled for a mission like Zuma.

But we are discussing a capability that as far as any of us knows, doesn't exist currently unless someone can state that it does.

I'm not arguing it does exist, just that it seems far from clear it can't be there, unless there are specific reasons mandating its absence.


It would require receivers on the second stage.  And big changes to the avionics and software architecture.   And it all does no good if there is no ground station around to transmit a command from.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Prettz on 04/10/2018 03:17 pm
It is nice to think about upper stages that are more versatile and capable of responding to anomalies of all sorts. More futuristic / spaceship-like, less like "dumb" rocket stages. We'll have to wait.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: matthewkantar on 04/10/2018 03:30 pm
No.  GoPros don't "feed anything  They store the video.  It is not easy to just gather video data and downlink it.

The stage does not receive commands.


And  who knows if separation was even over a ground station to be able to send telemetry or video to.

SpaceX shows payload separation on most launches. There is a very high probability SpaceX would have noticed something was wrong if they were allowed the usual video feed. Doing something about it is another issue.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: abaddon on 04/10/2018 03:43 pm
I've been mulling over the alleged cost of the Zuma payload.  I have decided after some consideration I don't believe it, at least not as it has been framed.

$3.5 billion is almost half of the cost of the JWST!  I don't believe a launch company that NASA and the USAF and NRO still don't trust to launch anything other than generic or low/medium value payloads that wouldn't have flown on ULA anyway (NASA) or are serial production satellites (AF GPS) would suddenly trust them to launch a payload that expensive.  Or allow NG to shave a few tens of millions by selecting a SpaceX ride.

It would make more sense if the program had spent $3.5 billion but the cost of direct production of the Zuma satellite itself was far less, say in the hundreds of millions of dollars.  Saving money on a SpaceX ride would make sense then.

It might be that the outcome of the program, with the failed spacecraft, is in jeopardy, and that the result of the $3.5 billion program will be wasted.  That's awfully close to "a $3.5 billion spacecraft", when looked at it from that angle.  But it would still be possible to build another for a much lower cost than the whole program, unless this was a make-or-break launch and the program will be shut down as a result of the failure.

Obviously this is total speculation.  I'm just trying to reconcile the idea of SpaceX suddenly being chosen to launch an incredibly expensive unique satellite instead of ULA.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: whitelancer64 on 04/10/2018 03:59 pm
*snip*

I don't believe a launch company that NASA and the USAF and NRO still don't trust to launch anything other than generic or low/medium value payloads that wouldn't have flown on ULA anyway (NASA) or are serial production satellites (AF GPS) would suddenly trust them to launch a payload that expensive. 

*snip*

Obviously this is total speculation.  I'm just trying to reconcile the idea of SpaceX suddenly being chosen to launch an incredibly expensive unique satellite instead of ULA.

SpaceX has been trusted to launch nearly irreplaceable items such as spacesuits for NASA, and high-value assets like the X-37B for the Air Force.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 04/10/2018 04:15 pm
and high-value assets like the X-37B for the Air Force.

It isn't


SpaceX has been trusted to launch nearly irreplaceable items such as spacesuits for NASA,

They got burned on that.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 04/10/2018 04:18 pm
*snip*

I don't believe a launch company that NASA and the USAF and NRO still don't trust to launch anything other than generic or low/medium value payloads that wouldn't have flown on ULA anyway (NASA) or are serial production satellites (AF GPS) would suddenly trust them to launch a payload that expensive. 

*snip*

Obviously this is total speculation.  I'm just trying to reconcile the idea of SpaceX suddenly being chosen to launch an incredibly expensive unique satellite instead of ULA.

SpaceX has been trusted to launch nearly irreplaceable items such as spacesuits for NASA, and high-value assets like the X-37B for the Air Force.

Is the X-37B really high value though.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: pb2000 on 04/10/2018 04:30 pm
The $200 GoPro feeds would have told them the $3.5B satellite was still attached... They may have been able to dislodge it with a payload or stage maneuver.

Ironic, isn't it.

No.  GoPros don't "feed anything  They store the video.  It is not easy to just gather video data and downlink it.

On the contrary, it's incredibly easy. Most action cams will happily output a h.264 or MJPEG stream which could be fed into a simple ARM SoC to manage stream switching and add in the telemetry before handing off to the downlink transmitter. Welcome to the 21st century Jim.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: whitelancer64 on 04/10/2018 04:31 pm
and high-value assets like the X-37B for the Air Force.

It isn't


SpaceX has been trusted to launch nearly irreplaceable items such as spacesuits for NASA,

They got burned on that.

Yeah, they lost a PLSS pack on CRS-7.

NASA continues to launch spacesuits up with SpaceX, though.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: whitelancer64 on 04/10/2018 04:32 pm
*snip*

I don't believe a launch company that NASA and the USAF and NRO still don't trust to launch anything other than generic or low/medium value payloads that wouldn't have flown on ULA anyway (NASA) or are serial production satellites (AF GPS) would suddenly trust them to launch a payload that expensive. 

*snip*

Obviously this is total speculation.  I'm just trying to reconcile the idea of SpaceX suddenly being chosen to launch an incredibly expensive unique satellite instead of ULA.

SpaceX has been trusted to launch nearly irreplaceable items such as spacesuits for NASA, and high-value assets like the X-37B for the Air Force.

Is the X-37B really high value though.

How would you define "high value"
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: pb2000 on 04/10/2018 04:43 pm
If you guys keep it up, the thread is just going to get locked again.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 04/10/2018 04:49 pm

On the contrary, it's incredibly easy. Most action cams will happily output a h.264 or MJPEG stream which could be fed into a simple ARM SoC to manage stream switching and add in the telemetry before handing off to the downlink transmitter.

nope, not that easy, it isn't ethernet.  welcome to the real world
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: nacnud on 04/10/2018 05:29 pm
I thought the Falcon 9 did use ethernet. I'll see what I can find.

Edit:
OK I can find reference to Falcon 1 using an ethernet bus but nothing definitive on Falcon 9.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: envy887 on 04/10/2018 05:54 pm
Feeding down video in real time from F9 is obviously a solved problem, as SpaceX does it all the time. NOT having video is the exception rather then the norm. Clearly it's easy enough to do on every mission, regardless of whether they use COTS hardware for it (which they probably do at least to some extent).

I'm not sure how having video would have saved Zuma though. Maybe the SC operators could have had more time come up with a command to the payload to try to break it free, if it was really just hanging by a wire.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: pb2000 on 04/10/2018 05:56 pm
I thought the Falcon 9 did use ethernet. I'll see what I can find.

Edit:
OK I can find reference to Falcon 1 using an ethernet bus but nothing definitive on Falcon 9.
Can't see why they would change. Jim, what say ye? Do you know for sure they use something else (by all means tell us what), or you admit to being wrong?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 04/10/2018 06:00 pm

I'm not sure how having video would have saved Zuma though. Maybe the SC operators could have had more time come up with a command to the payload to try to break it free, if it was really just hanging by a wire.

There is nothing the spacecraft could do.  And again, what ground station is receiving the video and which ground stations is going to transmit commands.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 04/10/2018 06:00 pm
Feeding down video in real time from F9 is obviously a solved problem, as SpaceX does it all the time.

It isn't always realtime.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 04/10/2018 06:01 pm
I thought the Falcon 9 did use ethernet. I'll see what I can find.

Edit:
OK I can find reference to Falcon 1 using an ethernet bus but nothing definitive on Falcon 9.
Can't see why they would change. Jim, what say ye? Do you know for sure they use something else (by all means tell us what), or you admit to being wrong?

nothing to admit.  Using ethernet on the vehicle and using ethernet for telemetry are two different things.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: wannamoonbase on 04/10/2018 06:01 pm
I thought the Falcon 9 did use ethernet. I'll see what I can find.

Edit:
OK I can find reference to Falcon 1 using an ethernet bus but nothing definitive on Falcon 9.

I also recall reading that SpaceX used Ethernet for their vehicles.

Good news for SpaceX they weren't at fault.

What I'm surprised by is that SpaceX won the contract to launch this (apparently super expensive bird) a few years ago when their flight heritage was more limited and the vehicle less capable.  if it truly was a $3.5B spacecraft, was saving a couple hundred million on the launch that important.

Seems like something doesn't fit.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: LouScheffer on 04/10/2018 06:02 pm
I've been mulling over the alleged cost of the Zuma payload.  I have decided after some consideration I don't believe it, at least not as it has been framed.

$3.5 billion is almost half of the cost of the JWST!  [...]  It would make more sense if the program had spent $3.5 billion but the cost of direct production of the Zuma satellite itself was far less, say in the hundreds of millions of dollars.  [...] But it would still be possible to build another for a much lower cost than the whole program, unless this was a make-or-break launch and the program will be shut down as a result of the failure.


I agree with this reasoning.  And if it was worth $3.5 billion the first time, then surely it would still be worthwhile to build a second copy.  I'm expecting a ZUMA-2 mission, perhaps next year.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: abaddon on 04/10/2018 06:07 pm
I agree with this reasoning.  And if it was worth $3.5 billion the first time, then surely it would still be worthwhile to build a second copy.  I'm expecting a ZUMA-2 mission, perhaps next year.
Agreed, I think there's a reasonable chance of that (although they might choose to change the public name).  However, just because it cost $3.5 billion (allegedly) doesn't mean it is worth $3.5 billion.  It might be that the marginal cost of launching what they had was deemed worth it if they could get a cheap launch, but producing a rebuild would not.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: pb2000 on 04/10/2018 06:23 pm
I thought the Falcon 9 did use ethernet. I'll see what I can find.

Edit:
OK I can find reference to Falcon 1 using an ethernet bus but nothing definitive on Falcon 9.
Can't see why they would change. Jim, what say ye? Do you know for sure they use something else (by all means tell us what), or you admit to being wrong?

nothing to admit.  Using ethernet on the vehicle and using ethernet for telemetry are two different things.
You're the one who said ethernet, not me. I was even very careful to mention a downlink transmitter, to indicate I was paying attention to all the times you pointed out that the F9 has no uplink from the ground (which makes the whole SYN, SYNACK, ACK part of ethernet+tcp/ip a bit problematic).


Edit: Not saying this is what SpaceX does, but the transmitter they use according to the FCC filings actually appears to have an Ethernet option. Must be UDP only?


Quote from: quasonix manual

The –EN option gives the transmitter the ability to send Ethernet data via direct connection to a standard Ethernet network. Operating in Ethernet mode, the user sets the desired transmission rate through the transmitter control interface. As Ethernet data are presented to the TIMTER, they are loaded into a large transmit buffer. If the presented Ethernet traffic does not keep the buffer filled, bit stuffing is used to attain the programmed transmit rate. If the presented traffic overflows the buffer, Ethernet data are discarded.
The Ethernet interface is supported via an MDM-9 connector, and is compatible with 10Base-T and 100Base-TX Ethernet physical layers. The maximum transmission rate is 46 Mbps. Use of a transmitter with the –EN option requires a Quasonix RDMS™ receiver to reconstruct the Ethernet data at the receive end.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/10/2018 06:34 pm
Hey! HEY! Everyone use your indoor voices! :)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: smoliarm on 04/10/2018 07:43 pm
OK, before the thread get locked up (I bet it will)
Please,
somebody,
try to explain me some things I still do not understand  :)

As I see it (may be I missed something?), this new round of Zuma-articles originates - exclusively - from the same WSJ and the same Andy Paztor. And it is based of the same type of sources - unnamed persons "familiar with the matter" or "close to investigation"...
Last time these Sources of Andy Paztor (SoAP) said things we did not believe, and it turned out we were right.
So, question #1: why do we take seriously these SoAPs now?

OK, this $3.5B price-tag sounds VERY suspicious, from all sides.
So, why take all other bits of information from SoAP without checking?

Now, the second question: Do we know for sure that there IS an investigation about Zuma?
By "for sure" I mean - do we know it from a person WITH name AND WITH affiliation ?
(I have not seen such statements, may be I missed it)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: wolfpack on 04/10/2018 08:05 pm
Zuma didn't cost $3.5B. If it did, it would have gone up on another launcher. That's subterfuge to make folks think we won't build another. Or, if it did cost $3.5B, then that was the program cost and there's a warehouse somewhere with Zuma 2, Zuma 3, ... Zuma N sitting in it waiting for NG to fix its adapter problem.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 04/10/2018 08:13 pm
Zuma didn't cost $3.5B. If it did, it would have gone up on another launcher. That's subterfuge to make folks think we won't build another. Or, if it did cost $3.5B, then that was the program cost and there's a warehouse somewhere with Zuma 2, Zuma 3, ... Zuma N sitting in it waiting for NG to fix its adapter problem.

Going by the KH-11 that price seems entirely possible.

Quote
According to Senator Kit Bond initial budget estimates for each of the two legacy KH-11 satellites ordered from Lockheed in 2005 were higher than for the latest Nimitz-class aircraft carrier (CVN-77)[14] with its projected procurement cost of US$6.35 billion as of May 2005.[71] In 2011, after the launch of USA-224, DNRO Bruce Carlson announced that the procurement cost for the satellite had been US$2 billion under the initial budget estimate, which would put it at about US$4.4 billion (inflation adjusted US$4.79 billion in 2017).[15]

In April 2014, the NRO assigned a "(...) worth more than $5 billion (...)" to the final two legacy KH-11 satellites.[72]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-11_Kennen
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: JBF on 04/10/2018 08:18 pm
Zuma didn't cost $3.5B. If it did, it would have gone up on another launcher. That's subterfuge to make folks think we won't build another. Or, if it did cost $3.5B, then that was the program cost and there's a warehouse somewhere with Zuma 2, Zuma 3, ... Zuma N sitting in it waiting for NG to fix its adapter problem.

Going by the KH-11 that price seems entirely possible.

Quote
According to Senator Kit Bond initial budget estimates for each of the two legacy KH-11 satellites ordered from Lockheed in 2005 were higher than for the latest Nimitz-class aircraft carrier (CVN-77)[14] with its projected procurement cost of US$6.35 billion as of May 2005.[71] In 2011, after the launch of USA-224, DNRO Bruce Carlson announced that the procurement cost for the satellite had been US$2 billion under the initial budget estimate, which would put it at about US$4.4 billion (inflation adjusted US$4.79 billion in 2017).[15]

In April 2014, the NRO assigned a "(...) worth more than $5 billion (...)" to the final two legacy KH-11 satellites.[72]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-11_Kennen
The problem is that the Falcon 9 isn't rated to carry that class of payloads yet.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: jpo234 on 04/10/2018 08:19 pm
I thought the Falcon 9 did use ethernet. I'll see what I can find.

Edit:
OK I can find reference to Falcon 1 using an ethernet bus but nothing definitive on Falcon 9.

I also recall reading that SpaceX used Ethernet for their vehicles.

From NASA's CRS-7 report:

Quote
General Finding: SpaceX’s new implementation (for Falcon 9 “Full Thrust” flights) of non-deterministic network packets in their flight telemetry increases latency, directly resulting in substantial portions of the anomaly data being lost due to network buffering in the Stage 2
flight computer.

Sounds like Ethernet to me.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: whitelancer64 on 04/10/2018 08:23 pm
Zuma didn't cost $3.5B. If it did, it would have gone up on another launcher. That's subterfuge to make folks think we won't build another. Or, if it did cost $3.5B, then that was the program cost and there's a warehouse somewhere with Zuma 2, Zuma 3, ... Zuma N sitting in it waiting for NG to fix its adapter problem.

Going by the KH-11 that price seems entirely possible.

Quote
According to Senator Kit Bond initial budget estimates for each of the two legacy KH-11 satellites ordered from Lockheed in 2005 were higher than for the latest Nimitz-class aircraft carrier (CVN-77)[14] with its projected procurement cost of US$6.35 billion as of May 2005.[71] In 2011, after the launch of USA-224, DNRO Bruce Carlson announced that the procurement cost for the satellite had been US$2 billion under the initial budget estimate, which would put it at about US$4.4 billion (inflation adjusted US$4.79 billion in 2017).[15]

In April 2014, the NRO assigned a "(...) worth more than $5 billion (...)" to the final two legacy KH-11 satellites.[72]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-11_Kennen
The problem is that the Falcon 9 isn't rated to carry that class of payloads yet.

Rated by who?

Falcon 9 has launched a classified NRO payload. Why not this one?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: rst on 04/10/2018 08:33 pm
Rated by who?

Falcon 9 has launched a classified NRO payload. Why not this one?

It's hard to get answers about specific payloads, but some NRO payloads require support services, e.g. vertical integration, which SpaceX doesn't have yet.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 04/10/2018 08:34 pm
Zuma didn't cost $3.5B. If it did, it would have gone up on another launcher. That's subterfuge to make folks think we won't build another. Or, if it did cost $3.5B, then that was the program cost and there's a warehouse somewhere with Zuma 2, Zuma 3, ... Zuma N sitting in it waiting for NG to fix its adapter problem.

Going by the KH-11 that price seems entirely possible.

Quote
According to Senator Kit Bond initial budget estimates for each of the two legacy KH-11 satellites ordered from Lockheed in 2005 were higher than for the latest Nimitz-class aircraft carrier (CVN-77)[14] with its projected procurement cost of US$6.35 billion as of May 2005.[71] In 2011, after the launch of USA-224, DNRO Bruce Carlson announced that the procurement cost for the satellite had been US$2 billion under the initial budget estimate, which would put it at about US$4.4 billion (inflation adjusted US$4.79 billion in 2017).[15]

In April 2014, the NRO assigned a "(...) worth more than $5 billion (...)" to the final two legacy KH-11 satellites.[72]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-11_Kennen
The problem is that the Falcon 9 isn't rated to carry that class of payloads yet.

Who says especially when its already launched an NRO payload.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Bean Kenobi on 04/08/2022 08:25 pm
NRO just released an ebook about all their mission patches from 1996 to 2021.

See their tweet : https://twitter.com/NatReconOfc/status/1512169604466028551?cxt=HHwWjsC5pcqPp_wpAAAA

In this ebook we finally have confirmation that Zuma was theirs.

New thread created as all Zuma threads are locked as of today (Update thread, Discussion thread).
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: jcm on 03/01/2023 02:29 am
Belatedly, it's ZUMA time again...

The UN registration document from the US for Oct 2017-Aug 2018 space objects was stuck in UN processing for years, but at some point in the past year or so it finally appeared on the UN OOSA website
It records the USA 280 orbit as 657 x 659 km x 52.0 deg,  information not previously available.
The entry is in the table for 'objects ... that remain in orbit [as of 31 Jan 2018]', but don't get too excited.
Info in these documents on US classified objects is not always reliable. This is certainly a data point that supports the 'it is sill in orbit' theory, but in my opinion the 'it came down on the first orbit'
theory is still more strongly supported by the totality of the evidence.

The quoted orbit is quite a bit lower than Marco's 1000 km estimate, but not unbelievably so.
Again the data may not be reliable - there have been cases in these documents where US secret object orbit altitudes labelled as km were actually in nautical miles, although not recently. I present the information for what it's worth.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: Josh_from_Canada on 06/13/2023 05:57 pm
NRO just released an ebook about all their mission patches from 1996 to 2021.

See their tweet : https://twitter.com/NatReconOfc/status/1512169604466028551?cxt=HHwWjsC5pcqPp_wpAAAA

did anyone download this ebook and is willing to share it, the page it was posted to has since been removed
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
Post by: GewoonLukas_ on 06/13/2023 08:38 pm
NRO just released an ebook about all their mission patches from 1996 to 2021.

See their tweet :

did anyone download this ebook and is willing to share it, the page it was posted to has since been removed