Author Topic: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION  (Read 786437 times)

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • USA
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 970
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #700 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?
« Last Edit: 01/08/2018 09:07 pm by rcoppola »
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4207
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #701 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.
« Last Edit: 01/08/2018 09:10 pm by docmordrid »
DM

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10205
  • US
  • Liked: 13885
  • Likes Given: 5933
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #702 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.)

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #703 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
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2691
  • Liked: 981
  • Likes Given: 347
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #704 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)

Offline cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3471
  • Liked: 2867
  • Likes Given: 726
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #705 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?). 
« Last Edit: 01/08/2018 09:17 pm by cscott »

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #706 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
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #707 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.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #708 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.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #709 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.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #710 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)
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline dmgaba

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 27
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #711 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...
David G

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #712 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.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Johnnyhinbos

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3863
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 8095
  • Likes Given: 943
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #713 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

John Hanzl. Author, action / adventure www.johnhanzl.com

Offline cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3471
  • Liked: 2867
  • Likes Given: 726
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #714 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.
« Last Edit: 01/08/2018 09:27 pm by cscott »

Offline 0x32

  • Member
  • Posts: 4
  • Mechanical engineering student
  • Sol
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #715 on: 01/08/2018 09:35 pm »
Could the payload have been a hypersonic reentry vehicle?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Falcon_Project
Stage one has landed

Offline cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3471
  • Liked: 2867
  • Likes Given: 726
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #716 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.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #717 on: 01/08/2018 09:39 pm »
Could the payload have been a hypersonic reentry vehicle?

It could explain many things.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline ames

  • Member
  • Posts: 18
  • UK
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #718 on: 01/08/2018 09:41 pm »
A Zoomer!

Offline andrewsdanj

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 145
  • Liked: 105
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #719 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'...


Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0