Author Topic: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION  (Read 786531 times)

Offline IanH84

  • Member
  • Posts: 67
  • Liked: 52
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #740 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?

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #741 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.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #742 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.

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4846
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 3429
  • Likes Given: 741
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #743 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.
« Last Edit: 01/09/2018 12:52 am by Kabloona »

Offline lonestriker

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Houston We've Had A Problem
  • Liked: 820
  • Likes Given: 5155
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #744 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.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #745 on: 01/09/2018 12:49 am »
NG used their own payload processing facilities

They have none

Offline Andy Bandy

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 171
  • California
  • Liked: 110
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #746 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. 

Offline Chris Bergin

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 :)
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3471
  • Liked: 2867
  • Likes Given: 726
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #748 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. ;)

Offline cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3471
  • Liked: 2867
  • Likes Given: 726
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #749 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.)

Offline Inoeth

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. 

Offline AirmanPika

  • Member
  • Posts: 94
  • Central Cali
  • Liked: 109
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #751 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...

Offline Flying Beaver

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.

« Last Edit: 01/09/2018 02:04 am by Flying Beaver »
Watched B1019 land in person 21/12/2015.

Online Johnnyhinbos

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3863
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 8095
  • Likes Given: 943
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #753 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!
John Hanzl. Author, action / adventure www.johnhanzl.com

Offline CJ

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1302
  • Liked: 1282
  • Likes Given: 540
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #754 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.
 

Offline ArbitraryConstant

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2014
  • Liked: 628
  • Likes Given: 311
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #755 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.
« Last Edit: 01/09/2018 02:05 am by ArbitraryConstant »

Offline JimO

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2000
  • Texas, USA
  • Liked: 482
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #756 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.   

Online docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4207
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #757 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.

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4846
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 3429
  • Likes Given: 741
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #758 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.
« Last Edit: 01/09/2018 02:43 am by Kabloona »

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8840
  • Lower 48
  • Liked: 60430
  • Likes Given: 1305
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #759 on: 01/09/2018 02:41 am »
 Gettin a little reddity in here.
« Last Edit: 01/09/2018 02:43 am by Nomadd »
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Tags:
 

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