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.
Quote from: Kabloona on 01/09/2018 02:40 amQuote from: Inoeth on 01/09/2018 01:42 amSo 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.
Quote from: Inoeth on 01/09/2018 01:42 amSo 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.
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...
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.
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.
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!
Quote from: Robotbeat on 01/09/2018 04:27 amI 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.
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.
Quote from: RonM on 01/09/2018 04:40 amI'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:QuoteThe 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?
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
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.
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,
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.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 01/09/2018 04:17 amIt 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?
Classified means no public information. Thus infinite parade of nonsense.
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?
Quote from: kdhilliard on 01/09/2018 04:38 amWhat do we make of the pretty pictures from Sudan? (See here and here.) 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
What do we make of the pretty pictures from Sudan? (See here and here.) Is this expected F9 S2 behavior? Has it been seen before?