Author Topic: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION  (Read 786478 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #900 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.

Offline ricmsmith

  • Member
  • Posts: 33
  • Manchester, UK
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #901 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?

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 #902 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....
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

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 #903 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.

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 #904 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.
« Last Edit: 01/09/2018 02:12 pm by Kabloona »

Offline Katana

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 378
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #905 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.

Offline sghill

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1682
  • United States
  • Liked: 2092
  • Likes Given: 3200
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #906 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....
Bring the thunder!

Offline Katana

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 378
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #907 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.

Offline Katana

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 378
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #908 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

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #909 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...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #910 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

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #911 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.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #912 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.
« Last Edit: 01/09/2018 02:19 pm by Jim »

Offline vanoord

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 693
  • Liked: 450
  • Likes Given: 106
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #913 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?

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #914 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.

Offline JonathanD

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 625
  • Liked: 873
  • Likes Given: 277
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #915 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.

Offline Jester

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7979
  • Earth
  • Liked: 6533
  • Likes Given: 157
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #916 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/

Offline MaxTeranous

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 154
  • Liked: 260
  • Likes Given: 55
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #917 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.

Offline jebbo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 940
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 608
  • Likes Given: 309
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #918 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

Offline yokem55

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 653
  • Oregon (Ore-uh-gun dammit)
  • Liked: 468
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #919 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.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1