Quote from: vanoord on 01/09/2018 02:19 pmIndeed. 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.htmlMy 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.
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?
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.
Quote from: Kabloona on 01/09/2018 01:42 pmChange 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?
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.
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.
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).
Quote from: vanoord on 01/09/2018 02:19 pmQuote from: Kabloona on 01/09/2018 01:42 pmChange 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...
How many times does this have to be stated?Launch vehicles do not receive commands after launch
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.
Quote from: inventodoc on 01/09/2018 01:28 pmWait 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.
Quote from: sghill on 01/09/2018 02:11 pmQuote from: Jim on 01/09/2018 01:55 pmQuote from: sghill on 01/09/2018 01:48 pmQuote from: Jim on 01/09/2018 12:58 pmQuote from: sghill on 01/09/2018 12:26 pmLots 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 vehiclesWe 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.
Quote from: Jim on 01/09/2018 01:55 pmQuote from: sghill on 01/09/2018 01:48 pmQuote from: Jim on 01/09/2018 12:58 pmQuote from: sghill on 01/09/2018 12:26 pmLots 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 vehiclesWe 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....
Quote from: sghill on 01/09/2018 01:48 pmQuote from: Jim on 01/09/2018 12:58 pmQuote from: sghill on 01/09/2018 12:26 pmLots 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 vehiclesWe don't know enough to state that.Wrong, we know enough that hypersonic vehicles are better tested from the west coast.
Quote from: Jim on 01/09/2018 12:58 pmQuote from: sghill on 01/09/2018 12:26 pmLots 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 vehiclesWe don't know enough to state that.
Quote from: sghill on 01/09/2018 12:26 pmLots 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
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.
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...
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.
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.
Quote from: Zach Swena on 01/09/2018 03:28 pmWhat 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
Incredible footage of stage sep and the boostback burn.