Author Topic: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION  (Read 417807 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31521
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9882
  • Likes Given: 307
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #940 on: 01/09/2018 02:42 PM »
How many times does this have to be stated?
Launch vehicles do not receive commands after launch

Offline Jester

  • NSF Night Flyer
  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6817
  • Some Space Agency
  • Liked: 2849
  • Likes Given: 85
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #941 on: 01/09/2018 02:45 PM »
How many times does this have to be stated?
Launch vehicles do not receive commands after launch

if nominal ;-)

Offline cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2638
  • Liked: 1843
  • Likes Given: 658
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #942 on: 01/09/2018 02:47 PM »


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. 

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.

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4086
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 2256
  • Likes Given: 464
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #943 on: 01/09/2018 02:49 PM »


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. 

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.

Not to mention that the "mission cost," including that of the launch vehicle, sometimes gets reported/interpreted incorrectly as "payload cost."

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8184
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2334
  • Likes Given: 5512
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #944 on: 01/09/2018 02:57 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.
Question Jim, what if this was an orbital entry test and not just a hypersonic atmospheric test. The X-23 PRIME although launched from Vandy and the vehicle was accelerated to a sub-orbital entry velocity over the pacific. Would not 1-2 1/2 revs and then end over the west coast be not possible with assets there as mentioned. The X-23 Prime did not need conditioned air for flight under it's faring as far as I can recall. ASSET was similar in testing...

« Last Edit: 01/09/2018 03:27 PM by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Offline Zach Swena

  • Member
  • Posts: 63
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #945 on: 01/09/2018 03:28 PM »
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...

Offline JonathanD

  • Member
  • Posts: 87
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #946 on: 01/09/2018 03:33 PM »
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...

You are giving them too much credit imho.  They could have just clammed up about it like they would any NROL launch and that would be it.  It's interesting that members of Congress have been briefed, certainly deepens the intrigue of who this belonged to.

Offline ArbitraryConstant

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1680
  • Liked: 391
  • Likes Given: 219
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #947 on: 01/09/2018 03:36 PM »
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.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12965
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3724
  • Likes Given: 634
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #948 on: 01/09/2018 03:47 PM »
Interesting quote from Marco on his blog post;
Quote
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.
https://sattrackcam.blogspot.nl/2018/01/fuel-dump-of-zumas-falcon-9-upper-stage.html
The 1,000 km orbit and the 2.5 hour length to reentry seems to suggest, to me, that the second stage had to perform a second, insertion burn at apogee during the first orbit, half-way around the planet from the Cape. 

Also, FWIW, there was a 2007 CBO discussion of notional "space radar satellites" in 1,000 km x 53 deg orbits.  It was titled "Alternatives for Military Space Radar".  The discussion described a constellation of such satellites.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7691/01-03-spaceradar.pdf

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 01/09/2018 04:35 PM by edkyle99 »

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8184
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2334
  • Likes Given: 5512
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #949 on: 01/09/2018 03:51 PM »
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.
Speculation keeps the kids from going out and playing on the road...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7911
  • N. California
  • Liked: 4146
  • Likes Given: 843
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #950 on: 01/09/2018 03:52 PM »
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.

The rocket is also moving "downwards" from the user perspective.

And the bright plume is the very large over-expanded vacuum plume...

I'm surprised the fairing is even visible at all.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline wolfpack

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 674
  • Wake Forest, NC
  • Liked: 95
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #951 on: 01/09/2018 03:59 PM »
The second stage "knows" if the payload separated or not, true? Or is it "open loop" in that the sep command is sent and that's it? Breakwire status seems an easy thing to check.

What do launch vehicles do if S/C sep fails? Would S2 continue on as if nothing happened or would it inhibit the de-orbit sequence? I know F9 is a proprietary design, but lots of folks here know what other LV's would do.

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2132
  • Liked: 383
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #952 on: 01/09/2018 04:02 PM »
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...

There Ain't No Stealth In Space.

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewardetect.php

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8482
  • UK
  • Liked: 1383
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #953 on: 01/09/2018 04:02 PM »


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. 

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.

Not really that surprised with this kind of payload. Misty cost something like $9.5 billion with all the stealth adaptations that’s why it was a controversial program. If this has similar characteristics I could imagine even a relatively small payload seeing ballooning costs.

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...

There Ain't No Stealth In Space.

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewardetect.php

Yes there is.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misty_(satellite)
« Last Edit: 01/09/2018 04:04 PM by Star One »

Offline NGCHunter

  • Member
  • Posts: 11
  • Liked: 95
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #954 on: 01/09/2018 04:05 PM »
Incredible footage of stage sep and the boostback burn.


Thanks!  That was my video. I'm hoping at some point other launch regulars who do tracking shots start to adopt my setup and software for their shots as well.  The software is very experimental, but it's freely available.  Computer, joystick, and telescope not included, of course.

Online Phillip Clark

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2085
  • Hastings, England
  • Liked: 284
  • Likes Given: 691
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #955 on: 01/09/2018 04:08 PM »
So, if the Falcon-9 successfully orbited Zuma, but then Zuma failed to separate, is this the first time that an upper stage successfully de-orbits itself and also accidentally brings back the satellite with it?   I cannot remember this failure mode before.

Another "first" for SpaceX?
I've always been crazy but it's kept me from going insane - WJ.

Offline hoku

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 194
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #956 on: 01/09/2018 04:10 PM »
A possible sequence of events based on the various articles and discussions:

step 1: Nominal Falcon9 launch, leading to S2+ZUMA achieving release orbit
step 2: S2 sends release signal to payload adapter
step 3: ZUMA stays attached to S2+payload adapter
step 4: after completion of 1st orbit, event timer on S2 issues de-orbit command, which is the preferred option considering the limited lifetime of S2, and the fact that in case anything goes wrong, a controlled de-orbit of a classified payload is always preferable to an uncontrolled re-entry with bits&pieces spread over, e.g., Russia or China.

The cause of "step 3" might be an interface problem, related to, e.g., hardware (crossed/broken wire or connector, ...), communications protocol (wrong parity bit, ...), SW error on the payload adapter side, processing/close-out issue before launch, etc. NG and SpaceX probably already have some clues on where the chain of events for ZUMA release got interrupted.
« Last Edit: 01/09/2018 04:33 PM by hoku »

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2132
  • Liked: 383
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #957 on: 01/09/2018 04:15 PM »
Yes there is.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misty_(satellite)

If you know the launch trajectory you also know the orbit, looks rather pointless to me.

Offline whitelancer64

So, if the Falcon-9 successfully orbited Zuma, but then Zuma failed to separate, is this the first time that an upper stage successfully de-orbits itself and also accidentally brings back the satellite with it?   I cannot remember this failure mode before.

Another "first" for SpaceX?

It has happened before. In 2015, a Russian military sat failed to separate from an upper stage.

http://spaceflight101.com/orbital-data-for-soyuz-2-1v-launch-with-kanopus-st/

"Usually" if a satellite fails to separate from a rocket it's because the fairings did not deploy. That has happened several times.

Also, there's the unusual instance where the satellite DID deploy, but the fairings did not, which happened last year on India's PSLV launch.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline Sam Ho

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 514
  • Liked: 187
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #959 on: 01/09/2018 04:40 PM »
So, if the Falcon-9 successfully orbited Zuma, but then Zuma failed to separate, is this the first time that an upper stage successfully de-orbits itself and also accidentally brings back the satellite with it?   I cannot remember this failure mode before.

Another "first" for SpaceX?

It has happened before. In 2015, a Russian military sat failed to separate from an upper stage.

http://spaceflight101.com/orbital-data-for-soyuz-2-1v-launch-with-kanopus-st/

"Usually" if a satellite fails to separate from a rocket it's because the fairings did not deploy. That has happened several times.

Also, there's the unusual instance where the satellite DID deploy, but the fairings did not, which happened last year on India's PSLV launch.
To be precise, Kanopus-ST wasn't fully deorbited.  The Volga deorbit burn dropped it into a very short-lived orbit.
There are three new elsets for 41098, but the earliest one is incorrectly assigned to 41100.
It indicates the Volga depletion burn may have occurred  during a pass over Baykonur around 0200 UTC Dec 6, about 10 hours after the
failure to separate. Presumably the extra mass of the attached payload meant there was not enough prop to
entirely deorbit the spacecraft, leaving it with the low perigee. Should reenter in a few days.

Tags: