You are not logged in.
Is SpaceX to blame, then?
Perhaps not. "As of right now reviews of the data indicate Falcon 9 performed nominally," a company spokesperson told Ars. It is important to note that the payload adapter, which connected the Zuma payload and its fairing to the rest of the rocket, was supplied by Northrop Grumman, rather than by SpaceX. If there was some kind of separation problem, the fault may not lie with SpaceX, but rather Northrop Grumman.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01 … a-payload/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Excerpt]
Did SpaceX’s secret Zuma mission actually fail?
Conflicting reports say the satellite fell out of the sky
By Loren Grush
January 9, 2018
When reached for comment, SpaceX said that the Falcon 9 rocket, which carried Zuma to orbit, performed as it was supposed to. “We do not comment on missions of this nature; but as of right now reviews of the data indicate Falcon 9 performed nominally,” a SpaceX spokesperson told The Verge. A lot of information is packed in that statement. SpaceX is essentially saying that the Falcon 9 pulled off all the tasks it’s supposed to perform during a mission. That typically includes launch, the separation of the rocket’s two stages, and deployment of the satellite into its intended orbit. And as viewers saw Sunday night, the Falcon 9’s first stage pulled off another successful landing after launch — indicating that the rocket was in full working order.
This morning, SpaceX’s president and COO Gwynne Shotwell doubled down on SpaceX’s original statement. “For clarity: after review of all data to date, Falcon 9 did everything correctly on Sunday night,” she said. “If we or others find otherwise based on further review, we will report it immediately. Information published that is contrary to this statement is categorically false.” She added that the company cannot comment further due to the classified nature of the mission.
So what actually happened? No one is saying for certain, but there are a couple scenarios in which the Falcon 9 could have performed as it was supposed to and the spacecraft didn’t deploy correctly. 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.
Of course, Northrop Grumman won’t comment on the launch. “This is a classified mission. We cannot comment on classified missions,” Lon Rains, communications director for Northrop, said in a statement to The Verge. But 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, on accident or maybe even on purpose — it’s possible SpaceX used the rocket to send the pair careening toward Earth, since Zuma was not designed to live in orbit with a rocket strapped to its back.
Until someone speaks on the record, it’s hard to know for sure. Meanwhile, SpaceX is pretty pleased with the launch. The company has been tweeting pictures from the mission, indicating that all went well. Plus, SpaceX rolled out its new Falcon Heavy rocket to its primary launchpad for an upcoming test, which probably wouldn’t have happened if there was a major issue with the company’s rocket hardware. “Since the data reviewed so far indicates that no design, operational or other changes are needed, we do not anticipate any impact on the upcoming launch schedule,” Shotwell added in her statement. “Falcon Heavy has been rolled out to launchpad LC-39A for a static fire later this week, to be followed shortly thereafter by its maiden flight.”
Offline
Like button can go here
Odds are Spacex was not at fault, Northrup-Grumman was. That would depend upon whether the payload adapter was also the payload release device. I think it likely that the adapter was the release device.
Most of the public confusion over this is companies taking advantage of the military secrecy in order not to be publicly blamed for screwing something up. Public blame does affect the bottom line. The motivations for all the finger-pointing and blame-avoidance are purely financial (i.e., greed).
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Like button can go here
With all the finger pointing its going to come down to the insurance lawyers arguing about whom will pay.....
Offline
Like button can go here
Whoops!
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Like button can go here
There is a $1 Billion+ liability at stake, so the lawyers will all be giggling.
Offline
Like button can go here
As I have pointed out: it might all be a smokescreen to cover the activities of whatever it is. There might not have been any failure.
Offline
Like button can go here
The fact that FAA and NASA haven't grounded SpaceX would seem to indicate that they were not likely at fault for this mishap. A launch vehicle malfunction that could cause its payload to unexpectedly plunge back through the atmosphere before a stable orbit has been achieved is almost certainly a grounding offense. A malfunction like that would be an unacceptable risk to life and property. The Atlas V and Falcon 9 series of vehicles are not experimental launch vehicles. Both are proven workhorses entrusted with national security payloads.
Offline
Like button can go here
I hear that there will be a congressional investigation into the cause.....
Offline
Like button can go here
SpaceX Customer Blames Northrop Grumman for Missing Satellite
By Dana Hull
January 11, 2018
Bloomberg Technology
A major SpaceX customer spoke up for Elon Musk’s rocket company, pinning the blame for a secret military satellite’s disappearance on defense company Northrop Grumman Corp.
Matt Desch, chief executive officer of satellite operator Iridium Communications Inc., said that as the launch contractor, Northrop Grumman deserves the blame for the loss last weekend of the satellite, which is presumed to have crashed into the ocean in the secretive mission code-named Zuma.
“This is a typical industry smear job on the ‘upstart’ trying to disrupt the launch industry,” Desch said on Twitter Thursday in response to a news article. “SpaceX didn’t have a failure, Northrop Grumman did. Notice that no one in the media is interested in that story. SpaceX will pay the price as the one some will try to bring low.”
Northrop Grumman didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment. Desch later told Bloomberg in a message that he didn’t know for sure what led to the disappearance but was speculating that a dispenser failed to release the satellite, which he said would have been Northrop Grumman’s responsibility.
Offline
Like button can go here
SpaceNut,
That was a LOT of money to lose in one night. If the payload simply failed to separate because the release mechanism failed, then let's figure out why and move on. We can have a dog and pony show to satisfy the Romans with their favorite form of entertainment, but at the end of the day it's just something that must be fixed before the next payload is lost.
I have a better question that nobody is asking. Why are we losing that kind of money on a single payload? That is exactly why I'm a proponent of air-launched, microwave powered SSTO drones to deliver small payloads. We should have constellations of small and comparatively inexpensive spy satellites delivered on a regular basis with regularly upgraded sensors for that kind of money. If we lose a few, no dog and pony show is mandated unless it becomes a routine occurrence. There's an up-front infrastructure investment required for development and construction, but ever after we can reliably and inexpensively deliver small payloads for any customer at any time.
"Mo" is not "mo betta" when it comes to spending money unless we're actually getting "mo" for our money. The military obviously benefits greatly from better technology, but military capability is also a numbers game. If you have the greatest spy satellite of all time, but it fails to make it into orbit or costs too much to replace when the environment of space eventually kills it, then it really didn't matter how fancy it was, did it?
Here's another example where lower cost, perhaps slightly less capable machines against peer or near-peer level adversaries would pay enormous dividends in actual operations. The US only has two near-peer adversaries, Russia and China. Every other potential adversary is nowhere near as capable, no matter which one we're talking about. The A-10 / F-15 / F-16 / F/A-18 / F-22 / F-35 are great machines, but all of those platforms are grossly inappropriate for whacking terrorists or dismantling the militaries of third world dictators.
The Beechcraft AT-6 may not have quite the same level of ruggedness as an AH-64 and it obviously can't hover, but it's also 1/3rd the cost for the fanciest version that contains the important electronics features from the A-10 / F-16 / F/A-18 platforms, cost-per-flight-hour (CPFH) is less than a fifth of what it is for the AH-64, it does have armor for the crew and engine, and there's no contest between the two when it comes to speed and range, which the AT-6 wins every day of the week. At those prices, our pilots can afford sufficient practice to be even better than they already are.
The AT-6 may not be the "correct" platform for light attack, but it's a step in the right direction. Perhaps the Embraer A-29 is "better" for the intended role. The point is, fast jets that cost $10K+ CPFH to operate that fly so fast their pilots can't identify ground targets are not required to strafe and bomb illiterate camel herders in places we can't pronounce. The notion that we should use F-35's for light attack, which incur a $42K CPFH to operate, is just absurd. The L-39NG incurs a $2.5K CPFH, which is still less than an AH-64 and it flies faster than an A-10.
The point to that little tangent about military hardware is that there's a point of diminishing returns. What makes a light attack aircraft lethal? I posit that it's speed, range, firepower, numerical superiority, and training. It's all of those things. What can you not get if you design the "perfect" attack aircraft? Isn't the answer obvious? A fighter that has to take off vertically, fly at supersonic speeds, evade every known sensor system in existence, be agile, and carry a heavy payload can't do all of those things well, simultaneously, for any reasonable cost.
If a $2 part from Toys-R-Us that cost $20K because it came from Satellites-R-Us defeated a project that cost $1B, not including launch services costs, then maybe it's time to change our approach to these obscenely expensive government agency projects (NSA / NRO / NASA / whatever) that can't be "the best" at whatever it is they're purported to do because we can't afford to procure them in the quantities required to achieve our stated objectives.
Similarly, we can't engage in multiple wars using aircraft that cost as much as a house for every hour they're in the air. Something has to give because we can't afford this anymore. We have lots of technology and know-how, but we're not using it appropriately.
Offline
Like button can go here
Yet today another was launched by a ULA Delta 4 rocket launches spy satellite into space
classified NROL-47
Offline
Like button can go here
SpaceNut,
The US military needs to use less expensive satellites and launch services, among other things. If we lose a $60M rocket with a $40M payload, so what? We can replace it in a month. It's a lot harder to replace a $1B rocket (SLS) with a $1B payload (Zuma). Numbers and costs matter. It's not the only consideration, but it is a major consideration. If a constellation of spy sats in LEO could do what Zuma could do from GEO, but we only need a half dozen of the small sats and a few missions to launch them all using reusable or partially reusable rockets, then the latter solution is the "better buy". These gold plated solutions to simple problems are killing us, financially speaking.
Offline
Like button can go here
With costs comes commercial off the shelf to which the satelite is not as its a 1 of a kind specifically designed on cutting edge technology....cheaper, faster with R&D equals failure....using cots means that everyone knows how it works and thats a failure.
What needs to be done for these cutting edge designs is cost control.
Offline
Like button can go here