You are not logged in.
Industry & Technology/January 29, 2018
Opinion: The Zuma Fiasco
by Michael Weinhoffer/Staff Reporter
That was supposed to be a routine launch for SpaceX on Jan. 8 was anything but that. SpaceX has a much more significant launch very shortly with the debut of the Falcon Heavy, but the most recent launch overshadowed it for a few weeks. The classified mission did not go off too smoothly, and it provided an opportunity to think about the disadvantages of such missions.
Northrop Grumman, one of the largest defense contractors in the world, manufactured the payload for this launch. The company produced a spacecraft for the U.S. government, and since SpaceX has become authorized to launch military spacecraft and had flawless flights last year, it makes sense that they chose SpaceX as the launch provider. The only thing special about this flight is that virtually no one knows what the payload is. Someone deep inside the caverns of the Pentagon does, but not even the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), which is responsible for overseeing all classified U.S. satellites, claimed responsibility for the payload, codenamed “Zuma.”
Zuma was supposed to launch on a Falcon 9 on Nov. 15 but was delayed almost two months as the SpaceX team analyzed payload fairing data from a previous customer. The launch on Jan. 8 went off without any problems, and SpaceX routinely landed the first-stage booster back at Cape Canaveral. They did not show live video of the second stage or payload deployment, but this was the custom when they launched other national security payloads. There was no confirmation that the payload made it into orbit by either SpaceX or Northrop Grumman, which was not too surprising, as that is the same routine for U.S. spy satellites.
However, the next day, the Wall Street Journal reported that the satellite failed to reach orbit and plummeted into the Indian Ocean. Congressional staffers and lawmakers informed them of this. Other news outlets concurred with the Wall Street Journal, but SpaceX and Northrop Grumman pushed back. Northrop Grumman said that they do not comment on classified missions; however, SpaceX’s comment was more interesting. Gwynne Shotwell, Chief Operating Officer and President of SpaceX, responding to calls for an explanation, said, “…Falcon 9 did everything correctly on Sunday night…Information published that is contrary to this statement is categorically false…” That is a reasonably strongly worded statement from SpaceX. If the payload did not reach the proper orbit, they surely are not taking any blame for it! It seems rather unlikely that the second stage of the Falcon 9 failed, but that means that the payload did not separate correctly from the rocket. Grumman did provide the payload adapter, which connects the payload to the rocket. That is usually something implemented by the launch provider, which tells me that Zuma was not an ordinary satellite or a satellite at all. If it were, the adapter provided by SpaceX would have suited it well. So maybe the payload adapter failed to release Zuma into orbit. That seems more likely. The consensus became the payload failed to reach its orbit one way or another.
Several news outlets reported that the payload crashed into the Indian Ocean, but a lack of evidence questions that conclusion. At this point, it is just pure speculation. Officials could have easily said that the payload failed to stop questions about its mission. What made things worse was at a Pentagon briefing, where someone asked about whether the precious payload was successful in reaching orbit. The government official taking questions responded by referring questions on the mission back to SpaceX! The launch provider, the payload manufacturer, and the U.S. government all have failed to comment on the status of the mission. I do not recall any space mission that had this level of classification.
So what is Zuma? News channels have called Zuma a “satellite,” and that seems likely because that is the most common payload of any launch, but there are other possibilities. As stated previously, the fact that Northrop Grumman provided the payload adapter themselves makes me think that Zuma is not a satellite. If it were, why not use SpaceX’s extremely reliable adapter? Let’s examine a few possibilities. The Air Force has the X-37B spaceplane, which is not a spy satellite, but rather a mini space shuttle that is conducting scientific experiments while in orbit. Those are classified missions, but it is nothing threatening. Zuma could be an experimental spaceplane like the X-37B, or it could be “something else.” The “something else” option is the most concerning. The only option that I can think of besides a satellite or a spaceplane is a weapons system. Zuma could be a laser weapon or a missile defense system that fires physicals projectiles at Earth.
There are no bans on weapons in outer space, but that does not mean that it is a good idea to put them there. Russia and China have pushed for the U.S. to back a U.N resolution that works to prevent a weapons buildup in outer space. The U.S. has refused, citing definition ambiguity and national security interests. Russia, China, and the U.S. all have tested space weapons and even launched missiles from Earth to destroy satellites in space. Outer space has become a strong military environment, and the question of whether to ban space weapons is still up for debate.
Launching highly classified payloads into outer space does not help those in opposition to the proposed resolution. A vital element of appropriate conduct in outer space is data transparency. Not knowing the purpose of a payload circling the Earth every ninety minutes puts nations on edge, and I am confident that Russia and China are very upset over the Zuma launch. There is no reason for a company such as Grumman to launch payloads with a higher classification than U.S. spy satellites. It is not appropriate conduct, and the U.S. should not repeat it. The United States needs to serve as a model of international cooperation and transparency in outer space, and this mission does not fulfill that standard. Frankly, I hope the payload did fail. I do not want to go to bed at night wondering if the Zuma payload is a threat to international security and the safety of outer space. The Zuma payload is not in the interest of international security and peace that has existed in outer space for more than fifty years and should not have successors.
Offline
Like button can go here
From whom was the payload fairing or shroud used for the mission from as a mismatch of spacex to the adapter might be the real issue as it failed to come apart when it should have keeping the satelite inside rather than releasing it.
Offline
Like button can go here
I'd be surprised if the payload shroud failed to detach. That's a Spacex thing, and if it screwed up, I think they'd say something about that. They haven't.
Actually, I'd be surprised if Zuma were a space weapon of some kind, but we cannot rule that out. Usually (for whatever that is worth), these things are one or another kind of spy satellite with a folded-optics camera telescope. Those are usually fairly large, with the old KH-11 and KH-12 versions being that which sized the space shuttle payload mass and bay dimensions.
This Zuma thing has to be much smaller, or it would not fit a Falcon payload shroud. Same for whatever has been flying aboard X-37.
There's a long history of weapons in space that few want to own up to. Most folks know about the anti-satellite missiles tested by the US, Russia, and most recently by the Chinese. That ASAT history goes back over 20 years now. Not so many know that the Russian ALMAZ (equivalent to the cancelled US MOL) was armed for defense with a repeating 23 mm cannon, circa early 1970's. They did test fire it in space, too. It caused quite a lot of obnoxious vibration.
GW
Last edited by GW Johnson (2018-01-31 12:54:33)
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
A cannon, GW? Raises all sorts of questions..
Did they release the shell to provide for the reaction? Adding to space junk. Or maybe they just absorbed the recoil in the satellite and then used more propellant to correct its orbit and spin.
How far away do you need to hit an incoming item with a cannon shell to be reasonably sure of disrupting it without being in receipt of a shower of particles. You don't want to swap a rifle round for a shotgun round, I presume.
You would still need lots of armour.
I think I would take a lesson from the squid and issue a cloud of camouflage stuff, then alter my orbit whilst not visible.
Offline
Like button can go here
Elderflower,
Countries with the ability to weaponize spacecraft have been hard at work since they had launch vehicles capable of delivering the hardware. Before Russia's great communism experiment fell flat on its face, they launched an 80t 1MW CO2 laser weapon system demonstrator named Polyus or "Pole" in Russian. It failed to attain orbit when it's attitude control system accidentally de-orbited it. They didn't have enough money to launch the fully functional version of the weapon, which was completed a year later in 1986. Among other spacecraft, bits and pieces of what would've been an operational space-based laser weapon system were then included in the Zarya module of ISS.
The Russians do good work, with respect to spacecraft design and engineering, but some of the technical implementation details prove to be about as problematic for them as they are for us.
Offline
Like button can go here