You are not logged in.
SpaceX and customers defend Falcon 9 performance after Zuma mission
by Jeff Foust — January 17, 201
Space News
SpaceX reiterated at a congressional hearing Jan. 17 that its Falcon 9 rocket performed as expected on its most recent launch, despite swirling questions about the potential failure of the classified Zuma mission.
SpaceX, though, now has the support of the customer for its next commercial launch, who said it was “confident” that SpaceX would be ready for the late January mission.
In a tweet Jan. 17, SES said it reviewed data from the Jan. 7 Falcon 9 launch of Zuma and concluded that the vehicle had performed as expected, clearing the way for the launch of GovSat-1, a joint venture of SES and the government of Luxembourg, on another Falcon 9 currently scheduled for Jan. 30.
“Following Zuma mission, our engineering staff have reviewed all relevant launch vehicle flight data following last Falcon-9 launcher mission,” the company tweeted. “We are confident on SpaceX readiness & set for Govsat-1 launch late Jan!”
The comment by SES came several hours after a SpaceX executive defended the vehicle’s performance in response to questions by members of the House space subcommittee during a hearing on NASA’s commercial crew program, for which SpaceX is one of two companies developing vehicles.
Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas), chairman of the subcommittee, raised the issue of the status of the Zuma mission in the first question after opening statements. Babin noted he was restricted in what could be discussed during a public, unclassified hearing, “but circumstances surrounding this mission do have a direct impact on NASA and this committee’s jurisdiction and oversight responsibilities.”
“Falcon 9 performed as specified. It actually performed very well,” said Hans Koenigsmann, vice president of build and flight reliability at SpaceX. “We’re picking up the launches by the end of the month, as we planned.”
Actions by Falcon 9 customers appear to support the assessment that the launch went according to plan. In addition to the SES statement, Space Systems Loral announced Jan. 16 that it had shipped the Hispasat 30W-6 spacecraft, which it built for satellite operator Hispasat, to Cape Canaveral for launch on a Falcon 9. That launch is expected in mid-February.
SES announced Jan. 11 that GovSat-1, built by Orbital ATK, had arrived at Cape Canaveral for its upcoming launch. Industry officials say it’s unlikely the operators would agree to ship the satellites to the launch site if they believed that their upcoming launches were in danger of being delayed because of any investigation into the Zuma mission.
Other customers have stood behind SpaceX. In a series of tweets Jan. 11, Matt Desch, chief executive of Iridium, said he believed that SpaceX was not responsible for any failure of the Zuma mission, and criticized media coverage of the launch. SpaceX has successfully launched 40 of Iridium’s next-generation satellites on four Falcon 9 missions, with four more launches scheduled for 2018 to launch the remaining 35.
“I believe SpaceX statements, and have my own beliefs about what probably happened,” he wrote in one tweet. “Just find it sloppy and lazy to blame SpaceX when others more likely at fault (but won’t/can’t talk).”
Read the full article at: http://spacenews.com/spacex-and-custome … a-mission/
Offline
Like button can go here
As much as I like the information we already have topics that are being created as if they are not related to what has already been posted to in existing ones....
Offline
Like button can go here
My gut feel for this issue is that if the payload release mechanism was supplied by Northrop-Grumman, then they're responsible for the failure, not SpaceX. Since we know nothing about what actually happened, this is just more baseless speculation.
Offline
Like button can go here
Kbd512 is right: there is much speculation and little fact about this incident.
What we do know: (1) Spacex says the Falcon-9 performed well, (2) Spacex has not been grounded for a launch failure, (3) the payload and the payload adapter were made by Northrup-Grumman, (4) nobody has yet said a word about any possible consequences to Northrup-Grumman, (5) which government agency owns (owned) the satellite is not known, (6) nobody has claimed to track the satellite in orbit, when they usually can, visually or by radar, (7) something was seen and photographed in the right place and time in orbit over Africa venting something into space, (8) yes, the payload adapter was indeed supposed to be the release mechanism to free the satellite from the second stage, and (9) it was apparently intended to de-orbit the second stage into the Indian Ocean, which apparently was accomplished, as no one claims to be tracking the spent stage.
There are 4 possibilities: (1) the satellite failed to deploy from the spent stage and de-orbited with it, (2) the satellite made it to orbit but failed to work, (3) the satellite made it to orbit and works, with all the fuss intended to detract attention from it, and (4) something went wrong with the launch rocket so that nothing ever made it to orbit.
Possibility (4) is pretty much ruled out by factual items (6) and (7). Something made it to orbit and was photographed, but didn't stay there, as nobody seems to be tracking the new satellite, when they usually can. Not a certainty, but very highly likely.
Possibility (3) cannot be ruled out, but seems very unlikely as a departure from behavior with all previous classified payloads back to the beginning of satellite launches. Plus, no one claims to be tracking anything (factual item (6)), when they usually can.
Possibility (2) cannot be ruled out, but seems to be very unlikely due to factual item (6).
That makes possibility (1) the most likely outcome of the launch attempt here. It cannot be certain, but seems very likely, and would be in accord with all the known factual items, when the others are not. Thus it seems most likely that pieces of Zuma are at the bottom of the Indian Ocean, along with pieces of the Falcon-9 second stage.
Factual item (8) combined with choosing possibility (1) means the fault goes to the payload adapter as failing to release the satellite from the second stage. If true, then the fault lies with Northrup-Grumman, in accord with factual items (2) and (3).
As for factual item (4), all I can say is that this isn't over yet. Wait and see. Perhaps this is what the drumbeat from the far right to cast doubt on Spacex is about, since the far right generally prefers "old space" to "new space". But that last is only speculation on my part. The well-known favoritism by multiple government agencies for "old space" contractors may well deflect consequences from Northrup-Grumman, so I wouldn't hold my breath looking for those, if I were you.
We may never get a hard answer to this because of the secrecy associated with this mission. It's tighter than usual, as evidenced by factual item (5). The only answer we will likely get is indirect: will Spacex be approved or disapproved for further government launches? If approved (as evidenced by continuing to launch secret payloads and NASA payloads), then the most likely conclusion is that the government knows their rocket was not at fault for Zuma's loss. It's just that no one will ever say so in public.
Welcome to the real world. Ugly, ain't it?
GW
Last edited by GW Johnson (2018-01-20 11:53:51)
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
How about:-
Zuma is up there, where Spacex put it, all in accordance with their Client's requirements. Nobody has detected it because it is designed to be as stealthy as possible to prove that Uncle Sam can put an undetectable object into orbit for the purposes of spying or anti missile capability or some such purpose. If American and friendly nation agencies can't see it, probably the Russians and Chinese won't be able to either- let alone North Korea or Iran. Spreading the story of launch failure is just a cover.
Offline
Like button can go here
There ain't no stealth in space. How is it disposing of waste heat?
Use what is abundant and build to last
Offline
Like button can go here
Unmanned US spy satellites replaced the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) which was cancelled in 1969. These are based on a folded optical path system to get the magnification in a reduced length, as was the telescope in the manned US MOL and Soviet Almaz. MOL was sometimes called KH-10 by some sources. The initial spy satellites were most often referred to as KH-11. Different names and designations apply, through something like 4 generations of these things, or maybe more.
Early models were launched by Space Shuttle and by Delta-4. In point of fact, the size of the Space Shuttle cargo bay, and its payload capacity, was set by the requirement to launch these things. After the Challenger disaster, no more were launched by the Space Shuttle. As it turns out, polar or near-polar orbits were better for spy satellite photography, anyway.
These spy satellites and the Hubble Space Telescope share a lot of technology and features (although not all). They are about the size of Hubble. Primary mirror is just about 2.4 m diameter. The spy rigs are 3 stage mirror rigs, Hubble is 2-stage. Spy satellite resolution from LEO is not quite good enough to resolve individual human faces, at about an inch or two.
These things were cylindrical bodies about 15 feet in diameter and about 60 feet long, at around 15 metric tons. That's pretty close to 4.5 m diameter and 18 m long, for those who prefer metric. Objects like that are easily observed visually and on most bands of radar, and by infrared.
Later models feature reduced radar and visual signatures, but very little can be done about infrared. Especially since looking outward from the Earth, you can use something in the 8-14 micron band at Earth temperatures, and readily see something not cooled very cold. The background is just plain cold at 4 K.
Radar is not "monolithically" stealthy, either. Stealth is very, very, VERY frequency dependent! The older 10's-100's KHz search track radars had very much poorer resolution than today's 100 MHz battlefield radars, but they can easily see modern stealth aircraft, and locate them within crudely a mile or three. A thing that looks like an aluminum-painted grasshopper at 100 MHz looks like a 900-foot battleship at 100 KHz. Something similar applies to stealth mods for a satellite like this. It's stealthy for the modern radars, not so much for older equipment.
Visually, since space is black: the absence of light, about all you can do is give the satellite a black, dull finish. That makes it about as hard to see visually as a small asteroid, which is difficult but not impossible. It really only depends upon how determined you are with your visual search. Plus the range is short, unlike asteroids. You see the motion much easier.
By the way, a black dull finish absorbs more sunlight as heat in the material, leading to a higher infrared signature, in the 8-14 micron band, particularly.
This stealth bullshit is something I once had to do for a living. Comes back to haunt me, sometimes, it does.
GW
Last edited by GW Johnson (2018-01-20 19:56:13)
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
Update: I have seen nothing since to alter my assessment of Spacex/Zuma in post #4 above. In point of fact, the USAF has publicly stated they are still qualified to launch government payloads. It seems very, very likely the "fault" lies with N-G's payload adapter release mechanism: it failed to release.
For comparison, look at the recent Ariane 5 launch that put two geosynch communications satellites into the wrong transfer orbit: about the right apogee and perigee, but 17 degrees out of plane! They lost communications with the rocket during the second stage burn. It burned to about the right delta-vee, and it maintained stable attitude, but it apparently didn't guide correctly.
Now THAT is what a relatively-minor launch vehicle failure looks like (with a "major failure" being an explosion).
My best guess is that it seems likely to have been faulty guidance info fed before launch, compounded by the communications loss during the second stage burn. That's fundamentally a human error (bad guidance data), and it'll turn out to be something so stupid, they'll be reluctant to fully describe it in public.
The owners of the satellites claim they can reach the right geosynch orbit using the same thrusters that circularize at geosynch, but it will just take longer. They also claim this will not shorten satellite lifetime, but I have a hard time believing that.
Why? Because orbit plane change maneuvers are very expensive in terms of delta-vee. The satellite's useful life is very definitely over when it runs out of thruster propellant required for maintaining attitude control.
I read the news, but with a skeptically-open mind. It pays off. In this case, I predict the findings will be relegated to "back-page, small-print" stuff.
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
So you don't think that Northrop Grumman will be able to bury the findings completely, GW?
Offline
Like button can go here
Hi Elderflower:
I think they already have buried it. Right under their status as one of the government's favored "old space" contractors, and covered up quite deeply with a blanket of "national security". This is the corporate welfare system in defense/space work that has been erected since WW2. I'll be surprised if we hear anything besides a minimal back-page short article, somewhere down the road.
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
We will probably have to wait 30 years, unless somebody tells WikiLeaks, GW.
Offline
Like button can go here
You're probably right about that, Elderflower. But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting on Wikileaks. Not a political-enough sensation there, for their taste.
GW
Last edited by GW Johnson (2018-02-04 17:55:49)
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