IsItPluggedIn Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 If the sat was still attached to the upper stage, wouldnt the weight effect the de-orbit location? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted January 9, 2018 Author Share Posted January 9, 2018 One would think so. Thing is the upper stage showed up over Sudan on time for the de-orbit burn, and satellite trackers say after re-entry it impacted within the predicted area. Weird, like this entire campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted January 10, 2018 Author Share Posted January 10, 2018 ABC News is reporting a "US official" saying ZUMA fell into the sea after not maintaining orbit. This does not exclude the failed separation scenario, if anything it may reinforce it. http://abcnews.go.com/US/classified-satellite-fell-ocean-spacex-launch-official-confirms/story?id=52246100 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted January 10, 2018 Author Share Posted January 10, 2018 Wired, which broke the Northrop-Grumman payload adapter info last November, has a pretty balanced article. Digs a bit at them for being more open then than now, Link.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unobscured Vision Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 Anything new about this, @DocM? Scuttlebutt in my circles has been quiet other than the stuff we've already read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted January 11, 2018 Author Share Posted January 11, 2018 Nope, the ZCoS (ZUMA Cone of Silence) is down & locked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloatingFatMan Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 As long as all of SpaceX's part in this launch went off fine, who cares what happened to the satellite in the end? One less spysat is a good thng. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beittil Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 What is most disturbing, especially if SpaceX are not to blame in this story, is that SpaceX is still the most public face to those whole fiasco. They are the ones whose name is smeared all over the stories everywhere, with NG only receiving footnotes that they built both the bird and a custom adapter for it. Unobscured Vision 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingskippy Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 I think that with congress being briefed on the failure of Zuma, their opinions are the ones that really matter. If it was NG's fault I believe congress would have been given those details. The testimony at the House subcommittee on Science, Space, and Technology next week may reveal more details. Due to the nature of the mission though. I'm not holding my breath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unobscured Vision Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 Yeah. What bothers me is that SpaceX's name is being dragged through mud by people who have been historically tied to ULA and its' parent companies. Follow the money. The WSJ is all about the business sector, and because SpaceX isn't a publicly traded company they'll have NO issue dragging 'em through sewage. The whole "follow the money" thing yet again. WHEN SpaceX is cleared of liability I promise that we won't see a retraction or apology issued anywhere that is any sort of visible anywhere in the publication, because it doesn't serve the WSJ's interests. I think that Musk & Co. should sue the pants off of 'em for defamation and slander, quite frankly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted January 11, 2018 Author Share Posted January 11, 2018 Just look at the WSJ story bylne. That reporter is an oldspace shill who hits SpaceX at every opportunity. Unobscured Vision 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted January 12, 2018 Author Share Posted January 12, 2018 (edited) Matt Desch (@IridiumBoss) came to F9's defense. Sloppy story, @IridiumBoss replies at the link to his tweet. Edited January 12, 2018 by DocM Unobscured Vision, flyingskippy and bguy_1986 2 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unobscured Vision Posted January 12, 2018 Share Posted January 12, 2018 Yep. Just like the rest of us are thinking, then. Doesn't get any better than Iridium's boss. And he's a fella that a lot of people wanna work for too. Straight talker, etc. Tells it like it is, doesn't mince words if someone's got an ego bash coming to them either. Musk & Co. respect the hell out of him & Iridium (and vice-versa) even if they are eventually going to be competitors down the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloatingFatMan Posted January 13, 2018 Share Posted January 13, 2018 On 12/01/2018 at 4:56 AM, Unobscured Vision said: Musk & Co. respect the hell out of him & Iridium (and vice-versa) even if they are eventually going to be competitors down the road. Well y'know... Friendly competition is good for BOTH companies! There's no need for them to get ugly with each other. That just ends up causing problems. Unobscured Vision 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted January 13, 2018 Author Share Posted January 13, 2018 (edited) Iridium knows StarLink and OneWeb will be seriously big competition for them, but that's down the road. When that time arrives Iridium will face a decision: launch a much larger Iridium Gen 3 at great expense, or change business models. If the latter they'd likely be buying data services and hosted payload space for sensors & downlinks on the StarLink or OneWeb satellites. Buying from a 'friend' may be preferrable. Unobscured Vision 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloatingFatMan Posted January 13, 2018 Share Posted January 13, 2018 11 hours ago, DocM said: Iridium knows StarLink and OneWeb will be seriously big competition for them, but that's down the road. When that time arrives Iridium will face a decision: launch a much larger Iridium Gen 3 at great expense, or change business models. If the latter they'd likely be buying data services and hosted payload space for sensors & downlinks on the StarLink or OneWeb satellites. Buying from a 'friend' may be preferrable. There's also the option of future collaboration. Share their similar technologies and they both benefit. Look at the AMD/Intel collab that brought x64 bit computing to the consumer market. Unobscured Vision 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted January 14, 2018 Author Share Posted January 14, 2018 (edited) Placing their custom sensor hardware on StarLink or OneWeb birds and using to the host to transmit the data for use would be cheaper. Much cheaper, which is why DoD, NOAA and other govt agencies are, or soon will be, doing it. Remember the RWN conversation last year over NOAA not being funded to build more battlestar satellites, and NASA not launching/controlling them - returning control to NOAA? How some people here freaked out when I mentioned transitioning to using commercial smallsat imagery and hosted payloads on commsats? Same kind of evolution. There's no longer a need for creating and maintaining a huge infrastructure, they just subscribe to commercially available data when applicable and hitchhike (cheaper) uphill rides for their custom hardware. Edited January 14, 2018 by DocM Unobscured Vision 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted April 8, 2018 Author Share Posted April 8, 2018 (edited) As expected.... Wall Street Journal.... Quote Probes Point to Northrop Grumman Errors in January Spy-Satellite Failure Quote April 8, 2018 4:48 p.m. ET Government and industry experts have tentatively concluded that engineering and testing errors by Northrop Grumman Corp. caused a U.S. spy satellite to plummet into the ocean shortly after a January launch, according to people familiar with the details. Initial indications were that the satellite, believed to cost as much as $3.5 billion to develop and known by the code name Zuma, didn’t separate in time from the spent second stage of a Space Exploration Technologies Corp. rocket. But now, these people said, two separate teams of federal and industry investigators have pinpointed reasons for the high-profile loss to problems with a Northrop-modified part -- called a payload adapter -- that failed to operate properly in space. > +E.Worm Jimmy, Unobscured Vision and flyingskippy 3 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingskippy Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 Damn! Musk would of been on Mars already if they gave him that amount of money. $3.5 billion up in flames. At least it doesn't lean though I guess! +E.Worm Jimmy and DocM 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unobscured Vision Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 Wow, how did we know ... NG wasn't about to be forthcoming with the facts. DocM 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beittil Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 Haha, that must have been awkward for Andy to have to write. DocM 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted April 9, 2018 Author Share Posted April 9, 2018 Poor Andy was likely Mr. Scrunchy-Face while writing it Unobscured Vision 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unobscured Vision Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 Imagine the guillotines being wheeled out into the facilities at NG's Dev Labs upon reaching these conclusions ... they're gonna have to break out the hoses, gents. Bastille Day all over again. DocM 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted April 9, 2018 Author Share Posted April 9, 2018 (edited) More from CNBC. So, * N-G either made or bought a payload adapter * N-G modified it for Zuma * N-G ground tested it * The N-G modded adapter failed in microgravity, with Zuma remaining partly attached to the Falcon 9 upper stage * The US govt. and an industry team (The Aerospace Corporation?) say N-G is to blame Thing is, an active $300 GoPro would have shown it still attached before the upper stage deorbit, allowing an attempt to dislodge Zuma before deorbiting the Falcon 9 upper stage. IF NOAA allowed a camera view, of course. Oh, the irony..... CNBC.... Quote > The investigations tentatively concluded that onboard sensors did not immediately communicate to ground systems that the satellite did not separate from the rocket, according to the Journal. Unbeknownst to officials at the time, the planned return of the rocket's upper stage a method of disposal to avoid adding space debris around the Earth brought the satellite back down with it. By the time the satellite separated from the rocket it was too late, putting Zuma too low in orbit to save, according to the report. The unique design of Zuma, according to officials, means it was built in such a way that made it particularly fragile. Northrop reportedly modified its payload adapter to help absorb vibrations that might damage the satellite. While those modifications remain unspecified, payload adapters traditionally use small, controlled explosives to release satellites from a rocket's upper stage. > Edited April 9, 2018 by DocM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unobscured Vision Posted April 10, 2018 Share Posted April 10, 2018 Oh, the irony ... a $300 GoPRO could have shown them what was what, but they decided to take a $3.-something billion USD arrow to the knee instead ... because of NOAA. DocM 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts