• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Sign in to follow this  

F9: SpaceX Mission 1039, code name "ZUMA"

Recommended Posts

IsItPluggedIn    1,684

If the sat was still attached to the upper stage, wouldnt the weight effect the de-orbit location?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    16,611

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    16,611

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....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unobscured Vision    2,678

Anything new about this, @DocM? Scuttlebutt in my circles has been quiet other than the stuff we've already read.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    16,611

Nope, the ZCoS (ZUMA Cone of Silence) is down & locked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FloatingFatMan    18,811

As long as all of SpaceX's part in this launch went off fine, who cares what happened to the satellite in the end? :p

 

One less spysat is a good thng. ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beittil    582

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flyingskippy    167

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unobscured Vision    2,678

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    16,611

Just look at the WSJ story bylne. That reporter is an oldspace shill who hits SpaceX at every opportunity.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    16,611

 

Matt Desch (@IridiumBoss) came to F9's defense. Sloppy story, @IridiumBoss replies at the link to his tweet.

 

 

 

Edited by DocM
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unobscured Vision    2,678

Yep. Just like the rest of us are thinking, then. Doesn't get any better than Iridium's boss. :yes: 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FloatingFatMan    18,811
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    16,611

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FloatingFatMan    18,811
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    16,611

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 by DocM
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    16,611

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.
>

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flyingskippy    167

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! :argh:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unobscured Vision    2,678

Wow, how did we know ... NG wasn't about to be forthcoming with the facts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beittil    582

Haha, that must have been awkward for Andy to have to write. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    16,611

Poor Andy was likely Mr. Scrunchy-Face while writing it ;)

 

081014-face.thumb.jpg.187ec0addc70e05e361e7728fa7b04af.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unobscured Vision    2,678

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. :laugh:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    16,611

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 by DocM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unobscured Vision    2,678

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.