U.S. Spy Satellite Believed Lost After SpaceX Mission Fails

WSJ ^ | 1/8/2018 | andy pasztor

[daniel1212]

Generally, SpaceX supplies a part known as the payload adapter that separates the satellite from the payload fairing of the rocket's second stage when it is time to release the satellite into orbit. However, according to a November article from Wired, the payload adaptor for Zuma was supplied by Northrop Grumman .

Related?

LGBTQ Advocates Try to Halt Mississippi 'Religious Freedom' Law The Mississippi law was supported by Baptist and Pentecostal groups, and the Washington-based Family Research Council gave Bryant an award for signing it. Opponents protested outside the Governor's Mansion in Jackson and executives of several large companies, including Coca-Cola Co. and Northrop Grumman Corp., called the law as discriminatory and said legislators should repeal it. - https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/lgbtq-advocates-try-halt-mississippi-religious-freedom-law-n697076

Emphasis mine.

[Paul R.]

It actually IS a pointless argument. Musk competed for those gov’t funds and won with performance. He’s also cleaning up with future commercial launch contracts, essentially pushing the Russians out of the business. ULA? ULA sat on their butts, by comparison, to SpaceX. But ULA will still get some of the gov’t business, and more than “some” if SpaceX seriously falters.

When it comes to the commercial launch business, those launch contracts are the numbers that count. What we argue here on FR about reliability and such is pretty much irrelevant.

[Paul R.]

Yes, it IS related. If Grumman’s payload adaptor failed, then SpaceX is off the hook (assuming the satellite deployment DID fail), unless SpaceX failed to provide power to the adaptor, or something like that.

This brings up a related worry-point:

We all wonder how our most-sophisticated-Naval-ships-in-the-world get involved in so many collisions.

A little while back, I was reading up on U.S. development of anti-ballistic missiles, and while we do now have limited capability, I was struck by how many of the failures in development & testing were NOT the “difficult tech” of, if you will, of hitting a bullet with another bullet. Instead, many of the failures were “stupid stuff”, like simple mechanical components breaking, an arm in a launch bay not retracting, etc. Even in the IT end of it — how do the developers end up with computer “failure” because they did not recognize what kind of data buss speeds were needed? (This stuff is all on Wikipedia- it is quite disturbing.)

It is almost as if a fixation on the “high tech” leads to ignorance of getting basics right.

[Magnum44]

Yes, he competed for the funds, funds taken from defense and NASA funding that was part of congressional approved spending for national space infrastructure (existing launch capability) and given by political hacks to ‘small business initiative’ programs. Austensibly to promote cheaper rockets. But in fact they reinvented the wheel and further reduced the capability and increased costs for industry staples of the last 60 years. Falcon has less capability than ULA products, weaker track record, but you get that at a reduced cost if you forget what the govt granted them to get caught up with the existing industry. I’d like to think it’s govt stupidity, but I really believe it’s intentional. And Musk manages to fool the masses whether it’s subsidized electric cars or Falcon rockets.

[daniel1212]

many of the failures were “stupid stuff”, like

Like incompatible measurement systems?

It is almost as if a fixation on the “high tech” leads to ignorance of getting basics right.

Well, if you think placing the "gas pump" into the "exhaust port" is a safe and equally appropriate "docking" in relationships then why be concerned about the compatibility of measurement systems? Close is not good enough.

[Steve Van Doorn]

This was taken over the Sudan and match's up with the Zuma launch

The partials in the bottom picture does look like it broken up.

Poster here:
https://twitter.com/Samcornwell/status/950499540666331136/photo/1
More pictures here.
https://twitter.com/Marco_Langbroek/status/950509102970621957/photo/1

[Rockingham]

My guess is that those photos show the satellite beginning to renter the upper reaches of the atmosphere, venting propellant as it goes down.

[Steve Van Doorn]

OH! I figured that was true with the first picture. It looks like venting. The second one seems to show partials as though there is a major problem.

If it came down shortly after wouldn't it look like a comet coming down? These people taking pictures should have seen that. Unless it was much father out at sea. I notice the trajectory was heading out into the Indian Ocean.

Thank you

[Rockingham]

Supposedly, the payload adapter provided by Northrop-Grumman failed, leaving the secret Zuma payload attached to the second stage. As expected, the second stage fell back to earth when it was expended, taking the payload came with it.

Moreover, because the failed rocket and payload never made orbit, their velocity coming down was substantially less than orbital velocity of about 7,000 mph and thus generated much less frictional heat than a satellite would coming down.

Even when a satellite comes down from full orbit, it does so with much less velocity than meteorites, which are the remains of comets or asteroids. Their orbital velocity is that required to orbit the sun, which is about 70,000 mph. A small meteor the size of a baseball will therefore generate a substantial display in the sky, while a piece of a satellite of the same size will pass unnoticed.

[Steve Van Doorn]

Oh! thank you for reminding me the velocity for low orbit.

That makes a lot more sense now.
Thank you

[wardamneagle]

Explosive bolts ?
So was Northrup responsible or Wonder Boy ?