Posted on 04/09/2018 1:13:36 PM PDT by BenLurkin
Two independent investigations, made up of federal and industry officials, pointed to Northrop's payload adapter as the cause of the satellite's loss, the report said, citing people familiar with the probes. The payload adapter is a key part of deploying a satellite in orbit, connecting the satellite to the upper stage of a rocket.
Zuma is believed to have cost around $3.5 billion to develop, according to the report. The satellite was funded through a process that received a lesser degree of oversight from Congress compared with similar national security-related satellites, industry officials said.
...
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
Must feel great to make a 3.5 billion dollar mistake!
Money...schmuny. That is what government people say because it is OPM (other peoples’ money). Do =you really think they give a rat’s a**?
Nobody wins when things like this happen, tax payers lose, the countries IC and military lose. But space is still a risky business, and these particular missions are not off-the-shelf tech where you can buy cheap. It often takes years if ever to recover from stumbles like this.
I am sure this is true because when people use black accounts to fund top secret projects, when something goes wrong they would immediately run to the press to explain that they used black accounts to fund the top secret project that just went wrong. Obviously.
The question I always want the answer to is: after you made the modifications to the device you want to use, how did you test it to verify it would work? Did you test it under conditions that replicate the conditions that it will experience in its intended us? Why not?
Program managers have a tendency to think a little testing is all they need, and they also tend to give a lot of test credit to old tests and argue that the modifications were not really a change to form, fit, or function.
Now you know what I think caused the failure.
Not surprised. Northrop is a petri dish of affirmative action and political correctness. They don’t hide it.
Yep. I don’t know any details, but I cant disagree with your premise.
Im sure they did extensive computer modeling...
;-)
Despite this piece, there is still no proof one way or another that the Zima actually did not make orbit. There are more than one examples of spoofing to hide actual satellites - some according to an article immediately after separation changed orbit drastically.
Im sure they did extensive computer modeling...
I’m sure they did, it showed that the cause
was anthropomorphic global warming...
I guess Elon Musk is going to save a ton of $$$ on his insurance policy.
The Big Bang Theory - Howard builds a Shelf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPDG7EdZowg
$3.5 BILLION, for a satellite, was it made out of pure platinum and diamonds??? Who approves this shit??
35 years ago they were $1 billion.
Still too much.
There is a difference between "cost to develop" and "cost to build". Development means the cost of the R&D as well as the cost to build the first model. Subsequent models are far, far cheaper to build.
Probably built two with 3.5 B development cost.
” Subsequent models are far, far cheaper to build.”
Not so far. Every satellite is an R&D effort.
Oh good, its all OK then
Yeah.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.