Falcon 9 FT Block 4 - Zuma - SLC-40 (changed)

[Electroman]

Also interesting is the fact that MECO happens between 60km and 70km in altitude. So the booster still gains 55km after separation. Roughly double the altitude of the initial boost phase.

Ha! you gave me an idea to calculate the following:

- Given the speed of rocket at MECO (6020 km/hr) we can calculate the vertical and horizontal component of the velocity at MECO using how long it took to go from 60 km altitude at MECO to 125 km at apogee,

- and using that horizontal component of the speed at MECO, given that the boost back burn time of 50 seconds (assuming a steady burn), and the speed the booster achieves in reverse direction (1485 km) we can calculate exactly how far down range the rocket was at MECO.

Just some fun calcs..

 

[e-FTW]

the REAL cause was "normalization of deviation"

Yes! https://sma.nasa.gov/docs/default-s...malizationofdeviance-2014-11-03b.pdf?sfvrsn=4

Back to the matter at hand: man, those secret missions make for underwhelming footage.
But that is fine, as we will have plenty to get awed at this year!

 

[ecarfan]

Wasn’t that Gywnne’s voice on the webcast in the role of mission director? But I saw no one sitting in the front row center seat at MCC-X in Hawthorne. Maybe she was at the Space X Florida Launch Control facility. But I thought normally there was a mission director at Hawthorne sitting front and center.

 

[ecarfan]

Here’s some numbers from the webcast. Note that the video image lags slightly behind the Stage 1 telemetry data shown at the upper right of the screen. The data shows how the much altitude the 1st stage gains after separation and continues to gain after the boostback burn.

Time Speed Altitude Event

T+2:22 5973 km/h 60 km Main Engine Cutoff (MECO)

T+2:27 5917 67 Stage separation

T+2:33 5797 72 1st stage is coasting, slowing due to atmospheric drag but still gaining altitude

T+2:55 4248 73 Boostback burn starts, to slow down 1st stage

T+3:13 2331 107 Boostback burn complete, stage has slowed dramatically while continuing to gain altitude

T+4:17 1485 125 1st stage reaches maximum height and has slowed even further

T+5:06 2252 113 Stage accelerating as it loses altitude

T+6:17 4404 55 Re-entry burn starts, purpose is to reduce speed further

T+6:39 2881 33 Re-entry burn complete

T+7:16 1414 8 Stage slows further due to increasing atmospheric drag

T+7:32 894 3 Landing burn starts

T+7:54 ? 0.2? Landing legs deploy, telemetry data no longer displayed

T+7:59 0 0 Landing

 

[Grendal]

Nice breakdown ecarfan.

I would add:
T+1:12 1320 10.2 Max-Q

Knowing when the maximum aerodynamic stress happens on the way up clarifies why and when SpaceX does their reentry and landing burns on the way down.

 

[eye.surgeon]

How secretive is this mission if I'm reading about it on TMC? Answer, not very.

 

[bxr140]

How secretive is this mission if I'm reading about it on TMC? Answer, not very.

Launches aren’t the most inconspicuous of events...

 

[Zaxxon]

Interesting that the scuttlebutt is saying the payload was lost. Of course, that's what the shall-not-be-named government agency that may or may not have launched a shall-not-be-named payload would want the public to think.

Sounds like SpaceX is confident that any alleged issue wasn't with the Falcon 9, though.

 

[Grendal]

From various sources it appears that the Zuma payload has failed. The same sources are saying that the SpaceX launch and orbital insertion for the payload was nominal.

Here's an article on it:
It’s not official, but sources say the secretive Zuma satellite was lost

Zaxxon beat me to it by seconds.

 

[bxr140]

Sounds like SpaceX is confident that any alleged issue wasn't with the Falcon 9, though.

If it rentered with the second stage that’s a separation failure, but that doesn’t necessarily mean a spacex issue if the sep system was specified by the payload (which almost never happens, but might with a super cereal TLA mission).

Of course, it could be an elaborate ruse and the spacecraft could be functioning just fine.

 

[Grendal]

Popular Mechanics called NG and SpaceX and asked how it went.

Popular Mechanics has reached out to both SpaceX and Northrop Grumman for comment about the fate of the satellite. Northrop did not immediately reply, but a SpaceX spokesperson issued the following statement: “We do not comment on missions of this nature; but as of right now reviews of the data indicate Falcon 9 performed nominally.”

So I think that is as clear as SpaceX can make it. Our rocket had NO issues.
Rumors Swirl That the Secret Zuma Spacecraft Launched By SpaceX Was Lost

 

[ecarfan]

From various sources it appears that the Zuma payload has failed. The same sources are saying that the SpaceX launch and orbital insertion for the payload was nominal.

And that Ars Technica article by Eric Burger says “According to one source, the payload fell back to Earth along with the spent upper stage of the Falcon 9 rocket”. It’s somewhat confusing, but we will never know what actually happened. I just hope that if there was a failure it had nothing to do with SpaceX.

 

[ecarfan]

So I think that is as clear as SpaceX can make it. Our rocket had NO issues.
Rumors Swirl That the Secret Zuma Spacecraft Launched By SpaceX Was Lost

Thanks. That is good news!

 

[BigD0g]

Interesting.... It’s not official, but sources say the secretive Zuma satellite was lost

 

[mongo]

And that Ars Technica article by Eric Burger says “According to one source, the payload fell back to Earth along with the spent upper stage of the Falcon 9 rocket”. It’s somewhat confusing, but we will never know what actually happened. I just hope that if there was a failure it had nothing to do with SpaceX.

Along with vs attached to? Second stage always falls back to earth, so if satellite fails/falls too, then it fell along with...
Maybe it was never meant to orbit?

 

[BigD0g]

Perhaps, the reason for all the delays was issues with the satellite that they "thought" was resolved, but after they launched, it appears they didn't fix it perhaps.

 

[ecarfan]

We will never know the truth about what happened to that payload. But as someone else once said, “The truth is out there...”

 

[Grendal]

There are pictures of the second stage over Sudan doing the normal things the second stage does to de-orbit. So it makes sense that the payload separated from the second stage as expected. If it hadn't separated (and NG was responsible for the adapter anyway) then SpaceX would not have had the second stage making de-orbiting maneuvers. It would have left the stage in orbit for NG to work out the adapter issues and try for separation until NG calls it quits. So the obvious conclusion from what evidence and statements we have is that the Zuma payload had an issue and is lost (for now). SpaceX did their job successfully and there should be no blowback on them.

Further evidence is that SpaceX is moving forward with their normal operations. If there was an issue on their side then there would be an investigation.

 

[Dave EV]

There are pictures of the second stage over Sudan doing the normal things the second stage does to de-orbit.

Further evidence is that SpaceX is moving forward with their normal operations. If there was an issue on their side then there would be an investigation.

Good stuff - do you have references to those pictures and what kinds of actions SpaceX is continuing with? I suppose for the latter, a statement that says that Falcon 9 performed nominally, that would certainly indicate that there are no issues that would hold them up, but is the satellite dispenser considered part of F9 or not?

 

[anticitizen13.7]

Good stuff - do you have references to those pictures and what kinds of actions SpaceX is continuing with? I suppose for the latter, a statement that says that Falcon 9 performed nominally, that would certainly indicate that there are no issues that would hold them up, but is the satellite dispenser considered part of F9 or not?

My understanding is that for the Zuma mission, the satellite dispenser was from Northrop Grumman, the maker of the Zuma satellite. This mission was unusual in that SpaceX appears to have had almost no role in packaging the payload for launch.