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

[Grendal]

My bet: the NG payload adapter failed to deploy the satellite. Then when SpaceX deorbited the second stage (which I'm sure they would routinely do to avoid adding leaving unnecessary junk in orbit), the Zuma road it back down to a destructive finale.

The evidence we have shows that the payload deployed as normal. The articles that state the payload didn't deploy are misinformation. This statement is evidence too.

Statement From Gwynne Shotwell, President and COO of SpaceX on Zuma Launch

The following statement is from Gwynne Shotwell, President and COO of SpaceX:

“For clarity: after review of all data to date, Falcon 9 did everything correctly on Sunday night. If we or others find otherwise based on further review, we will report it immediately. Information published that is contrary to this statement is categorically false. Due to the classified nature of the payload, no further comment is possible.

“Since the data reviewed so far indicates that no design, operational or other changes are needed, we do not anticipate any impact on the upcoming launch schedule. Falcon Heavy has been rolled out to launchpad LC-39A for a static fire later this week, to be followed shortly thereafter by its maiden flight. We are also preparing for an F9 launch for SES and the Luxembourg Government from SLC-40 in three weeks.”

 

[Kipernicus]

For me, the name Zuma brings up memories of a beach in Malibu
Zuma Beach Malibu - Definitive site of the Zuma Beach

 

[Doug_G]

Unlikely. As @Grendal notes, one would expect significantly more effort before commanded deorbiting.

What is the limit on how long the second stage can remain on orbit before SpaceX loses the ability to deorbit it? Battery power... tank pressurization... etc.? That might be a short period of time. It's also a possibility that the failure was catastrophic and considered unrecoverable.

There are satellite enthusiasts in the amateur astronomy community. Eventually someone will spot the satellite. Or not.

 

[ccutrer]

There are satellite enthusiasts in the amateur astronomy community. Eventually someone will spot the satellite. Or not.

If someone sees it, we know it’s there. But how good is the coverage of the non-governmental community? If no one spots it in say 6 months, with what probability can we say it’s not there? It took 8 months for someone to spot Misty, and 10 years to understand what was going on.

 

[BigD0g]

If someone sees it, we know it’s there. But how good is the coverage of the non-governmental community? If no one spots it in say 6 months, with what probability can we say it’s not there? It took 8 months for someone to spot Misty, and 10 years to understand what was going on.

I suspect every amateur astronomer is looking for it. I remember all the coverage by the amateurs after the "space plane" launches, I'm sure they will be all over it.

 

[TEG]

It wouldn't be out of the question for them to say it was destroyed since it might go into some sort of stealth position for whatever top secret mission it was intended to do. Better to have people stop looking for it if you don't want it to be found...

 

[Doug_G]

Sure. One could imagine a low-observable ("stealth") satellite that would immediately change orbit after deployment. Then you claim payload lost and maybe even pay off SpaceX to go along with it...

But sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory. I'm not a big believer in those. Such things are usually more easily explained by incompetence than conspiracy...

 

[Grendal]

It wouldn't be out of the question for them to say it was destroyed since it might go into some sort of stealth position for whatever top secret mission it was intended to do. Better to have people stop looking for it if you don't want it to be found...

I would think that hitting the national and international news over the loss is far beyond news of a secret launch. In other words, if that was their plan, then it was a really stupid plan.

 

[ccutrer]

Sure. One could imagine a low-observable ("stealth") satellite that would immediately change orbit after deployment. Then you claim payload lost and maybe even pay off SpaceX to go along with it...

But sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory. I'm not a big believer in those. Such things are usually more easily explained by incompetence than conspiracy...

I agree on trying to not see it as a conspiracy. Honestly, if it was a fake failure, they’d probably leak more details on what the fauilure was(n’t). Right now we just hear rumors of failure. Was it the satellite dispenser/fairing adapter? The satellite itself? Complete destruction, or just a dead satellite floating up there?

In jest: maybe this whole thing is a conspiracy to distract so that we stop wondering what the final flight plan was with the last Iridium first stage.

 

[hockeythug]

The first opportunity for observation isn't for a week or so plenty of time for more conjecture. Knowing about spacecraft like the X-37B that is public knowledge leads the possibility of god knows what this is that is so top secret.

 

[bxr140]

What is the limit on how long the second stage can remain on orbit before SpaceX loses the ability to deorbit it? Battery power... tank pressurization... etc.?

Probably battery power.

It’s hard to imagine a failure so catastrophic and obvious that would result in a near-immediate commanded deorbit of an unseparated payload & upper stage. About the only thing that comes close is severely limited battery power on the payload such that a few orbits worth of separation attempts ran out the clock...but that’s intuitively a very unlikely design scenario. Otherwise, one might expect they leave it up there and keep trying until the upper stage dies.

...it might go into some sort of stealth position...

That doesn’t really exist, but it doesn’t really matter. Many of the people on whom a black orbital asset may reconnisate know it’s there. To wit, the Russians and very likely the Chinese know exactly what happened to Zuma.

 

[Doug_G]

That doesn’t really exist, but it doesn’t really matter. Many of the people on whom a black orbital asset may reconnisate know it’s there. To wit, the Russians and very likely the Chinese know exactly what happened to Zuma.

Over the years I've met a few people involved with satellite tracking in the Canadian military. They've got blackouts where they're not allowed to image because they might pick up a US national security satellite. And if they accidentally record one they have to delete the imagery.

I always thought that was a little bizarre, since many amateur astronomers have as good or better equipment, and can easily image whenever and whatever they want. But I guess you control what you can...

 

[hockeythug]

That doesn’t really exist, but it doesn’t really matter. Many of the people on whom a black orbital asset may reconnisate know it’s there. To wit, the Russians and very likely the Chinese know exactly what happened to Zuma.

This is an interesting read:

For more than a decade, the United States has had at least one and possibly more stealth spy satellites capable of peering down at targets without fear of detection, according to a new book by an intelligence historian. The author, Jeffrey T. Richelson, says that while the Soviet space tracking network failed to detect the satellite, it did not evade a small cadre of civilian space trackers.

“The Wizards of Langley,” a history of the CIA’s top-secret Directorate of Science and Technology, notes that the United States may have tried to hide the successful first launch of Misty by making it seem that the satellite had exploded before reaching its final orbit. Richelson says the ruse fooled the American media — and, more importantly, the Soviet Union.

A spy satellite’s rise ... and faked fall

Misty (satellite) - Wikipedia

 

[ecarfan]

ABC News report: Classified satellite fell into ocean after SpaceX launch

QUOTE: “A highly classified satellite launched by SpaceX this weekend ended up plummeting into the Indian Ocean, a U.S. official confirmed to ABC News. Following its launch from Florida's Cape Canaveral Sunday night, the satellite, codenamed Zuma, failed to remain in orbit, the official said.”

My speculation: that statement implies that the “satellite” archived orbit, meaning SpaceX delivered the payload and achieved its mission, but that Zuma then was not able to maintain its orbit, for some reason which we will likely never know.

 

[ccutrer]

ABC News report: Classified satellite fell into ocean after SpaceX launch

QUOTE: “A highly classified satellite launched by SpaceX this weekend ended up plummeting into the Indian Ocean, a U.S. official confirmed to ABC News. Following its launch from Florida's Cape Canaveral Sunday night, the satellite, codenamed Zuma, failed to remain in orbit, the official said.”

My speculation: that statement implies that the “satellite” archived orbit, meaning SpaceX delivered the payload and achieved its mission, but that Zuma then was not able to maintain its orbit, for some reason which we will likely never know.

Well, that’s more than I’ve seen elsewhere. Others just say it failed, and imply that it didn’t separate from the second stage (and thus de-orbited with the second stage). It’s too bad that clear dilineating lines between fact and speculation aren’t there in many journalistic pieces. It’s probably especially difficult when the sources of any facts are probably hearsay in the first place.

 

[Grendal]

Well, that’s more than I’ve seen elsewhere. Others just say it failed, and imply that it didn’t separate from the second stage (and thus de-orbited with the second stage). It’s too bad that clear dilineating lines between fact and speculation aren’t there in many journalistic pieces. It’s probably especially difficult when the sources of any facts are probably hearsay in the first place.

It would be even better if they actually vetted the information like a real journalist is supposed to do. Instead, they allow someone with an agenda to spout nonsense and they gleefully report it as if it were true because it sounds controversial. Basically, it was false information that the payload did not detach into the proper orbit. It did. Which is why SpaceX is saying clearly that everything, which includes payload release, happened as expected.

It would make sense that the payload was lost if the maneuvering thrusters failed to circularize the orbit. Which would make sense to happen with a classified payload since you wouldn't want the same orbit as where you were dropped off.

 

[Grendal]

Full disclosure. I had a speculation that the fairing issue was a ruse and SpaceX fell on the sword for something NG was doing with Zuma. I was wrong. There is evidence that SpaceX shipped the fairings back to Hawthorne and then shipped some fairings to Florida again. So SpaceX wouldn't have moved the fairings around if there wasn't a real issue.

 

[mongo]

Full disclosure. I had a speculation that the fairing issue was a ruse and SpaceX fell on the sword for something NG was doing with Zuma. I was wrong. There is evidence that SpaceX shipped the fairings back to Hawthorne and then shipped some fairing to Florida again. So SpaceX wouldn't have moved the fairings around if there wasn't a real issue.

Did they cross ship them, or did a truck with fairings drive to/from Hawthorne?

 

[Grendal]

Did they cross ship them, or did a truck with fairings drive to/from Hawthorne?

They flew them on a Antonov 124 large cargo plane.

 

[ggr]

They flew them on a Antonov 124 large cargo plane.

Neat! Did they have to get them to LAX or Ontario, or did they manage to land the AN124 at Hawthorne?