
SpaceX payload code-named Zuma failed to reach orbit after Sunday launch - themgt
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-spy-satellite-believed-lost-after-spacex-mission-fails-1515462479
======
Robotbeat
The headline is wrong. SpaceX says their mission (launch of the payload) was a
success. The Northrup Grumman payload is responsible for the rest of the
mission. SpaceX are literally only allowed to talk about their own rocket,
since it's a classified mission. But the rocket made it to orbit and the upper
stage deorbited in the same place as planned according to other observers.

Oh, and because it's a classified mission, we don't even know if the mission
was INTENDED to stay in orbit. For all we know, it was a test of a reentry
vehicle of some type. Additionally, off-the-record sources may just as well be
_lying_ about the result of the mission as they would be risking jailtime to
leak results to reporters. This is a classified mission, no one is going to
risk their job and their freedom just to make Andy Pasztor better able to
troll SpaceX (which he has a long history of).

They may even be paid to intentionally spread misinformation (anonymously, so
it can't be traced back) about the mission in order to protect the secrecy of
the payload.

Additionally, SpaceX is continuing Falcon Heavy processing without skipping a
beat, rolling out the vehicle just hours after mission completion. If there
was a failure, there would be a stand-down to determine the cause before
continuing.

. .

EDIT: I should point out that Northrop actually provided the payload adapter
and handled integration:
[https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43976.msg1...](https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43976.msg1738401#msg1738401)

~~~
grecy
The headline on the website of a major Australian newspaper right now [1] is:
"Elon Musk's satellite 'disaster'".

"Expensive mistake: An expensive and highly secret satellite is missing after
being launched by Elon Musk's SpaceX"

How the heck are we allowing reporters to "report" like this? Utter nonsense,
and millions of people read this newspaper every day and assume they are being
told facts.

[1] [http://heraldsun.com.au/](http://heraldsun.com.au/)

~~~
CPAhem
Its a Rupert Murdoch owned paper, designed to get clicks from clickbait.

------
valuearb
"Legit conspiracy theory time. How do you put a satellite in orbit without
anyone knowing about it? You hide it with another satellite!

Apparently, during the first launch window for Zuma back on November 15, a
secretive US satellite tracked as "USA-276" was due to fly directly overhead
under conditions ideal for a rendezvous. USA-276 itself is secretive and
unusual, having passed as close as four miles from the ISS. It seems like the
NRO (or whoever actually built it) has a lot of confidence in their control
over that satellite and its maneuverability.

The rescheduled launch window for Zuma seemed to rule out a rendezvous with
USA-276; the launch inclination was expected to be similar, but the satellite
wouldn't be passing overhead at the time. However, several days of launch
delays coincidentally moved Zuma's launch window closer and closer to lining
up with USA-276's orbit. The earlier launch windows could have been decoys,
intended to suggest a willingness to launch away from USA-276 when it remained
their goal the whole time.

What are the reasons for this? Well, if USA-276 is meant to be a highly
maneuverable satellite, it could potentially burn through fuel quickly.
Testing the ability to refuel an unmanned spy satellite would be highly
valuable. If you made the rendezvous quickly, you could claim your refueling
drone was "lost" and it would be hard to disprove. We're not yet at the point
that civilians can track the exact location of every satellite at all times
without government help (hell, we can still lose highly advanced jumbo jets in
the middle of the ocean). Once the refueling drone is docked with USA-276,
they would be tracked as a single object in orbit.

Why claim it's lost, then? To try to hide that you have this ability. That's
especially relevant when you consider the repeated close passes USA-276 has
made to the ISS. It seems like a satellite meant to surveil other satellites,
which would be more valuable if it had ample fuel and could make orbital
changes more frequently. You'd only get one real shot at it before the element
of surprise is lost, but if you had a maneuverable satellite with ample fuel
on board, you could go take close-up photos of a few Russian satellites before
they realized what you were doing. Hell, maybe even get close enough to grab
one and deorbit it."

[https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/the-zuma-
satellite-l...](https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/the-zuma-satellite-
launched-by-spacex-may-be-lost-sources-tell-ars/?comments=1&start=80)

~~~
gozur88
>How do you put a satellite in orbit without anyone knowing about it? You hide
it with another satellite!

Heh. There was a Russian launch recently where a piece of "debris" started
moving under its own power after stage separation.

[http://www.iflscience.com/space/mysterious-satellite-
sparks-...](http://www.iflscience.com/space/mysterious-satellite-sparks-
concerns-russia-has-developed-space-weapon/)

~~~
lsaferite
That article has no date attached. I find that infuriating.

~~~
grzm
Not unusual for aggregation sites like that, unfortunately. The FT article it
in turn _does_ cite has a dateline of November 17, 2014.

[https://www.ft.com/content/cdd0bdb6-6c27-11e4-990f-00144feab...](https://www.ft.com/content/cdd0bdb6-6c27-11e4-990f-00144feabdc0#)

The year is also reflected in the naming of the object, by the way: Object
2014-28E.

------
King-Aaron
From twitter, Dr Marco Langbroek:

> (1/5) About the rumours that #Zuma or its Falcon 9 failed: I have a
> positive, photographically documented observation of the Falcon 9 upper
> stage venting fuel after re-entry burn, ahead of re-entry, over East Africa
> some 2h15m after launch. Pretty much where it ought to be.

[https://twitter.com/Marco_Langbroek/status/95050741204535296...](https://twitter.com/Marco_Langbroek/status/950507412045352961)

I have the feeling that this whole story about the failure is a textbook case
of misinformation, which is understandable since Musk has mentioned that this
is "the most important mission (that SpaceX has undertaken)" and that it's all
very heavily classified..

~~~
eps
"Photographically documented observation" is probably this one -

[https://www.reddit.com/r/whatisthisthing/comments/7oy9yi/a_w...](https://www.reddit.com/r/whatisthisthing/comments/7oy9yi/a_weird_looking_star_showed_up_in_sudans_sky/)

------
clarkmoody
I am suspicious whenever I hear of a "failed" deployment of a top-secret
payload.

Here are the archives of SeeSat-L, a visual satellite observer's network[1].
This will be the place to look for the latest observations on the mission. Are
there any other sources out there?

[1]
[http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Jan-2018/index.html](http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Jan-2018/index.html)

~~~
polemic
What would be the motivation though. I presume that nation states with an
interest in the mission would have Ways and Means of verifying that it's
operational (or not) -- whether by their own space-based observations or other
methods.

For everyone else: what's the point of suggesting that there was a failure? It
doesn't make anyone look good, least of all their highly visible commercial
launch supplier SpaceX (who're unlikely to want to be blamed for any sort of
'fake' failure that they can't disclaim responsibility for _either way_ ), or
N.G., or the agencies involved.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _I presume that nation states with an interest in the mission would have
> Ways and Means of verifying that it 's operational (or not)_

A skilled amateur astronomer can verify a satellite's orbit and if it appears
to be maintaining attitude control. If you want to hide what you're satellite
is up to, you call it a weather satellite and go on with your day.

~~~
polemic
Well, there are plenty of places on the globe out of sight from any _private_
ground based observation (or, any ground based observation at all, I'd bet).
Applying delta while flying over the pacific ocean would do the job.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _there are plenty of places on the globe out of sight from any private
> ground based observation_

I suppose. That also means the bird can't see the ground.

(You can't avoid any ground-based observation, as in from land or sea, unless
you hide behind the Moon or at L1, _i.e._ between the Sun and the Earth.
Getting to either would be easily detectable, though.)

~~~
polemic
Sure you can't avoid any _theoretical ground-based observation_ \-- my point
is there are plenty of places on Earth that don't _actually_ have them -- or
don't have any available to amateurs or organisations without access to
exceptional resources.

------
pilom
I used to work on satellites and so I know how sad a day this is for some
people. Think of the team that would be involved in a billion dollar NASA
probe. There would be thousands of people involved from component manufacture
to ground control to data processing to ground stations. A team just like that
has just had more than 5 years of their life's work go up in smoke. Classified
or not, it's still a sad day for space engineers today.

~~~
voodooranger
I’ve never worked on satellites but isn’t the engineering not lost at all?
What’s lost is all the manufacturing and verification that went into this one
copy. Wouldn’t manufacturing a second copy be like an order of magnitude less
effort/cost? Or is the cost of a satellite mostly just manufacturing?

~~~
subway
I too have no experience with satellites, but I imagine a project may not be
able to survive the financial burden of a loss.

~~~
regularfry
I used to know someone involved in launch insurance. It's a thing. Presumably
not one available to super secret squirrel launches like this, though
(although one might guess that Northrop could sort _something_ out).

~~~
pilom
Launch insurance can absolutely be given to classified payloads. My
understanding of the launch insurance business is you say "my payload is worth
$(X)XXX million to me and we're launching on this type of rocket" and the
insurers look at the history of that rocket and your history as a payload
manufacturer and charge you a 10-40% premium that gets built into the cost to
the government.

------
Robotbeat
My favorite theory is that they switched Zuma and Elon's car. Think about it,
they were both at the Cape and Zuma actually switched launch pads to LC40 from
LC39A (where Falcon is preparing to launch as we speak with the REAL Zuma). :D

~~~
gozur88
Okay, that's funny, but something like that isn't impossible. Remember the
_Glomar Explorer_? These black project agencies are past masters of the big
con.

~~~
JorgeGT
Plus, video footage of the car in space could have been obtained in _this_
launch, then conveniently released after Falcon Heavy launch. Neat conspiracy
theory!

------
trothamel
Note that the US government has been known to launch satellites with optical
and radar stealth. (From what I understand, the Misty series had this.)

What better way to hide a stealth satellite than to launch a satellite-shaped
object of the same mass as the real thing, separate out the real deal, and
claim the object is a failed satellite?

We don't even know which agency launched ZUMA, and there's no obligation for
them to tell the press if it worked or not.

~~~
knz
[http://www.armaghplanet.com/blog/the-real-mystery-
satellites...](http://www.armaghplanet.com/blog/the-real-mystery-
satellites.html)

More information/speculation for anyone interested:

"The first of these satellites is known as the USA-53 or Misty satellite. This
stealth satellite’s design means that it is incredibly difficult to detect or
locate. This satellite is thought to have been developed to keep an eye on the
Soviets and their concealment of weaponry. If this satellite is still really
in place it remains classified information. Allegedly launched in 1990 (on
board Space Shuttle Atlantis, STS-36), was a payload which remains top secret
but openly known is that the mission was dedicated to the Department of
Defense. Aviation Week magazine announced the satellite on-board was an
imaging reconnaissance satellite. Amateur astronomers tracked the Shuttle and
its payload and measured the satellite’s magnitude at -1, which was quite
bright compared to normal imaging satellites.

A week after launch, reports were released from the Soviets that six bits of
debris had been detected suggesting an explosion had occurred. The Pentagon
announced that any debris would decay after six weeks. The amateur astronomers
and observers that were tracking this object only catalogued five out of the
six pieces. Six months later an unidentified satellite was discovered in orbit
on a similar trajectory to that of the classified payload was released,
leading the satellite spotters to suspect it was the missing piece, nick-named
Misty. However a couple of noticeable manoeuvres later, Misty disappeared
again. Perhaps the ‘explosion’ was a decoy to put Misty into place unbeknownst
to the Russians."

~~~
throwaway1241
What is the advantage of stealth on an observational satellite?

Are the Russians really moving equipment out of sight every [orbital period
here]? Or locating equipment out of the observational path?

Elsewhere in the comments, there is speculation of trying to hide an orbital
refueling capability. This also seems like an obvious capability to already
have, given the automated docking procedures used on the ISS for many years
now.

------
manicdee
This is speculation based on rumour. We don’t even know if Zuma was something
other than a block of concrete.

Wait until Northrop Grumman or their secret customer releases an official
report. Otherwise the facts are that Falcon 9 delivered a secret payload to
orbit, landed the first stage, and SpaceX is now preparing for three more
launches this month.

Can HN please stick to facts and leave rumour-mongering to other groups?

~~~
valuearb
There won't be an official report. No one knows who paid for building it,
other than it was a US government agency. The NRO has no problems
acknowledging it's launches, but it doesn't claim Zuma.

Those are the facts we know. the CNBC report is based on their sources, making
it a bit more than rumor-mongering.

~~~
manicdee
Here’s how we go from “sourced facts” to “rumour mongering” in one step:

Hypothetical Facts: upon fairing separation the super secret payload was able
to establish communication with in-orbit trusted stations, and no longer
needed to communicate through the fairing or other non-trusted stations. So it
turned off its radios and other EMI producing communications systems. Secret
satellite operation base was able to establish control of satellite through
secure optical in-orbit communications. Payload adaptor successfully deploys
the satellite and neither SpaceX nor Northrop Grumman has any further
involvement with the satellite.

Source: SpaceX lost communication with the payload immediately after fairing
separation.

CNBC: SpaceX destroyed the super secret spy satellite

------
Mrtierne
Or it's all disinformation... dun dun dunnn

~~~
oh_sigh
Why bother? No one knows what is on the satellite anyway.

~~~
333c
Perhaps foreign governments have suspicions, and whatever agency sent it up
wants them to think that it failed.

~~~
toomuchtodo
The facade is only going to last another week if the payload is in orbit and
stable (at which point anyone with a telescope will be able to see it).

Otherwise, there was a failure on the Northrop Grumman side of the house (they
were responsible for mating the payload to the second stage adaptor at their
facility due to the classified nature) or this was an ICBM reentry vehicle
demonstrator.

If you listen during the launch stream, you can hear where video telemetry
control is relinquished and passed off to secure ops. That telemetry should
make it obvious if fault needs to be assigned.

It is not yet certain this is not a misinformation campaign (which would not
be without precedent [1]).

[1]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misty_(satellite)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misty_\(satellite\))

------
staunch
Russia satellite launch failure recently. Someone configured the launch system
with the wrong pad location, apparently.

For a foreign power, the cost of infiltrating and sabotaging a $5-10 billion
satellite launch is such a bargain that it would be hard to pass up. These
systems are so complex, so all it would take is exploiting one flaw per
project.

------
plaidfuji
What does the word "nominally" even mean in this context (performed
"nominally")? This word has permeated through technical discourse lately. My
coworkers use it excessively, usually understood as "on average" or "to a
first approximation", but the word itself literally means "in name only". It's
just a technical-sounding word engineers use to indicate they're guessing or
don't have numbers to back something up, and to me that's exactly how it reads
here, too.

~~~
niftich
In aeronautics it means, roughly, 'within acceptable tolerances', or, in other
words, 'as expected'. For a good analysis of this sense of the meaning, see
this StackExchange answer [1] to this question.

[1] [https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/184876/how-
did-n...](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/184876/how-did-nominal-
come-to-mean-within-acceptable-tolerances/189686#189686)

~~~
plaidfuji
Yup, found that. Makes sense now. Still think my coworkers are using it
incorrectly. Probably has something to do with the fact that our boss uses it
frequently as well.

~~~
niftich
FWIW, what your coworkers are doing is one of the ways that language slowly
changes. By them misunderstanding the true meaning of the word and applying it
in a slightly different, but distinct sense, the word is undergoing semantic
drift [1] in their circles.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change)

------
code777777
It's possible this is misinformation.

------
geerlingguy
This headline could be misleading. Based on the limited information so far,
all indications are that SpaceX’s mission was a success (payload delivery to a
given orbit). But we have precious little to go on, and won’t have visual
confimation of anything in the predicted orbit for a couple weeks.

------
themgt
Another link if you're paywalled:

[https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/08/highly-classified-us-spy-
sat...](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/08/highly-classified-us-spy-satellite-
appears-to-be-a-total-loss-after-spacex-launch.html)

~~~
AdamJacobMuller
archive.is is great for getting around paywalls too

[http://archive.is/5082a](http://archive.is/5082a)

------
ccrush
To me, it has always meant "performed the task that was named." For example,
nominal performance for lift-off means that the rocket lifter off the launch
pad. If it exploded two feet after lift-off, it's still a nominal lift-off.
The sudden and unexpected vehicle disassembly following lift-off is a separate
issue that would be dealt with as such. That has always been my understanding
of "nominal performance" anyway.

~~~
SAI_Peregrinus
In this case the task named was "get the payload to a specific orbit" and the
parameters of that orbit.

~~~
AdamJacobMuller
The thing is, you can't really be sure that this lack of orbit _wasn 't_
desired.

------
us0r
>The payload was suspected to have burned up in the atmosphere after failing
to separate perfectly from the upper part of the SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket

>A SpaceX spokesman told the news service: "We do not comment on missions of
this nature, but as of right now reviews of the data indicate Falcon 9
performed nominally."

They are already blaming each other. So if this ends up in court how does that
work? Do they find a cleared jury?

~~~
Robotbeat
Um, blaming each other? WSJ doesn't know crap. For all we know, the mission
was a complete success. And why would someone tell the WSJ otherwise while
risking jailtime? Classified mission.

This headline is BS. Which makes sense, as it's written by Andy Pasztor, a
well-known SpaceX troll.

~~~
nabla9
Clearly it was not a success. Lawmakers were briefed on a failure because it
was a failure.

Payload seems to have failed to separate and it burned in the atmosphere.
Failure to separate is almost certaionly on SpaceX.

~~~
Robotbeat
No, SpaceX clearly said it was a success, and that the rocket performed
nominally as planned. [s]Payload separation is part of rocket performance, so
that means that it performed as planned.[/s](EDIT:Just kidding. Payload
adapter was provided by Northrop, so actually separation was Northrop's
responsibility. Normally, SpaceX provides the adapter and would be
responsible.) Lawmakers would be briefed if it were a classified mission with
a misinformation campaign, too.

This is a successful SpaceX launch (and assuming payload sep was even planned,
it would've been performed by Northrop Grumman's payload adapter).

EDIT: I should point out that Northrop actually provided the payload adapter
and handled integration:
[https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43976.msg1...](https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43976.msg1738401#msg1738401)

------
sidcool
Clickbait. Mission did not fail.

------
shmerl
I guess we'll deduce the outcome from whether SpaceX will get further similar
contracts.

------
thewhitetulip
I never understood this, if they are launching a secret satellite, isn't
announcing it to the world defeating the purpose of its secrecy? Why can't
they say we launched "weather satellite"

or am I missing something?

~~~
dogma1138
All launches must be coordinated through the United Nations Office for Outer
Space Affairs even secret ones.

------
eismcc
It’s always possible someone in the control room rotated the antenna away from
earth making impossible to talk to. Heard of this happening before.

~~~
TheCoreh
They should put two antenas, one on each side, to ensure this doesn't happen
:P

------
sandworm101
Lost, or in stealth mode.

------
foota
So was this an error with the payload or the rocket?

~~~
kalmi10
(From the cnbc link: ) A SpaceX spokesman told the news service: "We do not
comment on missions of this nature, but as of right now reviews of the data
indicate Falcon 9 performed nominally."

------
arrty88
Is the rocket reusable though?

~~~
gvb
First stage, yes.

[https://www.space.com/38826-spacex-launches-secret-zuma-
miss...](https://www.space.com/38826-spacex-launches-secret-zuma-mission-
lands-rocket.html)

------
alexnewman
I guess no video?

~~~
gvb
I'm sure there is video but it wasn't and won't be made public.

------
numbsafari
The payload was Captain America. He’s safely been deployed. There was no
“satellite”.

------
microdrum
Yeah, the payload is lost. Lost I tell you.

------
shafyy
How can it be lost? Don't they have a tracking device on it?

~~~
oh_sigh
Can't tell if you are being serious or not, but assuming the satellite didn't
burn up and re-enter the atmosphere, they probably know exactly where the
satellite is. But, if there are bad control parameters, for example maybe it
is spinning wildly, they can't communicate with it because the radios can
never get a lock on each other.

~~~
shafyy
I am being completely serious - not sure why I got downvoted? Yes, I
understand that it probably burned upon re-entry, but then it's not lost but
rather burned. "Lost" makes it sound like they lost in the ocean and can't
find it anymore. So I was confused by the article.

And thanks for clarifying regarding the bad control parameters.

PS: Also, when I added this comment, the title of this was "U.S. Spy Satellite
Believed Lost After SpaceX Mission Fails"

------
cocoa19
It would be nice if the article told you how many successful missions SpaceX
has launched.

I see failed mission articles on HN every once in a while. I have no idea if
this is business as usual, or SpaceX is a company with serious quality issues.

~~~
andygates
They're on about 50 launches, and about 40 with regular payloads rather than
their in-house capsule. The second stage and payload deliver has - to date - a
100% success record. It's a great bit of kit.

The failures have been first-stage related, thus far, and now possibly
customer-adapter related. I can't comment on how many other non-capsule
launches have custom adapters, but SpaceX do make and use their own usually.
To a first approximation, maybe 10% are non-standard?

