
Probes Point to Northrop Grumman Errors in January SpaceX Spy-Satellite Failure - uptown
https://www.wsj.com/articles/probes-point-to-northrop-grumman-errors-in-january-spy-satellite-failure-1523220500
======
natch
There are at least two large problems relating to this inside Northrop Grumman
as I see it.

One, the apparent technical mistakes that led to the failure, assuming these
separate probes are correct.

Two, the apparent ethical failure and cowardice of top Northrop Grumman
management, which has as far as I can tell has sat by silently letting SpaceX
be blamed.

~~~
jimrandomh
I don't think it's fair to call it an ethical failure. The mission was
classified; presumably they asked their lawyers what they could say, and their
lawyers told them not to say anything.

~~~
walls
Then they went into a briefing and told reporters they needed to ask SpaceX
what happened. That's not cool.

~~~
emeraldd
It's entirely possible they didn't officially have the telemetry to answer any
questions until speaking with SpaceX. They also have a responsibility to their
own investors and business to get the answers right the first time.

~~~
duncan_bayne
Then they shouldn't have blamed SpaceX.

~~~
greglindahl
It's unknown who blamed SpaceX; it could have been the Senator from Alabama's
staff.

------
djsumdog
This is a classified satellite. There is also the very real possibility that
it successfully launched, and both SpaceX and NG were paid to report that the
satellite didn't make it to orbit.

~~~
nradov
That's not possible. Anyone with a decent radar or telescope can track the
satellite. There's nowhere to hide in orbit. We don't know what was in the
satellite but we do know it isn't there any more.

~~~
patentatt
It does seem that it would be much much simpler to "hide" in another
satellite, i.e., just have a third-party cutout launch a run-of-the-mill
communications satellite and piggy-back your top-secret spy shit onboard. That
way anyone looking will just see the communications satellite. No need for
stealth

~~~
nradov
There's no way to keep that kind of thing secret. Too many people involved in
building commercial satellites. Plus commercial comsats are either too small,
or in the wrong orbit.

US intelligence agencies do purchase some imagery from commercial photo
satellites. It's lower resolution than spy satellites but helps to fill in for
coverage gaps.

------
gumby
This is especially sad as Grumman made the LM ("LEM" \-- Apollo lunar lander)

Actually, looking at their publicity page, various companies and divisions
that made parts of the Apollo program got rolled up into the current
conglomerate.

Edit: forgot to include the publicity/brag page:
[http://www.northropgrumman.com/AboutUs/OurHeritage/Pages/Ins...](http://www.northropgrumman.com/AboutUs/OurHeritage/Pages/Inspace.aspx)

------
samstave
What would the condition of the satellite be if it re-entered the atmosphere?
Total burn up? Or is there some remnants of a $3.5 billion dollar object that
are worth recovery - at least to ensure none of it got picked up by another
state?

~~~
pbreit
I presume building a second would cost far less.

~~~
wereHamster
Don't companies build at least two versions anyway? There are three almost
exact replicas of the Curiosity mars rover if I recall correctly. Building two
copies instead of just one adds very little cost (relative to the overall cost
of the whole project).

~~~
msl
One JPL-related source [1] indicates that the second copy can generally be
obtained for 15% of the price of the first one. The primary source is
"Interview with Gentry Lee, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, June 1, 1984." I doubt
things have changed very much since.

[1]
[https://history.nasa.gov/computers/Ch6-3.html](https://history.nasa.gov/computers/Ch6-3.html)

------
exabrial
Non paywall version anywhere?

~~~
douglascalhoun
try opening the article and then paste this into your browser's URL bar:

    
    
      javascript:window.location.href='https://m.facebook.com/l.php?u='+encodeURIComponent(window.location.href);

------
debt
$3.5 billion dollar satellite? That must've been one hell of a piece of
equipment. I really can't even imagine would was on that thing that would cost
that much to develop.

~~~
dqpb
Maybe the $3.5 billion dollar transaction _was_ the product.

~~~
matt_the_bass
Why the down votes? I think it’s cynical but certainly within the realm of
possible.

~~~
BookmarkSaver
>I think it’s cynical but certainly within the realm of possible.

Just about anything is "within the realm of possible". Without even a shred of
actual positive evidence, this is just obnoxious flat-earth level conspiracy
bullshit. You could make the exact same statement about just about every
single government expenditure you are too lazy to research. Unless you have a
basis for suspicion, this is just a waste of time that is pandering to people
who flatter themselves with their "realistic" worldview.

~~~
matt_the_bass
Well, a lot of the discussion on this post is about other possible conspiracy
theories (imho less cynical than this one), so I thought I’d was relevant that
the GP was suggested as one possible option. The other theories are not much
supported either.

