
SpaceX says its rocket performed exactly as intended in Zuma launch - artsandsci
https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/09/spacex-says-its-rocket-performed-exactly-as-intended-in-zuma-launch
======
iooi
>The Wall Street Journal and other sources, including our own, had suggested
that Zuma failed to separate from the second stage of the Falcon 9 rocket
following successful first stage separation, at which point it potentially
fell back to Earth and was lost in the ocean.

They're really downplaying how bad their coverage was, it really feels like
people love to watch Space X fail. For example:

WSJ Headline: "U.S. Spy Satellite Believed Lost After SpaceX Mission Fails"

TC Headline: "SpaceX apparently lost the classified Zuma payload from latest
launch"

~~~
ProAm
I dont know enough about the Falcon, but who is responsible for creating the
separation process or mechanism from the second stage of the rocket? I assumed
it would be SpaceX's?

~~~
JshWright
Generally speaking it is SpaceX. However, due to the very sensitive nature of
this payload, the satellite's manufacturer supplied the payload adapter (the
bit that handles the detaching) and did the processing themselves (mating the
two together, etc).

So, in this specific case, if it was a failure of the payload to deploy
properly, that would almost certainly be Northrup Grumman's "fault".

~~~
planteen
> So, in this specific case, if it was a failure of the payload to deploy
> properly, that would almost certainly be Northrup Grumman's "fault".

Many scenarios would point that way, yeah. But there are still things the
launch vehicle (LV) could have done wrong. At the end of the day, this is a
mechanical and electrical interface. Interfaces must be specified and that
always leaves room for misinterpretation or incorrect specifications. There
had to have been an electrical harness that signaled when it was time to
deploy. A failure there could absolutely be on the LV side.

~~~
Symmetry
It seems like the secrecy surrounding the payload and payload adapter can't
help but increase the odds of failure through restricted information flow
between the payload designers and rocket engineers.

------
mabbo
SpaceX is getting paid for a successful launch, meeting their contractual
obligations. The booster landed perfectly. There's no damage to the launchpad
delaying other rockets. There's no investigation into "what went wrong?"
holding back further launches. No real customer is looking at this and going
"Wait, maybe we'd better use ULA instead!" because they know SpaceX launched
just fine.

This is an absolute win for SpaceX, despite however anyone wants to spin it.
Dramatic headlines about the downfall of the successful sell newspapers, but
they don't mean anything real.

~~~
kogepathic
_> SpaceX is getting paid for a successful launch, meeting their contractual
obligations._

I would assume most contracts for space launches involve putting the payload
in question into the correct LEO/GEO, or at least an agreed upon point at
which the payload maneuvers itself into the intended orbit.

 _> The booster landed perfectly._

That benefits SpaceX. The customer isn't likely to care what happens to the
rocket after it launches their payload.

 _> There's no damage to the launchpad delaying other rockets._

Not the customer's problem even if it did explode on the pad. That would be
between the launch company and the launch facility. In the case of a private
customer, the payload is almost always insured (though insurance does little
to help with schedule delays in manufacturing a new payload).

 _> There's no investigation into "what went wrong?" holding back further
launches._

There might be for the US military, we don't know.

 _> No real customer is looking at this and going "Wait, maybe we'd better use
ULA instead!" because they know SpaceX launched just fine._

According to SpaceX's account of the launch.

 _> This is an absolute win for SpaceX, despite however anyone wants to spin
it._

Wouldn't an "absolute win" be launching the payload into the intended orbit
with no anomalies?

~~~
rst
For most launches, it would be SpaceX's job to demate the payload from their
stage -- but not for this one. Unusually (per coverage from Ars and others),
the hardware that mated the payload to the rocket was supplied by the customer
of record, Northrup/Grumman, not SpaceX -- so if it failed, SpaceX can't
really be blamed for that.

[https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/what-we-know-and-
wha...](https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/what-we-know-and-what-we-dont-
about-the-secretive-zuma-payload/)

~~~
mechatronix00
Don’t forget about failure modes driven by out of spec loads, vibration,
shock, acoustics, and thermal environments. A launch vehicle can experience
higher than expected environments and can transmit those to the satellite or
adapter, causing a separation or satellite failure. I’m not saying this
happened but its usually a complicated post flight analysis that takes some
time.

------
peeters
This was an interesting launch. Launch was delayed a couple times IIRC, at
least once due to them wanting to review data from fairing tests. Classified
payload, so no video of fairing separation. On the webcast, the host went
silent for over a minute when fairing separation should have occurred, before
coming back with

> _sigh_ alright so we'll address the fairing deployment here in a second once
> we have more information

Indicating something might be up. Later he just says

> Quick sidebar, we did get successful confirmation that the fairings did
> deploy.

So seems like they knew something was up with the payload at that point, but
that their telemetry indicated their mission was successful.

As others have noted, it was Northrop Grumman who was responsible for the
payload adaptor attaching it to second stage. So unless fairing deployment or
the launch damaged the payload/adaptor somehow, SpaceX would have done their
part.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PWu3BRxn60](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PWu3BRxn60)

~~~
jnsaff2
> On the webcast, the host went silent for over a minute when fairing
> separation should have occurred, before coming back with

Or the host was not cleared to view the fairing separation/payload themselves
and had to get their information from others.

~~~
Robotbeat
Bingo. Everything even close to the payload would need to be approved before
being mentioned by the host. And the penalty for screwing that up is pretty
stiff (for the company and employee), so you sure as heck are going to error
on the side of caution.

------
linsomniac
The launch of a super secret spy satellite failed, the satellite is lost. No
need to worry about a new spy in the sky?

Seems like the sort of thing you'd HAVE to say about a secret satellite... :-)

~~~
mikeash
Yeah, that’s my feeling too. “Everything you could actually see worked fine,
but right afterwards we, uh, like, lost it. Yes, thats right, it’s gone. No
need to look for it.”

~~~
sillysaurus3
So, what are the chances we have more than N nukes in orbit, where N > 0? I've
always wondered.

The time between launch and strike would be greatly reduced. Space is pretty
close to land.

But beyond conspiracy theories, do we know of any confirmed secret satellites?
They should be detectable, but on the other hand there are so many satellites
that it'd be hard to index them all.

What could you do with a secret satellite? It seems like the signals would be
detectable, but I'm not sure.

~~~
aw1621107
>So, what are the chances we have more than N nukes in orbit, where N > 0?
I've always wondered.

Legally speaking, 0, since the Outer Space Treaty forbids placing nuclear
weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in orbit, and all spacefaring
nations so far have signed. Even if the military kept things under wraps, I'm
not so sure that stationing nukes in orbit would provide a significant
advantage, as you would only be able to strike a particular target when it
rotates under your orbit, which means you can hit a target only twice a day at
fairly specific times, while ICBMs can be launched at any time. In addition,
modern ICBMs have flight times on the order of 30 minutes ([0], [1]), so
satellites aren't going to be reaching a target much faster.

Edit: forgot to address another point

>They should be detectable, but on the other hand there are so many satellites
that it'd be hard to index them all.

We already track more than half a million pieces of space debris, with 20,000
of those larger than a softball ([2]), so I'd imagine a "secret" satellite
wouldn't stay secret for long.

    
    
        [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercontinental_ballistic_missile#Flight_phases
        [1]: https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/12028/is-it-correct-that-it-takes-approx-30-minutes-for-an-icbm-to-reach-russia
        [2]: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/news/orbital_debris.html

~~~
njarboe
Seems much easier to smuggle nukes into a country and just have them on
standby in safe houses of the enemy country's large cities. The political
fallout of getting caught doing that might be huge, but back in the Cold War I
could see the CIA or KGB wanting to give it a try. Even if the US or the USSR
(or smaller powers like France) was caught smuggling a nuke, it would likely
be kept under wraps. The political system of a country would not want people
fearing possible hidden foreign nukes where they live.

This scenario might make an interesting book or movie plot, but I have never
heard of one. Spy novel with nukes.

~~~
ddalex
The Peacemaker is a 1990's movie with this exact plot.

~~~
goldenkey
It's also the name of one of the most popular revolvers in American history.
[1]

I don't know what it's called but I love when something is nicknamed for the
antithesis of what it's meant to do: guns/nukes -- killing people. Peacemaker?
You be the judge... [2]

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

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction)

~~~
njarboe
Si vis pacem, para bellum - If you want peace, prepare for war. Roman proverb.

So far nukes have kept the great nations out of war, but the possible Black
Swan event of a large nuclear exchange is a doozy.

------
caio1982
For anyone looking for more technical and "inside" intel on this I suggest
[https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/7p7ev8/official_rsp...](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/7p7ev8/official_rspacex_zuma_postlaunch_discussion_thread/)

My explanation of choice as of today is that NG launched a refueling
(dockable) sat to a previously launched spysat.

~~~
boardwaalk
This blog post suggests that the orbit was much higher than USA 276's:
[https://sattrackcam.blogspot.nl/2018/01/fuel-dump-of-
zumas-f...](https://sattrackcam.blogspot.nl/2018/01/fuel-dump-of-zumas-
falcon-9-upper-stage.html)

------
dooglius
If true, this sounds like the best possible outcome: SpaceX succeeded and will
continue getting closer to Mars, and the NSA or whoever essentially burned
money without getting any more powerful.

~~~
wang_li
>NSA or whoever essentially burned money without getting any more powerful.

If you are an American that was your money. It's not good to simply burn it
up.

~~~
elif
When the alternative is investing it in compromising my own security and
freedom, bring on the bonfire IMO.

~~~
wang_li
What if I tell you the alternative is that they'll just get funding to try
again. They successfully made the case that building and launching this
satellite was necessary. Presumably the same argument will apply.

------
Shivetya
Northrop was in charge of the payload adapter mounting the satellite so as
long as hand over took place I don't see how Space X has an issue other than
being tied in search results to the loss

------
gebeeson
Or. The Zuma payload is working exactly as intended and will be forgotten in a
weeks time once this fades from daily news. Might be a good time to reinforce
your tinfoil hats.

------
benmorris
We'll see how long this blame game continues. My guess is that it Spacex will
continue launching rockets (as normal) and Northrop will keep getting
Satellite contracts. The fuss will likely fade away if the satellite (or
whatever it is) functioned as normal.

I tend to believe this is just misinformation until someone finds some hard
evidence otherwise.

~~~
JshWright
What blame game?

SpaceX says their rocket did its job. Northrup Grumman hasn't said sanything.

------
rsbartram
I wonder if the rocket was recycled like previous SpaceX rockets?
[https://latechnews.org/spacex-launches-
bulgariasat-1-recycle...](https://latechnews.org/spacex-launches-
bulgariasat-1-recycled-rocket/)

~~~
foobarbecue
No, it wasn't. It was core B1043, which had not been previously launched. It
was originally intended for a NASA mission but Zuma swiped it. See
[https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/wiki/cores#wiki_b1043](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/wiki/cores#wiki_b1043)

------
manicdee
There are no credible sources claiming that Zuma failed. All the news we have
heard is rumour and conjecture, with no two reports getting anything like a
consistent story.

F9 S2 deorbited as expected. S2 got to orbit. Thus the payload got to orbit
too.

------
exabrial
Is there insurance for these things? A billion-dollar satellite costs each
person in the USA ~ $3.10.

~~~
QuotedForTruth
There is space launch insurance. Private companies almost always have it since
the risk of a failure and loss of a very expensive satellite is not
negligible.

However, the government tends not to buy insurance. For an entity as big as
the US government, insurance will surely be a net loss when you add up all of
the times they would want to buy it. For instance federal employees don't buy
any of the insurance offered with rental cars. Obviously with the number of
federal rentals, there are lots of accidents that the government must pay for,
but this figure is lower than total cost of all the insurance they would have
to pay for to avoid it.

In general insurance is only advisable if the avoided costs would be too much
for the insured to pay out of pocket. And the federal government can
essentially pay for anything.

That's not even mentioning specific concerns with this highly classified
payload. The insurance company would want some knowledge of what they are
insuring to assess its value and that's just unnecessary risk to the secrecy.

------
onepremise
This is stupid. Nothing went wrong during the launch. It's a top-secret
satellite they are not commenting on. Move along.

------
reaperducer
I don't see anything contradictory here.

Media says Zuma didn't make orbit.

SpaceX says everything worked the way it should have.

I think the flaw is in the second-guessers assuming the mission was to make
orbit, and not to test some kind of (laser?) anti-rocket/satellite technology.

~~~
james_pm
[https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/08/spacex-apparently-lost-
the...](https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/08/spacex-apparently-lost-the-
classified-zuma-payload-from-latest-launch/)

TechCrunch specifically called it out as a Space X failure:

"SpaceX apparently lost the classified Zuma payload from latest launch"

And in the story under that headline:

"The satellite was likely worth billions, according to the WSJ, which makes
this the second billion-dollar plus payload that SpaceX has lost in just over
two years; the last was Facebook’s internet satellite, which was destroyed
when the Falcon 9 it was supposed to launch on exploded during preflight
preparations in September 2016.

This could be a significant setback for SpaceX, since these kinds of contracts
can be especially lucrative, and it faces fierce competition from existing
launch provider ULA, jointly operated by Boeing and Lockheed Martin."

