11 ms·
SpaceX payload code-named Zuma failed to reach orbit after Sunday launch
- shafyy 9y agoHow can it be lost? Don't they have a tracking device on it?
- jrcii 9y agoYep, they stuck an iPhone 6 in there so they could use Find My iPhone for situations like this.
- oh_sigh 9y agoCan'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 9y agoI 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"
- themgt 9y agoAnother link if you're paywalled: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/08/highly-classified-us-spy-satellite-appears-to-be-a-total-loss-after-spacex-launch.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/08/highly-classified-us-spy-sat...
- AdamJacobMuller 9y agoarchive.is is great for getting around paywalls too http://archive.is/5082a http://archive.is/5082a
- microdrum 9y agoYeah, the payload is lost. Lost I tell you.
- Mrtierne 9y agoOr it's all disinformation... dun dun dunnn
- oh_sigh 9y agoWhy bother? No one knows what is on the satellite anyway.
- foota 9y agoThere certainly exist people that do.
- oh_sigh 9y agoOkay....I meant 'the public isn't aware'. It should go without saying that the satellite didn't design and assemble itself at this point in time.
- 333c 9y agoPerhaps foreign governments have suspicions, and whatever agency sent it up wants them to think that it failed.
- toomuchtodo 9y agoThe 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)
- voodooranger 9y ago
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- clarkmoody 9y agoI 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
- QAPereo 9y agoNormally I’d chuckle, but with this who the hell knows?! I can think of a number of sound reasons to lie, but then again, it’s hardly unheard of to lose a payload. I guess we’ll have to see what happens with SpaceX in relation to the military to get a sense of it.
- quotemstr 9y agoThere is no stealth in space though. If you're in orbit and larger than a paint chip, somebody's tracking you. Consequently, lying about the success of the launch is silly. A million things could have gone wrong though.
- d_t_w 9y agoIt's a spy satellite, they probably painted it in camouflage.
- wahern 9y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misty_(satellite) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misty_(satellite) Misty is reported to have optical and radar stealth characteristics, making it difficult for adversaries to detect (and thus predict the times it would fly overhead). Almost everything about the program is classified information.
- polemic 9y agoWhat 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.
- foota 9y agoSo was this an error with the payload or the rocket?
- kalmi10 9y ago(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."
- JshWright 9y agoIt seems it was a failure of the payload to cleanly detach from the rocket. This launch was a little unusual in that the manufacturer supplied both the payload and the payload adapter (the bit that does the detaching), and handled all the integration. Generally SpaceX supplies the adapter, and handles the integration. So, if it turns out it was a payload separation issue, that's still not on SpaceX (despite the fact that it would be in a "normal" launch).
- arrty88 9y agoIs the rocket reusable though?
- gvb 9y agoFirst stage, yes. https://www.space.com/38826-spacex-launches-secret-zuma-mission-lands-rocket.html https://www.space.com/38826-spacex-launches-secret-zuma-miss...
- code777777 9y agoIt's possible this is misinformation.
- Paraesthetic 9y agoOr intentional misdirection away from a secret satellite
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- numbsafari 9y agoThe payload was Captain America. He’s safely been deployed. There was no “satellite”.
- us0r 9y ago>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?
- senectus1 9y agolog/telemetry information I imagine. I'd be surprised if SpaceX didn't have in their contracts that "all results are based on the source of truth. the source of truth that you accept is this telemetry data" All care no responsibility essentially.
- Scipio_Afri 9y agoThat's a great question. I bet the DoD does something like investigate and place fault with an independent way to appeal the ruling.
- Robotbeat 9y agoI bet they don't because it's classified.
- Robotbeat 9y agoUm, 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.
- us0r 9y agoI don't see why its so far fetched that a republican staffer who is anti SpaceX would leak a report (or contents of it) to an anti SpaceX journalist. Northrop is trying to save face so of course they are going to point the finger at SpaceX.
- geerlingguy 9y agoThis 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.
- thewhitetulip 9y agoI 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?
- hyeonwho3 9y agoSpy satellites are regularly tracked by amateur astronomers. There's a bit of a community in finding and sharing their orbital parameters.
- sdenton4 9y agoLocation and trajectories of all satellites have to be closely tracked to avoid collisions.
- dogma1138 9y agoAll launches must be coordinated through the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs even secret ones.
- Rebelgecko 9y agoIn addition to what others have said, during the Cold War there was a concern that the Soviets would freak out if they saw any unexpected rocket launches. Early rockets in particular were just souped up ICBMs
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- eismcc 9y agoIt’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 9y agoThey should put two antenas, one on each side, to ensure this doesn't happen :P
- alexnewman 9y agoI guess no video?
- gvb 9y agoI'm sure there is video but it wasn't and won't be made public.
- pilom 9y agoI 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 9y agoI’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?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- subway 9y agoI too have no experience with satellites, but I imagine a project may not be able to survive the financial burden of a loss.
- regularfry 9y agoI 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 9y agoLaunch 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.
- sandworm101 9y agoLost, or in stealth mode.
- staunch 9y agoRussia 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.
- manicdee 9y agoThis 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 9y agoThere 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 9y agoHere’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
- Robotbeat 9y agoThe 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.msg1738401#msg1738401 https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43976.msg1...
- katastic 9y ago>Oh, and because it's a classified mission, we don't even know if the mission was INTENDED to stay in orbit. More like, it intentionally sent "something" into de-orbit so it's not clear whether there's something up there or not
- api 9y agoThere seems to be an active astroturf campaign against SpaceX and Tesla.
- hobofan 9y ago"After enough time every circlejerk comes with its equal and opposite circlejerk in the opposite direction" - Cyber-Newtons' Third Law ------- On a more serious note: I don't think that there is some significant astroturfing going on. Both companies built a very shiney (and possibly over-inflated) PR image for themselves, with a zealot following, which is bound to annoy some people at some point. Those people than take any chance of a slip-up to try to make that PR bubble pop.
- plaidfuji 9y agoWhat 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.
- trhaynes 9y agoI found https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nominal https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nominal See the "engineering" context: "According to plan or design; normal."
- grzm 9y agoIn this context it means "as expected", nothing out of the ordinary. Sense 5 here: > "5 : being according to plan : satisfactory everything was nominal during the launch" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nominally https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nominally
- foobarbecue 9y agoPermeated technical discourse lately? By lately, do you mean since the 1960s? "Nominal" in engineering means that the predicted value matches the expected value without significant error.
- niftich 9y agoIn 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-nominal-come-to-mean-within-acceptable-tolerances/189686#189686 https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/184876/how-did-n...
- plaidfuji 9y agoYup, 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.
- trothamel 9y agoNote 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 9y agohttp://www.armaghplanet.com/blog/the-real-mystery-satellites.html http://www.armaghplanet.com/blog/the-real-mystery-satellites... 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 9y agoWhat 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.
- valuearb 9y ago"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-launched-by-spacex-may-be-lost-sources-tell-ars/?comments=1&start=80 https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/the-zuma-satellite-l...
- walkingolof 9y agoInteresting there about refueling, apparently it completed at least one orbit according to Spacetracks...
- Robotbeat 9y agoMy 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 9y agoOkay, 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 9y agoPlus, video footage of the car in space could have been obtained in this launch, then conveniently released after Falcon Heavy launch. Neat conspiracy theory!
- ccrush 9y agoTo 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 9y agoIn this case the task named was "get the payload to a specific orbit" and the parameters of that orbit.
- AdamJacobMuller 9y agoThe thing is, you can't really be sure that this lack of orbit wasn't desired.
- Paraesthetic 9y agoIt would make a lot of sense for a spy satellite to 'go missing' it would be so secret everyone would think it burned up. Good thinking Spies.
- sidcool 9y agoClickbait. Mission did not fail.
- cocoa19 9y agoIt 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.
- llamataboot 9y agoIt's hard to determine an acceptable loss/win ratio in this space though. SpaceX is surely pushing a lot of boundaries, with some big winds and losses. I think speculation about what sort of losses are "okay" is mostly editorializing.
- andygates 9y agoThey'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?
- shmerl 9y agoI guess we'll deduce the outcome from whether SpaceX will get further similar contracts.
- King-Aaron 9y agoFrom 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/950507412045352961 https://twitter.com/Marco_Langbroek/status/95050741204535296... 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 9y ago"Photographically documented observation" is probably this one - https://www.reddit.com/r/whatisthisthing/comments/7oy9yi/a_weird_looking_star_showed_up_in_sudans_sky/ https://www.reddit.com/r/whatisthisthing/comments/7oy9yi/a_w...