7 ms·

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, assum

by natch 9y ago

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 9y ago
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.
- samstave 9y ago
  I agree with this. I really wonder what Zuma was capable of?
  - londons_explore 9y ago
    It was designed to have a very large unfoldable directional antenna to be able to transmit and receive signals in the 500Mhz - 5Ghz range, despite atmospheric attenuation. I would guess the goal was to be able to passively listen to wifi and LTE signals in hostile countries without hardware on the ground. The antenna was sensitive to shocks when folded, hence the modification of the payload adapter to avoid them.
    - jstanley 9y ago
      What?? You mean I can't pick up my wifi from the end of the garden, but there's a chance the US government is listening in from space? Is that seriously possible?
      - sitharus 9y ago
        While I can’t comment on if it would be possible from orbit, there are two components to receiving a radio signal - transmitter strength and antenna gain. These work together to provide a signal clear enough to be amplified in to something usable. In a modern portable device the antenna is quite small and often close to other electronics, so the gain is not great. You can buy dedicated hardware that can receive over much greater distances. Additionally device antennas are omnidirectional, so they pick up noise from every direction but the signal from only one. A directional antenna has much greater gain as it excludes most of the noise.
        dullgiulio 9y ago
        But isn't both WiFi and LTE encrypted?
        sitharus 9y ago
        Yes, but you can obtain other info without the keys, such as SSID locations. Personally I’m doubtful, unless the satellite was in geostationary orbit then it wouldn’t have that long over each location. I guess if it was in a Molniya-type orbit, but that would take it quite high. Guess we’ll never know.
        patcheudor 9y ago
        It depends. Both WiFi and LTE can be attacked via evil-twin attacks where a base station pretends to be the legitimate one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_twin_(wireless_networks) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_twin_(wireless_networks) and: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4392401-4G-LTE-attacks-paper.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4392401-4G-LTE-attac...
        paranoidrobot 9y ago
        Given how frequently we discover major flaws in the implementation of TLS, despite how well that is scrutinised. It's not unreasonable to believe there would similarly be major flaws in the implementation of 3G/LTE security that could be exploited.
    - jimrandomh 9y ago
      That is awfully specific for a pseudonymous uncited post about a spy satellite. I don't think people should believe you.
      - taneq 9y ago
        Agreed. In future when posting detailed technical information about classified military operations, please do so from a verified account and provide sources and reference material. ;)
      - techdragon 9y ago
        I’d say its specific because its a sensible extrapolation based on existing declassified information combined with the small amount of leaked information that has trickled out over the years. While reading about the possible conspiracy that the failure did not happen and it was to cover the launch of a stealth satellite, this was basically the satellite payload I pictured. Based on its role as a high orbit SIGINT satellite it would have a huge antenna, huge antennas are fragile buggers to launch, thus the fancy custom payload adapter.
    - greglindahl 9y ago
      Source?
- walls 9y ago
  Then they went into a briefing and told reporters they needed to ask SpaceX what happened. That's not cool.
  - emeraldd 9y ago
    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 9y ago
      Then they shouldn't have blamed SpaceX.
      - greglindahl 9y ago
        It's unknown who blamed SpaceX; it could have been the Senator from Alabama's staff.
- natch 9y ago
  I think the HN crowd already knows the mission was classified. But as we saw certain aspects of the launch were allowed to be mentioned. For example, SpaceX made a statement afterward about what they knew. This aspect was not classified. Lawyers don't just tell you what you can and cannot say. They also sometimes tell you what you should and should not say for PR purposes or to manipulate a situation. There's plenty of room here to call this an ethical failure.
- caconym_ 9y ago
  It's certainly possible, but I'm not sure I'd "presume" it. NG certainly had a motivation to cover up a failure they were responsible for, whether or not they were legally required to stay quiet.
jws 9y ago
I'd be interested to know who the unnamed sources that fed the false narrative to Bloomberg and the WSJ about it being a SpaceX problem were. (I think those were the originating news organizations, but I may be remembering that wrong.) This was a month before the Falcon Heavy launch which had a reasonable chance of a spectacular failure. Priming the public to think of SpaceX as a satellite destroyer and then a high profile failure would have been fantastic for United Launch Alliance. I think it was pretty clear that SpaceX's customers didn't believe it as a SpaceX problem. Subsequent launches were not delayed pending investigation as they were for legitimate failures. Or maybe it was just sloppy reporting from some guy shooting off his mouth.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  The Wall Street Journal’s rocket reporter, Andy Pasztor [1], has had an anti-commercial space bias since as far back as I can remember. His sources appear to be Boeing and Lockheed Martin company men. His reporting echoes their world views, inaccuracies and all. [1] https://www.wsj.com/news/author/1472 https://www.wsj.com/news/author/1472
  - TheBill 9y ago
    Plus take the fact that Lockheed/Boeing/ULA are public and SpaceX is not. Take the fall long and public enough that by the time the market would adjust their pricing it's largely been forgotten.
  - neuronexmachina 9y ago
    Yep, even before I saw your comment I guessed that the initial SpaceX hit-piece was written by Andy Pasztor.
  - Wile_E_Quixote 9y ago
    Looking through the recent Wall Street Journal A. Pasztor headlines that you've linked to, it seems Northrop Grumman has also been having production issues with the James Webb Space Telescope satellite. Upon further search, I haven't yet seen any articles claiming that the issues are technical mistakes, only that they were "avoidable". Not a great PR month for NG.
dfsegoat 9y ago
This is assuming it actually failed. https://allthingsnuclear.org/lgrego/lost-in-space-the-zuma-satellite https://allthingsnuclear.org/lgrego/lost-in-space-the-zuma-s...
thomaskcr 9y ago
The only reason this is even a thing is because Musk's fans are involved. Every other launch on all of wikipedia is a "Success", "Partial Failure" or "Failure" - regardless of who is at fault. Only SpaceX would get a special "Launch success", because it's always everyone's fault except ~~Tesla~~ SpaceX. Look at Arianespace's last "Partial launch failure" -- upper stage was developed by a completely different company but it was still a launch failure. I think Northrop just didn't want to get involved in the silliness.
- greglindahl 9y ago
  Yeah, about that Atlas V failure that's recorded as a success? I guess Tesla/SpaceX is at fault for that, too. Those 2 Soyuz launches that I edited on Wikipedia from success to failures, that must be Tesla/SpaceX's fault, too.

by natch 9y ago

jimrandomh 9y ago

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.

samstave 9y ago
I agree with this. I really wonder what Zuma was capable of?
- londons_explore 9y ago
  It was designed to have a very large unfoldable directional antenna to be able to transmit and receive signals in the 500Mhz - 5Ghz range, despite atmospheric attenuation. I would guess the goal was to be able to passively listen to wifi and LTE signals in hostile countries without hardware on the ground. The antenna was sensitive to shocks when folded, hence the modification of the payload adapter to avoid them.
  - jstanley 9y ago
    What?? You mean I can't pick up my wifi from the end of the garden, but there's a chance the US government is listening in from space? Is that seriously possible?
    - sitharus 9y ago
      While I can’t comment on if it would be possible from orbit, there are two components to receiving a radio signal - transmitter strength and antenna gain. These work together to provide a signal clear enough to be amplified in to something usable. In a modern portable device the antenna is quite small and often close to other electronics, so the gain is not great. You can buy dedicated hardware that can receive over much greater distances. Additionally device antennas are omnidirectional, so they pick up noise from every direction but the signal from only one. A directional antenna has much greater gain as it excludes most of the noise.
      - dullgiulio 9y ago
        But isn't both WiFi and LTE encrypted?
        sitharus 9y ago
        Yes, but you can obtain other info without the keys, such as SSID locations. Personally I’m doubtful, unless the satellite was in geostationary orbit then it wouldn’t have that long over each location. I guess if it was in a Molniya-type orbit, but that would take it quite high. Guess we’ll never know.
        patcheudor 9y ago
        It depends. Both WiFi and LTE can be attacked via evil-twin attacks where a base station pretends to be the legitimate one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_twin_(wireless_networks) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_twin_(wireless_networks) and: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4392401-4G-LTE-attacks-paper.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4392401-4G-LTE-attac...
        paranoidrobot 9y ago
        Given how frequently we discover major flaws in the implementation of TLS, despite how well that is scrutinised. It's not unreasonable to believe there would similarly be major flaws in the implementation of 3G/LTE security that could be exploited.
  - jimrandomh 9y ago
    That is awfully specific for a pseudonymous uncited post about a spy satellite. I don't think people should believe you.
    - taneq 9y ago
      Agreed. In future when posting detailed technical information about classified military operations, please do so from a verified account and provide sources and reference material. ;)
    - techdragon 9y ago
      I’d say its specific because its a sensible extrapolation based on existing declassified information combined with the small amount of leaked information that has trickled out over the years. While reading about the possible conspiracy that the failure did not happen and it was to cover the launch of a stealth satellite, this was basically the satellite payload I pictured. Based on its role as a high orbit SIGINT satellite it would have a huge antenna, huge antennas are fragile buggers to launch, thus the fancy custom payload adapter.
  - greglindahl 9y ago
    Source?
walls 9y ago
Then they went into a briefing and told reporters they needed to ask SpaceX what happened. That's not cool.
- emeraldd 9y ago
  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 9y ago
    Then they shouldn't have blamed SpaceX.
    - greglindahl 9y ago
      It's unknown who blamed SpaceX; it could have been the Senator from Alabama's staff.
natch 9y ago
I think the HN crowd already knows the mission was classified. But as we saw certain aspects of the launch were allowed to be mentioned. For example, SpaceX made a statement afterward about what they knew. This aspect was not classified. Lawyers don't just tell you what you can and cannot say. They also sometimes tell you what you should and should not say for PR purposes or to manipulate a situation. There's plenty of room here to call this an ethical failure.
caconym_ 9y ago
It's certainly possible, but I'm not sure I'd "presume" it. NG certainly had a motivation to cover up a failure they were responsible for, whether or not they were legally required to stay quiet.

jws 9y ago

I'd be interested to know who the unnamed sources that fed the false narrative to Bloomberg and the WSJ about it being a SpaceX problem were. (I think those were the originating news organizations, but I may be remembering that wrong.) This was a month before the Falcon Heavy launch which had a reasonable chance of a spectacular failure. Priming the public to think of SpaceX as a satellite destroyer and then a high profile failure would have been fantastic for United Launch Alliance. I think it was pretty clear that SpaceX's customers didn't believe it as a SpaceX problem. Subsequent launches were not delayed pending investigation as they were for legitimate failures. Or maybe it was just sloppy reporting from some guy shooting off his mouth.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
The Wall Street Journal’s rocket reporter, Andy Pasztor [1], has had an anti-commercial space bias since as far back as I can remember. His sources appear to be Boeing and Lockheed Martin company men. His reporting echoes their world views, inaccuracies and all. [1] https://www.wsj.com/news/author/1472 https://www.wsj.com/news/author/1472
- TheBill 9y ago
  Plus take the fact that Lockheed/Boeing/ULA are public and SpaceX is not. Take the fall long and public enough that by the time the market would adjust their pricing it's largely been forgotten.
- neuronexmachina 9y ago
  Yep, even before I saw your comment I guessed that the initial SpaceX hit-piece was written by Andy Pasztor.
- Wile_E_Quixote 9y ago
  Looking through the recent Wall Street Journal A. Pasztor headlines that you've linked to, it seems Northrop Grumman has also been having production issues with the James Webb Space Telescope satellite. Upon further search, I haven't yet seen any articles claiming that the issues are technical mistakes, only that they were "avoidable". Not a great PR month for NG.

dfsegoat 9y ago

This is assuming it actually failed. https://allthingsnuclear.org/lgrego/lost-in-space-the-zuma-satellite https://allthingsnuclear.org/lgrego/lost-in-space-the-zuma-s...

thomaskcr 9y ago

The only reason this is even a thing is because Musk's fans are involved. Every other launch on all of wikipedia is a "Success", "Partial Failure" or "Failure" - regardless of who is at fault. Only SpaceX would get a special "Launch success", because it's always everyone's fault except ~~Tesla~~ SpaceX. Look at Arianespace's last "Partial launch failure" -- upper stage was developed by a completely different company but it was still a launch failure. I think Northrop just didn't want to get involved in the silliness.

greglindahl 9y ago
Yeah, about that Atlas V failure that's recorded as a success? I guess Tesla/SpaceX is at fault for that, too. Those 2 Soyuz launches that I edited on Wikipedia from success to failures, that must be Tesla/SpaceX's fault, too.