SpaceX Says Falcon 9 Rocket Performed as Expected During Zuma Launch

[Buster's Uncle]

SpaceX Says Falcon 9 Rocket Performed as Expected During Zuma Launch
Space.com
By Sarah Lewin, Space.com Associate Editor |  January 9, 2018 12:36pm ET



As media reports swirl around the ultimate fate of the U.S. government's secret Zuma mission, which launched atop a SpaceX rocket Sunday (Jan. 7), the private spaceflight company says its Falcon 9 booster performed as expected during the launch. 

"For clarity: after review of all data to date, Falcon 9 did everything correctly on Sunday night," SpaceX President and Chief Operating Officer Gwynne Shotwell said in a statement. "If we or others find otherwise based on further review, we will report it immediately.

"Information published that is contrary to this statement is categorically false," Shotwell continued. "Due to the classified nature of the payload, no further comment is possible."

Shotwell's comments come amid media speculation, including from The Wall Street Journal and Ars Technica, suggesting that the top-secret payload may have fallen back to Earth. The Wall Street Journal reported that lawmakers and congressional staffers had been briefed on the alleged mission failure, according to government and industry officials, and indicated that there might have been a failed separation between the payload and the rocket's second stage. That type of failure could potentially have occurred after a successful Falcon 9 launch.



A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket carrying the secret Zuma spacecraft launches into space from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida on Jan. 7, 2018.  Credit: SpaceX

 
The Zuma mission is SpaceX's third classified launch, and details on the payload are sparse: It was procured by the defense contractor Northrop Grumman, and it was intended for low-Earth orbit. However, the government agency in charge has not been revealed. SpaceX's other classified missions — which launched an X-37B space plane for the U.S. Air Force and an NROL-76 spy satellite for the National Reconnaissance Office — did include those basic details.

The Zuma launch was supposed to occur in November but was delayed so that SpaceX could inspect data from testing on another customer's protective nose cone, called the payload fairing.

According Eric Berger of Ars Technica, Zuma was assigned a number in the satellite catalog Space-Track.org, which implies it was able to make at least one orbit of Earth — but it could have still been attached to the second stage and failed to detach after that point. Berger noted that the payload adapter connecting the stage to the payload and fairing was provided by Northrop Grumman, so a potential separation problem could track back to that company's failure. A Northrop Grumman representative told Space.com the company cannot comment on classified missions.

Because the Falcon 9 functioned correctly, Shotwell said, future SpaceX launches should not be delayed, including the highly anticipated first launch of the company's Falcon Heavy rocket.

"Since the data reviewed so far indicates that no design, operational or other changes are needed, we do not anticipate any impact on the upcoming launch schedule," she said in the statement. "Falcon Heavy has been rolled out to launchpad LC-39A for a static fire later this week, to be followed shortly thereafter by its maiden flight. We are also preparing for an F9 launch for [the communications satellite operator] SES and the Luxembourg Government from SLC-40 in three weeks."

The Falcon Heavy rocket, which is currently slated to launch in late January, will be the most powerful U.S. rocket since NASA's Saturn V. Its core stage was first test-fired in May.


https://www.space.com/39328-spacex-secret-zuma-launch-statement.html

[Unorthodox]

That type of failure could potentially have occurred after a successful Falcon 9 launch.

 A launch isn't successful till you hit the target orbit. 

Berger noted that the payload adapter connecting the stage to the payload and fairing was provided by Northrop Grumman, so a potential separation problem could track back to that company's failure

That is a bizarre situation which is practically asking for problems. 

[Unorthodox]

After sleeping on it I can make a guess as to what happened.

1:  NG contracted to build the satellite prior to 2015.  (about right for a satellite developement)  At the time, ULA was the only certified launch system, so payload designed to fit onto their system.

2: 2015, Space X wins contract to launch security satellites. 

3: NG is awarded more money to make an adapter to fit the Falcon 9.  Would be cheaper and easier than getting Space X classified info to do it the other way around. 

4: Launch hits target, and Satellite reports, getting an official designation. 

5:  Separation fails. 

6:  For some reason Falcon 9 Upper stage begins venting fuel for return to atmosphere, dragging the satellite with it, resulting in the pics floating around the net. 

While the venting is part of separation, it's a little curious it happened if separation failed.  Possibly done to scrap the mission after failure. 

There's a number of potential places for this problem to have happened.  We'll never know for certain due to the classified mission. 

What we do know is we just wasted a billion or more in tax $.

[Geo]

Could it been a ruse? Letting rumors circulate the payload is lost while in reality it executes its mission?

[Buster's Uncle]

That was a thing I immediately wondered.  The Secret Mission ain't been much of a secret.

[Unorthodox]

I'm not going to say anything is IMPOSSIBLE, but it's REALLY hard to hide a satellite launch these days, so the fact of a mission happening but no details isn't unusual. 

I suspect we'd get confirmation in a few days to weeks whether it's actually up there, since there's decent enough evidence of a rough orbit where it should be and unofficial sources will be able to tell relatively quick.  If it's NOT there, it would be a huge waste of money for such a short mission.  This goes into that whole 'we should just send hundreds of smaller satellites that collectively would equal more than the big one" argument comes in.  A failure of this is huge.  A failure of a small one is no big deal.  Plus you could sneak a classified mini sat onto other launches.