Zuma Non-Update Update

1. If the long-time defense department contractor, NG and the government decide to blame SpaceX, would SpaceX even be allowed to release any telemetry to the public to defend themselves if the telemetry tells a different story than what the government and NG put forward (assuming that happens)?

   Will the investigation be an objective one, or will it be already decided before it starts? Who will conduct the investigation? I’m assuming the government and NG will see SpaceX telemetry but that SpaceX likely won’t be able to see NG telemetry.

   1. Why do you assume that? Are there separate telemetry streams for the launch vehicle and the payload prior to separation?

      1. Two separate steams would be unusual (and possibly impossible.) But there is such a thing as security through obscurity. What if bits 0-7 in word 4 of the payload adaptor/Zuma telemetry packet changed from 142 to 203? Does that tell you anything in particular? SpaceX could have all the telemetry, but unless someone’s sharing the documentation to make sense of it, that isn’t informative.

         At the same time, I really doubt this would end up with any finger pointing or legal action, let alone rigged against one company or another. Whoever payed for Zuma clearly doesn’t want any discussion of details, any both SpaceX and Northrop probably wouldn’t want to offend an important customer.

         1. Then it’ll be interesting to see how SpaceX fares in the classified government launch services market in the future.

         2. Interesting thought, but if (and I’m assuming from the current discussions here) the launch vehicle is responsible for commanding the separation, wouldn’t the launch vehicle vendor need to have knowledge of the telemetry stream relevant to separation, especially if the launch vehicle still has post separation tasks to complete (such as 2nd stage de-orbit)?

         3. IIRC, there was something in one of the international treaties that was supposed to prevent telemetry data, even on military DDT&E launches from being encrypted. Suppose any telemetry was not only encrypted, but relayed back through other military communication satellites so that the signals couldn’t be tracked? “Who knows what lurks in the hearts of man? The Shadow knows! Mha, ha, ha, ha, ha!”

2. As best I understand things, the Air Force’s EELV system typically has the separation mechanism under the responsibility of the payload provider (See 2.1.5.1 on page 10, here: https://info.aiaa.org/tac/S…. As other commenters have noted, presumably it is the responsibility of the launch vehicle or ground control to provide the separation command to the separation mechanism?) The original EELV’s (Atlas V & Delta IV) were intended to use the same interface for the payload adapter and it seems that there is a fair amount of standardization of payload separation mechanisms for EELV as a result. As far as I know, there have been no previously reported issues with payload separation on any of the 112 other EELV launches so far (including 2 Falcon 9 EELV missions prior to Zuma). My understanding is that the large DoD payload missions on Falcon 9 were procured with the requirement that the Falcon 9 provide the same payload interface as the EELV standard. Presumably that means that EELV payloads flown on Falcon 9 at least have a possibility of using the same separation mechanism that they would use on the other EELV’s? If so, then first question – was the Zuma launch an EELV mission?, and second question – if so, did Northrop Grumman use a typical EELV payload separation mechanism with flight heritage, or a unique system?

   1. Version 2.0 of the Falcon 9 users’ guide says, “This interface is designed to conform to the EELV 1575-mm (62.01 in.) diameter medium payload class mechanical interface defined in the EELV Standard Interface Specification Rev. A July 2012.” In addition, the Falcon 9 definitely can (and often does) use the EELV Secondary Payload Adapter, which also used by Atlas V & Delta IV. So it seems pretty clear that the Falcon 9 interface is no different from other EELVs.

      As for Zuma being, formally, an EELV mission, I don’t think so. At least, Northrop Grumman contracted for the launch service directly. It wasn’t a government launch procurement.

      As for what Northrop Grumman did for the separation mechanism, no one is saying anything. I suspect they aren’t going to. If this does end up in litigation, it’s going to be fun for the judge and jury. How do they handle a court cases where all the evidence is classified?

      1. The answer to your last question is easy. Put yourself in the place of a juror. NG will have to prove that Spacex is liable. Spacex has no burden of proof. If NG’s case is that we have evidence that Spacex is liable, but we cannot tell you what it is, well no jury in the world is going to find Spacex liable. In fact, I doubt that any lawyer would even take the case to trial. Even the judge would not have a classified clearance. There is a classified court for intelligence under FISA, but no classified court for civil claims, which this is. Worst case, NG no longer does business with Spacex, which is no big deal given NG’s limited sat business. Worse, NG will be at the mercy of ULA. They certainly could not ship such a payload to Guyana and use Ariannespace.

         1. Just a side note: Northrop Grumman’s satellite business may not be limited in the future. They announced plans to buy Orbital ATK last September. Although Orbital ATK is more of a satellite builder than operator.

      2. Thanks for the answers. Interesting point about NG procuring the launch for the government. Does that mean that from the government’s perspective, even if SpaceX is at fault for the failure, would NG still be responsible to the government for the failure since it was their vendor that was at fault?

         1. You’re asking about the details of a contract between Northrop Grumman and a government agency which doesn’t even want to be identified. The liabilities could be just about anything, depending on how the contract was written. Don’t hold your breath waiting for the fine print to be publicly released. Of course, there would also be a contract (probably specifying liabilities) between Northrop Grumman and SpaceX. That could also say more or less anything, could make the terms of the contract proprietary and (now that I think of it) might specify non-public arbitration in case of a failure and dispute over liability.

      3. This does not have to be a jury trial.

         1. A defendant in a civil trial has a right to a jury trial. If NG does not agree, judge would have to dismiss case

      4. By the time it gets that far, the facts might be declassified. The wheels of justice turn very slowly so the the lawyers have plenty of time to scrape up their share of the plunder. 😉

   2. Zuma was at least not a typical DOD mission, we do not even know which government agency funded it. Nevertheless the payload adapter was made by NG and it seems to me that SpaceX should get the benefit of the doubt. Apparently it achieved orbit but re-entered when the second stage performed an automated deorbit burn.

   3. If SpaceX has previously only used non-explosive separation devices for payload separation and this flight was the first to use an explosive or different separation device, it could be that there is a design flaw when using this new method.

3. I wonder if this is payback for SpaceX suing the USAF over classified launches.

   https://www.politico.com/st…

   How Elon Musk exposed billions in questionable Pentagon spending
   ten years after a joint operation of Boeing and Lockheed Martin was born, the FTC’s direst warnings have come true, along with outcomes even the skeptics did not predict.

   By MATTHEW NUSSBAUM
   05/13/2016 11:31 AM EDT
   Updated 05/15/2016 03:33 PM EDT

4. Rep. Garamendi advances the story further by revealing that there was a failure and that Spacex and Northrup Grumman are blaming each other. I think he is dead wrong about litigation given that this was one of the most closely classified US launches ever. So you would not be able to tell a jury anything and Spacex has a legal right to a jury trial.
   So given that there is a dispute, two theories:
   1. The Falcon was supposed to send the release command to the NG adapter and failed to do so correctly. Presumably someone here knows if that is SOP or if the adapter is more autonomous normally.
   2. The NG adapter did not release and the Falcon second stage automatically re-entered taking the payload with it. NG can claim that had Spacex aborted the automatic re-entry, they would have time to resolve the anomaly. Its not clear if Spacex has the capability to override the automated reentry sequence, but even if they do not, NG can claim that they should and that this is a negligent design.

   1. There’s the additional complication that NG likely did not actually make the separation mechanism themselves, but procured it from a third party. They are rather specialized systems and most of them are made by a very small number of vendors, particularly for the EELV missions. Most of those vendors sell the same mechanism of minor variations there of to multiple customers, so failure of one of these separation mechanisms is generally of direct interest to a larger segment of the space flight community than just the effected mission. Conversely, that means the vendors of these mechanisms have an important business reputation to protect when one of their products is involved in a failure and would have strong incentive for their product to be publicly vindicated if it was not the actual cause of the failure. The same can probably be said of a number of the sub components in the system. So, if this goes to open lawfare, expect it to be more complicated than a two way thing.

      1. It isn’t clear of Northrop Grumman made the payload adapter themselves or bought it from third party. If they did it themselves, as a one-off design, that might speak to reliability. But it they bought it, the third party is probably safe from bad press, since it seems Northrop Grumman can’t say anything about the spacecraft, let alone name subcontractors.

   2. If that information was classified and not declassified, Rep. Garamendi could be charged with a security violation. Following the former Sec of State, all he has to do in his defense is to say he didn’t know it was classified.

      1. Just because Rep. Garamendi said Zuma was a failure does not make it so. The statement could be intentional dis-information or simply ignorance of the truth. What kind of a name is “Zuma” anyway? A corruption of “zoom-a”? Some sort of space plane? Something stealthy? If it was a failure, what sort of device was it that was so super-secret that no agency even “owns” it?

         1. Right off the top of my head, Zuma’s a beach in Malibu; a video game; an archeological site in the Sudan; and I’m sure a few other things, too.
            As with everything related to the Zuma mission, I an only offer guesses

            1. The current president of South Africa is Jacob Zuma. I believe it can also refer to a style of Japanese restaurants (small portions ordered multiple times during a meal.)

               Of course, we could start a backronym contest. Zero Uncertainty Missile Acquisition?

            2. Now you can add “possibly random code name of a billion dollar lost military satellite” to the list. 😉

         2. More likely it is simple ignorance. The discussions in this thread, mostly by folks who know what they are discussing, are so WAY down in the weeds that even a dedicated science reporter will be hard-pressed to explain.

            1. …and this technical discussion is still pretty much just a more detailed description of the same two possibilities.

5. What is interesting about Zuma is we really don’t know anything, and the way we got to this point will be a subject of study for years to come. Conspiracy theorists were just delivered a truckload of yummy chew toys they’ll be gnawing on for years. For people who really want to keep something a secret, they just got the playbook.

   1. Lol on the “yummy chew toys” metaphor, Willam. Consider it stolen and stashed. 😉

6. “”U.S. Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.), who said he received a
   “preliminary briefing,” had two concerns about the possible loss of the
   satellite. “One is the loss of the intelligence that would have been
   available,” he said.”

   Which, assuming Rep. Garamendi’s concern is accurate, does indicate that Zuma had an intelligence function. That’s more than we actually knew before. Given NRO’s “not us” statement, that would seem to leave CIA or NSA, super-secrecy not appearing to be NGA’s thing. I’m guessing CIA.

   1. And before the launch didn’t Elon call Zuma the most expensive and important payload his company has ever handled? That raises the bar quite a bit for folks who are willing to speculate.
      I doubt Keith would let us get into much of a theory-fest here though as to what is (was) Zuma. Sure looking forward to the documentary when the word finally gets out about all of this though.

7. LOL, Iridium Guy can’t spell “Northrop.”

8. Since a couple of people have asked, I won’t make this a reply to anyone in particular.

   On the interface between the Falcon 9 and the payload, the User’s Guide specifies that up to 24 commands may be sent to the payload, typically handled as 12 redundant commands. In addition, “Separation device commands are used to initiate spacecraft separation from the second stage.”

   The second stage can detect up to 12 separation events through breakwire pairs (just a circuit which is broken at separation, I believe) and puts this in the telemetry to the ground. At least one such signal per separation is required.

   I can’t find anything about the second stage actually _responding_ to any signal it gets from the payload.

   In addition to deorbit, the second stage can preform post-separation maneuvers. Specifically, in the case of multiple payloads (say the Orbcomm or Iridium launches), they can put different satellites in different orbits. I’d say that would be more reliable if there were some ability to respond to a failed separation. But it wouldn’t be necessary.

   The text on multiple payloads is interesting. It says the customer is responsible for integrating them, and that they support a broad range of dispenser systems. Customers can either buy them on their own or have SpaceX handle it as a non-standard service. That means leaving the separation mechanism in the customer’s hands isn’t unique to Zuma.

   The big warnings about this. The User’s Guide only describes the standard or normal services. 1) It’s full of statements that they can provide non-standard services, but it will cost more and anyone interested should contact them (presumable with a checkbook in hand.) Also, 2) Zuma is non-standard in so many ways, it’s hard to tell which, if any, of the practices described above apply.

   1. This older payload handbook suggests that the vehicle provides the signal, although not normally for pyrobolts

      5.3. Payload Interfaces Falcon 9 will provide the pyrotechnic impulses necessary to initiate separation events. The launch vehicle will also provide a signal to the payload at separation to initiate payload power-up. Alternate configurations for separation signals (break‐wires, separation switches monitored directly by the payload, or other configurations) can be accommodated as options.

      Is it possible this is the first Falcon payload to actually use a pyrotechnic separation system? Could the voltage have been wrong to detonate the bolts?

      1. A question I have is, does Iridium uses pyros to separate and is the 2nd stage used to command that (10 of the 12 available commands would seem to say that it does).

         Another variation is the voltage is supplied, but is it the correct voltage (including margin) and enough current. If it supplies a voltage, I would thing the voltage would be measured and sent back on telemetry. Another question would be does the cable have low enough impedance for the required current (so the voltage doesn’t drop when firing the pyro). This is basic stuff but the simple stuff can get you sometimes.

         1. This is getting pretty far down into the weeds. I’m not sure about the Iridium deployments. Orbcomm uses a couple ESPA rings, but I think that allows for six spacecraft each, with either pyro, non-pyro or a mix of both separations.
            I’d think separate command could be used for each deployment, or they could use a single one to initiate a canned sequence. That’s probably up to the customer.

            As far as the available information in the telemetry, I don’t know and the details are something I’d expect to be proprietary. But, at least for the sort of spacecraft (not launch vehicles) I’m familiar with, voltages (plural) are on the list. So are currents (again plural.) The number, precision and time resolution depend on the application. But think in terms of an aircraft’s black box. The sorts of things you’d expect to find there (except the cockpit voice recorder) go into the telemetry stream.

            This is really the sort of thing failure investigations do. They look at which telemetry channels twitched when they shouldn’t have, which didn’t twitch when they should have, and try to find a failure mechanism which matches the data. Sometimes it’s pretty obvious. Sometimes, the telemetry supports more than one possible failure mechanism. And people who have done this sort of thing tend to have opinions about what needs to go into the telemetry stream (Personally, I don’t like sampling; I have a strong preference for min/max/average.) But in most cases, the details aren’t in the public domain, and that’s going to be especially true of the Zuma launch.

            1. I was unaware of the complexity of the electrical signal needed to fire a pyro actuator. I have the impression SpaceX encourages customers to use the non-pyro (I presume pneumatic) deployment mechanism because it can be functionally tested prior to launch. Personally, with the history of uncommon but persistent failures of pyrotechnic actuators over better than half a century of space exploration, I would rather use an actuator that can be functionally tested wihout blowing itself up.

            2. Some pyros are pretty simple. They aren’t as precise when it comes to things like latency (how many millisecond between flipping the switch and something going boom.) But the simple ones are cheap and you can do quality control by testing a whole bunch and continuing to test randomly selected one.

   2. Thanks for the finds guys, informative stuff. I’ll follow your lead and post one reply to multiple parts of this thread.

      Speaking generically, payload separation mechanisms are not necessarily pyrotechnic in nature. Some are, but there are also non-pyrotechnic devices that work by a number of different means. For pyrotechnic devices, the electrical impulse required to initiate the device is more complex than just a matter of providing sufficient voltage. For instance, the current level and the rise time and duration of the current are also often critical parameters. (Think of the detonator boxes you see in movies.) Typically there is a low voltage command signal that triggers a (non-trivial) pyrotechnic impulse circuit to release its stored or externally supplied electrical energy in the correct impulse to initiate the pyrotechnic material. In practice, there are a number of safety elements in play that make even the chain from the point of origination of the separation command to the reception of that command by the pyro firing circuit non-trivial itself. Similar complexity can apply to non-pyrotechnic separation devices. Based on the mix of Falcon 9 missions to date, I would expect that it has flown with both pyro and non pyro devices as well as with various permutations of responsibility between the launch vehicle and payload provider. (We know that it has been publicly stated that NG provided the Zuma separator, but obviously SpaceX provides separation of the Dragon for instance.) As for the liability questions, the industry around these devices is rather small and many other potential customers will be able to infer a lot about who was involved, so I would not necessarily assume that sub vendors would be satisfied with having their market reputations shielded with anonymity by NG’s secrecy. If the congressman is right that the lawsuits are going to fly, I really doubt that it will be contained to a two way fight.

      Agreed that publicly available information is too limited to know much of this detail about the Zuma mission, but from these user guides it is reasonable to infer that there is telemetry confirmation of the separation command(s) being issued and the separation event having been completed and that the conducting entity of the launch would see this telemetry data. There does not seem to be any indication that the telemetry stream includes more detailed data about the performance of the various elements within the complex chain of electrical, mechanical, and (possibly) pyrotechnic events that occurs between the issuing of the command and completion of the separation. Nor does it appear that the available telemetry data necessarily coincides with the break in responsibility between vendors in this chain of events (for instance, it is possible that the telemetry shows a command was issued, but does not provided detailed health data about the electrical signal actually delievered at the interface between the launch vehicle provider and the payload provider). Also note that the full chain of events for separation probably cannot be tested preflight on the actual flight hardware – for instance, pyrotechnic material cannot be detonated or fracture joints broken more than once, so one has to test representative samples and trust in the quality control applied to the actual flight units.

      From the publicly known discussion of the Zuma mission, it seems reasonable to infer that flight telemetry and/or external tracking (likely both) indicate that launch performance was nominal up to and including issuing the separation command(s), but that subsequent confirmation of separation was not received. It also seems likely that the available data may not be sufficient at face value to establish a root cause for failure, at least without non-standard analysis that may be open to interpretation and dispute. It is also likely that the fault tree includes possible causes for failure that involve both the launch vehicle provider and the payload provider as well as various sub vendors, thus putting responsibility for the failure at least initially into a gray area. The congressman’s statements indicate that based on what he has been told he thinks this is the case and that it is in this gray area he expects the lawyers to see a business opportunity.

9. I believe SpaceX. They have no reason to lie about it and would have the evidence to prove their position but would be bound by confidentiality. So they are in a tough position. Keep quiet and lose credibility, or tell the truth and get sued by Northrup Grumman while losing billions in defense contracts which they might anyways with the way the senators are whining. This could have been the purpose of the contract in the first place, to bring them down.
   But here is my input on the launch… The second stage fired as planned according to SpaceX, which would have brought both the payload and the second stage into orbit to be released. The payload doesn’t have rockets to put itself into orbit. So if the second stage fired both times as planned then it is in the ellipse that keeps it from falling to earth, unless the return rockets took it back to earth to burn in the atmosphere.
   Then the fact that thousands of people reported seeing an upper atmospheric explosion over Russia after the launch which they said could be felt, like a shock wave for hundreds of miles in each direction. Then the hacker QAnon sent a cryptic message in relation to that date which he said to look for weeks in advance. Then he sent a confirmation message “SKY FORTRESS ENGAGED” and “DEFCON 1”. So he obviously believes the mission was a success.

   1. Also, SpaceX has made a very early, very confident public pronouncement on something that will, eventually, come to light. In many ways they are still breaking into this industry and would have more to lose by going against evidence that, as several folks here have pointed out, they have had the best look at of anyone.

10. I’m not sure I even buy the story that Zuma was lost. If it is a new kind of stealth satellite, what a perfect way to confuse our adversaries. I bet Russia and China are still looking for it in orbit.

    1. As are countless amateurs. The chances anyone could hide a bird are zero.

       1. I’ll play the devil’s advocate just this one time: what if Zuma was the perfected result of the NRO’s alleged Misty project? You can’t see, but I emphasized “alleged” a lot.

11. Tom McCuin endured a fairly thorough, free-for-all Tweet-thrashing from quite a few of us this weekend over this. He also went a few cycles of back and forth with @iridiumboss after the Tweet that Keith quoted here. I can’t speak to the tech, but here is my take. If there were a serious possiblity that this was a signaling error, I think that an important customer like Matt Desch would have been briefed on that possibility, and the impact that it could have on his launch schedule, by now. He would have been sworn to secrecy and not engaged in a long Tweet thread defending SpaceX against Mr-no-where-near-the-information-loop Tom.

12. Would it be likely for the payload to have been insured like a commercial satellite? Or is that not done for government/classified payloads?

    1. I think I’ve said Zuma was/is an exception to most rules. In general, gernment launches are not insured. If you have deep enough pockets to cover the cost of an accident, including replacement costs if necessary, insurance is a bad investment. And the government has very deep pockets. But this launch was contracted for by Northrop Grumman, not directly from a government agency. So NG may have insured the launch (or been required to do so under FAA rules.)

13. “I would have to refer you to SpaceX, who conducted the launch.”

    If the payload failed, or if saying anything at all about it might reveal more than the UGA (unknown government agency) behind it might want, I believe the operative description is “MRDA.” (Feel free to look that up if you’re too young to remember the name Mandy Rhys-Davies.)

14. Now here is a real nasty hit piece, with Washington insider written all over it.

    https://thefederalist.com/2…

    Why SpaceX Is The Snake Oil Peddler Of The Twenty-First Century

    1. SpaceX should continue working to improve — and over the past year, improve it certainly has — but not on the taxpayers’ dime. It’s time to put launches from this big dreamer on pause until it demonstrates steady, proven success.

       Just…wow. Where does one start unraveling this?

       I would say, though, that SX as a serious public relations issue to deal with. Anyone who can spin this situation will do exactly so and get away with it because the issue is simply too complex for the average journo, or reader, to unravel.

       1. I know it means turning away business, but SpaceX might want to consider staying away from really black mission in the future. If it is so heavily classified that a failure on someone else’s part raises unanswerable questions about their product, then maybe it isn’t the sort of mission they want to be involved with.

    2. I have one problem with electronic documents. If a word or phrase is in red, is that a link or the modern equivalent of underlining in red crayon?

Comments are closed.