[AR] Re: Say it ain't so Elon...
- From: Henry Vanderbilt <hvanderbilt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 11:28:08 -0700
On 1/9/2018 9:49 AM, Henry Spencer wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jan 2018, Nels Anderson wrote:
Might it have been a failure that's not relevant to the FH demo? Maybe
Zuma failed to separate from the second stage...
There are a couple of hints that way. For one thing, the satellite got
a catalog number (with no orbit info given, as usual for classified
things), which isn't usually done until it's been tracked at least
once. And apparently NorGrum supplied its own payload adapter for
Zuma. This all fits together: the one-of-a-kind custom adapter
malfunctioned, the payload didn't separate, the
payload-plus-second-stage combination was tracked once or twice, but
then the second stage deorbited itself and took the payload with it.
I've held off mentioning this possibility, but I see now it's being
discussed publicly elsewhere: That this might not be an actual failure,
but rather an attempt to obfuscate the post-launch location of the
classified payload. (Presumably in that case a difficult-to-observe
payload, else there'd be no point.)
An additional thought on that hypothetical case: SpaceX might well not
even have been in on the gag, given the "failure" would have been in the
payload adaptor provided (and presumably operated) by N-G. (Though
would SpaceX have been able to tell if the payload was still attached
when the second stage did its reentry burn? I would think so - unless
that operation were totally automated with no telemetry returned.)
However, never assume conspiracy when stupidity suffices. If I had to
bet, I'd bet on my namesake's explanation, above: They insisted on
reinventing the wheel on the payload adapter, and it malfed.
Henry (V)
Other related posts:
