Keep in mind that the one-off custom payload mount for this satellite
was provided by Northrop-Grumman, that this mount could nevertheless
reasonably be called part of the second stage (it would have been bolted
on to the top of the SpaceX second stage) and that the apparent failure
being reported via leaks was the satellite failing to separate from that
custom mount.
Thus the apparently contradictory statements by SpaceX saying "*our*
parts of this mission worked just fine" and by anonymous Congressional
staffers blaming a "second-stage failure" might in fact both be true.
The fact that almost none of the people writing about this have a clue
about such subtleties doesn't help. (Nor likely most of the people
leaking about this.) I predict continuing confusion - abetted by a few
people who do know better but have axes to grind against SpaceX.
Henry
On 1/11/2018 3:29 PM, Nick Horton wrote:
I just hadn't actually seen such a congressional source cited anywhere, even anonymously. The Ars article shared here cites no such source, for example (only an uncited tweet). The NYT article I personally referenced has essentially the same sources (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/09/science/spacex-zuma-satellite.html)
That NYT article does however link to a Bloomberg article that cites anonymous congressional aides stating that the satellite was lost as Bill indicated. Although the article is also quick to concede that those unconfirmed statements were "muddied" by other assertions from SpaceX: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-09/spacex-launched-satellite-isn-t-seen-in-orbit-pentagon-says.
/"SpaceX’s review so far indicates that “no design, operational or other changes are needed,” Shotwell said. The company doesn’t anticipate any impact on its upcoming launch schedule, including a Falcon 9 mission in three weeks.
/
/SpaceX’s statement muddied assertions of a failure in the second stage of the Falcon 9, as a U.S. official and two congressional aides familiar with the launch had said. The satellite was lost, said one of the aides, who asked not to be named because the matter is private. The other aide said both the satellite and second-stage rocket fell into the ocean."/
/
/
So, yes, I suppose puts the matter to rest.......to the extent one is willing to accept sources like this as truth.
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 4:00 PM William Claybaugh <wclaybaugh2@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:wclaybaugh2@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Ok, you are certainly free to believe that multiple independent
sources all independently invented the same story if you so choose;
that is not a conversation for this forum nor of any interest to me.
Nonetheless, the NRO did brief the Hill and Members and staff did
then run to their phones. It is even possible to estimate—based on
my previous experience—and based on when the press began reporting
the payload was lost, when the NRO briefing to the Hill occurred.
But you are certainly free to believe it is all made up....
Bill
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 2:46 PM Paul Mueller
<paul.mueller.iii@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:paul.mueller.iii@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Yes, really
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 2:23 PM, William Claybaugh
<wclaybaugh2@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:wclaybaugh2@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Paul:
Really?
You think the Times and the Post used multiple independent
sources all of whom made up the same story?
Am I correct in guessing that you haven’t much worked with
the national press or with members of Congress and staff?
Bill
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 1:42 PM Paul Mueller
<paul.mueller.iii@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:paul.mueller.iii@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
What, that "congressional sources" and "congressional
staffers" can shoot their mouths off without knowing the
facts, especially if it's off the record?
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 11:15 AM, William Claybaugh
<wclaybaugh2@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:wclaybaugh2@xxxxxxxxx>>
wrote:
The initial news reports that the payload was lost
cited “congressional sources” and “congressional
staffers”, respectively.
The rest is obvious.
Bill
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:26 AM David Spain
<david.l.spain@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:david.l.spain@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
On 1/11/2018 10:56 AM, Nick Horton wrote:
> I was under the impression that the whole
reason this is even being
> discussed is that there is no official
statement on the payload
> status, from the NRO or otherwise.
>
> Apologies if I missed this official statement
from the NRO to
> Congress, but I've only seen
tentative/speculative statements from 3rd
> parties that the payload was lost, with all
official statements being
> that its status is classified.
>
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 9:05 AM William Claybaugh
> <wclaybaugh2@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:wclaybaugh2@xxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:wclaybaugh2@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:wclaybaugh2@xxxxxxxxx>>> wrote:
>
> The NRO did not lie to Congress when it
reported the payload lost.
> To so do is career terminal for those
involved and very damaging
> to the organization’s future budgets.
>
> There isn’t anything more to it;
speculation about NRO lying only
> reveals aspects of the character of those
engaged by such speculation.
>
> Bill
>
Same here. News to me as well.
Dave
