I wouldn't make any assumptions about why the sat contractor insisted on
their own mount. It could have been because SpaceX's standard payload
interface conflicted with sat design goals, it could have been (as you
say) to keep SpaceX at one additional remove from details of the actual
sat, it could have been a matter of maximizing project billable hours,
it could have been a simple case of Not Invented Here - or some mix of
all of the above.
NEVER underestimate the power of NIH in technology decisions.
As for whether what the government tells us is always either true or if
not, at least in our genuine best interests, well, I've stayed out of
that one. Doesn't seem to me a defensible position in the face of vast
historical evidence to the contrary. But given the current
circumstances, I see no benefit to contesting the point.
Because practically speaking, our current era government leaks like a
sieve, to the point where any attempt to get clever with "losing"
something with as many people involved as a major nat-sec sat would be
doomed from the start.
Same argument I use against Moon Landing Hoaxers. No way that many
modern Americans could keep their mouths shut about what was on the MSFC
caf lunch menu last Thursday, never mind collectively biting their
tongues about a fake Moon landing.
Henry
On 1/11/2018 5:12 PM, Nick Horton wrote:
Yes, good points Henry. I agree, in fact it seems like the entire reason to use the custom mount in the first place would be so that Northrop could maintain complete control over that part of the mission and SpaceX would not control (or even have any knowledge at all) about that part of the mission.
I also agree that I think most of this is just shoddy journalism, but maybe it is best just to assume what the reporter says really is for our benefit and we should believe it.
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 6:04 PM Henry Vanderbilt <hvanderbilt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:hvanderbilt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
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>
> <mailto: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>
<mailto: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>
<mailto: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>
> <mailto: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> <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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>>
> <mailto: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
>
>
>
>
