Zuma – Falcon 9 – CCAFS LC-40 – 08.01.2018 01:00 UTC

Автор che wi, 14.10.2017 19:15:37

« назад - далее »

0 Пользователи и 1 гость просматривают эту тему.

instml

Go MSL!

testest2

Цитироватьinstml пишет:
Откуда цифра 1 млрд?
Из The New York Times.
законспирированный рептилоид

Старый

ЦитироватьВВК пишет:
ЦитироватьСтарый пишет:
Время и место затопления ступени были объявлены на сайте предупреждений авиации, если я не путаю.
А не могло быть это(точнее вход в атмосферу) главным событием этой экс-педиции?
Не могло. Для этого существуют менее мощные РН и более удобные районы. 
Да и все известные обстоятельства указывают что это была авария. 
1. Ангара - единственная в мире новая РН которая хуже старой (с) Старый Ламер
2. Назначение Роскосмоса - не летать в космос а выкачивать из бюджета деньги
3. У Маска ракета длиннее и толще чем у Роскосмоса
4. Чем мрачнее реальность тем ярче бред (с) Старый Ламер

Старый

Цитироватьtestest пишет:
Цитироватьinstml пишет:
Откуда цифра 1 млрд?
Из The New York Times.
Это стандартная газетная утка. Реальная стоимость секретного спутника не может утечь в СМИ.
1. Ангара - единственная в мире новая РН которая хуже старой (с) Старый Ламер
2. Назначение Роскосмоса - не летать в космос а выкачивать из бюджета деньги
3. У Маска ракета длиннее и толще чем у Роскосмоса
4. Чем мрачнее реальность тем ярче бред (с) Старый Ламер

testest2

ЦитироватьСтарый пишет:
Цитироватьtestest пишет:
Цитироватьinstml пишет:
Откуда цифра 1 млрд?
Из The New York Times.
Это стандартная газетная утка. Реальная стоимость секретного спутника не может утечь в СМИ.
Это вполне возможно, учитывая, что NYT очень не любит SpaceX, им им хотелось раскрасить аварию цветами поярче.
законспирированный рептилоид

Старый

Цитироватьtestest пишет:
ЦитироватьСтарый пишет: 
Это стандартная газетная утка. Реальная стоимость секретного спутника не может утечь в СМИ.
Это вполне возможно, учитывая, что NYT очень не любит SpaceX, им им хотелось раскрасить аварию цветами поярче.
Поэтому они и приволокли утку пожирнее.
1. Ангара - единственная в мире новая РН которая хуже старой (с) Старый Ламер
2. Назначение Роскосмоса - не летать в космос а выкачивать из бюджета деньги
3. У Маска ракета длиннее и толще чем у Роскосмоса
4. Чем мрачнее реальность тем ярче бред (с) Старый Ламер

ХВ.

ЦитироватьСтарый пишет:
Поэтому они и приволокли утку пожирнее.
:)  :)  :)  !!!

tnt22

ЦитироватьJeff Foust‏ @jeff_foust 33 мин. назад

Wonder how many people who blamed SpaceX for the failed Zuma launch will offer mea culpas now that investigations reportedly show a Northrop-provided payload adapter was to blame?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/probes-point-to-northrop-grumman-errors-in-january-spy-satellite-failure-1523220500
https://www.wsj.com/articles/probes-point-to-northrop-grumman-errors-in-january-spy-satellite-failure-1523220500
ЦитироватьProbes Point to Northrop Grumman Errors in January Spy-Satellite Failure
Experts blame contractor's mistakes for loss of top-secret U.S. spacecraft

By Andy Pasztor
Updated April 8, 2018 11:19 p.m. ET

Government and industry experts have tentatively concluded that engineering and testing errors by Northrop Grumman Corp. caused a U.S. spy satellite to plummet into the ocean shortly after a January launch, according to people familiar with the details.
Спойлер
Initial indications were that the satellite, believed to cost as much as $3.5 billion to develop and known by the code name Zuma, didn't separate in time from the spent second stage of a Space Exploration Technologies Corp. rocket. But now, these people said, two separate teams of federal and industry investigators have pinpointed reasons for the high-profile loss to problems with a Northrop-modified part—called a payload adapter—that failed to operate properly in space.

Specifics of the Zuma adapter still aren't known, and Northrop Grumman spokesmen didn't respond to requests for comment over the weekend. The Pentagon has repeatedly declined to comment on Zuma's fate, and on Friday the Pentagon's missile defense agency didn't respond to an email seeking comment.

The device, purchased from a subcontractor, was significantly modified and then successfully tested three times on the ground by Northrop Grumman, according to one person familiar with the process. But upon reaching orbit, this person said, the adapter didn't uncouple the satellite from the rocket in zero-gravity conditions.

Sensors on board failed to immediately report what happened, this person said, so officials tracking the launch weren't aware of the major malfunction until the satellite was dragged back into the atmosphere by the returning second stage. The satellite ultimately broke free but by then had dropped to an altitude that was too low for a rescue.

Northrop Grumman built the satellite, which was so highly classified that its purpose still hasn't been disclosed. Likewise, no particular agency has been publicly identified as the customer. Industry officials and military-space analysts have said it likely was an advanced type of space radar or missile-warning satellite.

Investigators have focused on the satellite's unique design, which was particularly vulnerable to shock and vibration, according to people familiar with its characteristics. That prompted Northrop Grumman to specially modify the adapter to cushion separation of the satellite in orbit, according to one of these people. Adapters typically use explosive bolts or other powerful systems to break satellites free of their attachments to rockets.

Shortly after the failed mission, leaders of several congressional committees and their top staffers were briefed about the bungled launch. They were told the satellite was a total loss and no salvage attempts were anticipated, according to industry officials informed about the sessions. The satellite is believed to have splashed down in the Indian Ocean.

SpaceX, as the rocket provider is commonly called, moved quickly to defend its Falcon 9 booster, saying it performed exactly as expected. Other industry officials backed up the company. SpaceX's initial public statements reassuring customers about the rocket's performance were made without the explicit approval of U.S. intelligence officials, according to people familiar with the sequence of events.

But since then, defense officials have publicly and privately signaled the rocket wasn't at fault.

Northrop Grumman's troubles also have shined the spotlight on the extent of congressional review of classified space programs. Championed by a handful of lawmakers including Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the former Democratic chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Zuma was funded outside of normal channels. According to industry officials, it also received less formal congressional oversight than typical national-security satellite projects.

It isn't clear when, or even if, a summary of the Zuma findings will be released. But the investigations are wrapping up while Northrop Grumman's management is reeling from a series of embarrassing design and production snafus affecting the space telescope the company is building for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Two weeks ago, NASA disclosed that production and testing slip-ups forced another delay in development of the James Webb Space Telescope.In blunt language, the agency blamed some of the factory setbacks, including damage to satellite thrusters and a sun shield, on "avoidable errors" by prime contractor Northrop Grumman.

NASA officials also laid out an unusually stringent oversight plan, mandating personnel changes and twice monthly updates by senior Northrop Grumman management to agency headquarters. Northrop Grumman has revamped production procedures for James Webb and other projects, from stepped-up quality control checks to enhanced training in an effort to lock in tighter testing requirements and prevent employee burnout.

Write to Andy Pasztor at andy.pasztor@wsj.com

Appeared in the April 9, 2018, print edition as 'Northrop Faulted in Crash of Spy Satellite.'
[свернуть]

triage

#1188
что бы делал автор без задержки JWST....
ЦитироватьIt isn't clear when, or even if, a summary of the Zuma findings will be released. But the investigations are wrapping up while Northrop Grumman's management is reeling from a series of embarrassing design and production snafus affecting the space telescope the company is building for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Two weeks ago, NASA disclosed that production and testing slip-ups forced another delay in development of the James Webb Space Telescope.In blunt language, the agency blamed some of the factory setbacks, including damage to satellite thrusters and a sun shield, on "avoidable errors" by prime contractor Northrop Grumman.

NASA officials also laid out an unusually stringent oversight plan, mandating personnel changes and twice monthly updates by senior Northrop Grumman management to agency headquarters. Northrop Grumman has revamped production procedures for James Webb and other projects, from stepped-up quality control checks to enhanced training in an effort to lock in tighter testing requirements and prevent employee burnout.
А остальном никаких официальных слов, одни слухи.

p.s. автор зажег чуть ранее в NASA and Boeing Co. ...Thursday's disclosure by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration suggests a previously planned two-person flight, slated for November 2018, is now likely to occur in 2019 or 2020 and would likely carry one additional crew member , откуда 2020 взялся...

Apollo13

ЦитироватьNot пишет:
да стопудов спейсексы прикрутили какой нибудь экспериментальный девайс для спасения обтекателя, по пути продырявив сверлом проводку нортропа. :D

Apollo13

ЦитироватьNot пишет:
Авторитет Нортропа весит поболе шапкозакидательства СпейсЭкс.

Apollo13

Цитироватьpkl пишет:
Ракета-носитель может быть или дешёвой, или надёжной. Но вместе эти условия не сочетаются.


zandr

Новая информация с подачи Grigoriy
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43976.msg2462414#msg2462414
Цитата: jcm от 01.03.2023 06:29:23Belatedly, it's ZUMA time again...

The UN registration document from the US for Oct 2017-Aug 2018 space objects was stuck in UN processing for years, but at some point in the past year or so it finally appeared on the UN OOSA website
It records the USA 280 orbit as 657 x 659 km x 52.0 deg,  information not previously available.
The entry is in the table for 'objects ... that remain in orbit [as of 31 Jan 2018]', but don't get too excited.
Info in these documents on US classified objects is not always reliable. This is certainly a data point that supports the 'it is sill in orbit' theory, but in my opinion the 'it came down on the first orbit'
theory is still more strongly supported by the totality of the evidence.

The quoted orbit is quite a bit lower than Marco's 1000 km estimate, but not unbelievably so.
Again the data may not be reliable - there have been cases in these documents where US secret object orbit altitudes labelled as km were actually in nautical miles, although not recently. I present the information for what it's worth.