Author Topic: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION  (Read 786611 times)

Offline the_other_Doug

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3010
  • Minneapolis, MN
  • Liked: 2191
  • Likes Given: 4620
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #1640 on: 01/23/2018 06:59 pm »
ISTM SpaceX wouldn't sue because pre-trial discovery could reveal things ZUMA_Owner rather not be made  public.
All of it would be mooted by national security concerns. There is very little chance such a suit would ever make it past a motion to dismiss, not to mention SpaceX would have to demonstrate damages - an essential element of any cognizable claim. And that they cannot do - customers aren’t leaving, there is no publicly traded stock to tank, and therefore no market capitalization to measure ...

Yep, which is why I said they almost definitely won't do so.  It has to try Musk's patience to see the libelous assumptions being read into the Congressional record, though.  If it was my company, I'd be chomping at the bit to find a way to stop people libeling my company.

Injustice just angers me a lot, is all.  And the constant repetition of the unsubstantiated assumption of blame lands on me like specific, knowing, targeted injustice.  Bugs the living s@#t out of me, is all.  Should not be easy for any person with a set of morals to just sit and watch happen, but as I sometimes suspect, I may be the only American left who thinks it's important to fight against injustice.  Certainly would think so based on e everyone who tells me to shut up, injustice is a fact of life, just accept it and stop trying to rock the boat... sigh...
-Doug  (With my shield, not yet upon it)

So one of the things that's been bothering me is something I can't back up with a reference because I can no longer track it down - so therefore mark this one up as speculation based on an imperfect memory...

... When we first heard about Zuma it was before we actually knew the name. As memory serves, at that time it was mentioned that whatever Zuma was, the "client", for lack of a better word, didn't have very deep pockets and covering the cost of the launch as an issue, but SpaceX had decided to make it happen regardless because of the importance of this mission.

Again - that's my recollection - and it doesn't jive with anything we've heard recently about Zuma. Then again, most of what we've heard is based on limited to no facts, and it's been a self-feeding process.

Does anyone else have this recollection? I mean, lord knows I've suffered through decompression sickness and all that, but...

I've found comments which do support those recollections. However, I'm assuming that the "client" in this case is NG. Now, I'm no expert but they don't seem that cash-strapped to me?


Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #1642 on: 01/23/2018 07:21 pm »
ISTM SpaceX wouldn't sue because pre-trial discovery could reveal things ZUMA_Owner rather not be made  public.

This isn't at all analogous to the Musk/Tesla situation. Tesla didn't have giant government customers that might get quite upset.

That said I doubt discovery would get anywhere, any lines of questioning that got anywhere close to secret information would be squashed.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline Johnnyhinbos

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3863
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 8095
  • Likes Given: 943
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #1643 on: 01/23/2018 08:15 pm »
So one of the things that's been bothering me is something I can't back up with a reference because I can no longer track it down - so therefore mark this one up as speculation based on an imperfect memory...

... When we first heard about Zuma it was before we actually knew the name. As memory serves, at that time it was mentioned that whatever Zuma was, the "client", for lack of a better word, didn't have very deep pockets and covering the cost of the launch as an issue, but SpaceX had decided to make it happen regardless because of the importance of this mission.

Again - that's my recollection - and it doesn't jive with anything we've heard recently about Zuma. Then again, most of what we've heard is based on limited to no facts, and it's been a self-feeding process.

Does anyone else have this recollection? I mean, lord knows I've suffered through decompression sickness and all that, but...

I've found comments which do support those recollections. However, I'm assuming that the "client" in this case is NG. Now, I'm no expert but they don't seem that cash-strapped to me?
Definitely not. However I still think NG as the manufacturer rather than the client. Can you put your hands on any of those comments?
John Hanzl. Author, action / adventure www.johnhanzl.com

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #1644 on: 01/23/2018 08:25 pm »
So one of the things that's been bothering me is something I can't back up with a reference because I can no longer track it down - so therefore mark this one up as speculation based on an imperfect memory...

... When we first heard about Zuma it was before we actually knew the name. As memory serves, at that time it was mentioned that whatever Zuma was, the "client", for lack of a better word, didn't have very deep pockets and covering the cost of the launch as an issue, but SpaceX had decided to make it happen regardless because of the importance of this mission.

Again - that's my recollection - and it doesn't jive with anything we've heard recently about Zuma. Then again, most of what we've heard is based on limited to no facts, and it's been a self-feeding process.

Does anyone else have this recollection? I mean, lord knows I've suffered through decompression sickness and all that, but...

I've found comments which do support those recollections. However, I'm assuming that the "client" in this case is NG. Now, I'm no expert but they don't seem that cash-strapped to me?
Definitely not. However I still think NG as the manufacturer rather than the client. Can you put your hands on any of those comments?

NROL-76, Ball was the spacecraft manufacturer and the launch service client. 

So one of the things that's been bothering me is something I can't back up with a reference because I can no longer track it down - so therefore mark this one up as speculation based on an imperfect memory...

... When we first heard about Zuma it was before we actually knew the name. As memory serves, at that time it was mentioned that whatever Zuma was, the "client", for lack of a better word, didn't have very deep pockets and covering the cost of the launch as an issue, but SpaceX had decided to make it happen regardless because of the importance of this mission.

Again - that's my recollection - and it doesn't jive with anything we've heard recently about Zuma. Then again, most of what we've heard is based on limited to no facts, and it's been a self-feeding process.

Does anyone else have this recollection? I mean, lord knows I've suffered through decompression sickness and all that, but...

I've found comments which do support those recollections. However, I'm assuming that the "client" in this case is NG. Now, I'm no expert but they don't seem that cash-strapped to me?
Definitely not. However I still think NG as the manufacturer rather than the client. Can you put your hands on any of those comments?

The ones I've seen were made by reddit user ASTRALsunder. Here's a few:

Quote
No, nothing my friends told me gave me the feeling that the customer was established. One friend did mention that the customer was pretty open and up front with SpaceX about their financial situation to give them an idea on how extremely crucial this flight was for them. I guess it was enough for SpaceX to squeeze them in risking the ire of their backlogged customers.

Quote
That I do not know, my friend. I did not press my sources for more details. The extent of my knowledge is the flight is named ZUMA/Zuma and the NET is November 15th. Customer contract details and what kind of satellite I do not know. They just emphasized the on-time part of the launch, it would be out of 39A, and on a new booster.

My friends did say CRS-13's new NET is December 4th out of LC-40. SpaceX pitched the idea of a flown booster for CRS-13 to NASA and they will give them an answer in early November.

Quote
I don't know if this is a new customer or not, but yes, the customer would be able to hit their revenue forecasts for the next fiscal year, and SpaceX would most likely be bestowed many future contracts. Personally, I think SpaceX's launch cadence and reliability in 2017 has impressed many customers who are now eager to sign up.

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/76c3gw/spacex_has_an_approved_license_for_10_nov_launch/dofpocd/?context=3

Quote
Yup, critical for the operator in this case. They have revenue targets to hit and shareholders to keep happy.

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/76c3gw/spacex_has_an_approved_license_for_10_nov_launch/doe2ymt/?context=3

Quote
I trust the folks to told me 100%. All had the same info. It would be something if only one told me, but all told me the same. We'll find out in a month.. =)

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/76c3gw/spacex_has_an_approved_license_for_10_nov_launch/doe2uuo/?context=1

Quote
True, but my friends seemed to emphasize this one more than the others. We'll find out in a month.

Edit: They super emphasized the on-time bit.

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/76c3gw/spacex_has_an_approved_license_for_10_nov_launch/dod9yjf/?context=2

(Links will take you to the discussion so you can get more context as to what he's talking about)

Based on his other comments he does seem to have reliable sources, so perhaps these comments are worth considering.



Offline psionedge

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 102
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #1646 on: 01/23/2018 08:49 pm »
Just sounds like perhaps NG had some payment milestones based on meeting a certain launch date.

Offline Johnnyhinbos

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3863
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 8095
  • Likes Given: 943
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #1647 on: 01/23/2018 09:09 pm »
So one of the things that's been bothering me is something I can't back up with a reference because I can no longer track it down - so therefore mark this one up as speculation based on an imperfect memory...

... When we first heard about Zuma it was before we actually knew the name. As memory serves, at that time it was mentioned that whatever Zuma was, the "client", for lack of a better word, didn't have very deep pockets and covering the cost of the launch as an issue, but SpaceX had decided to make it happen regardless because of the importance of this mission.

Again - that's my recollection - and it doesn't jive with anything we've heard recently about Zuma. Then again, most of what we've heard is based on limited to no facts, and it's been a self-feeding process.

Does anyone else have this recollection? I mean, lord knows I've suffered through decompression sickness and all that, but...

I've found comments which do support those recollections. However, I'm assuming that the "client" in this case is NG. Now, I'm no expert but they don't seem that cash-strapped to me?
Definitely not. However I still think NG as the manufacturer rather than the client. Can you put your hands on any of those comments?

The ones I've seen were made by reddit user ASTRALsunder. Here's a few:

Quote
No, nothing my friends told me gave me the feeling that the customer was established. One friend did mention that the customer was pretty open and up front with SpaceX about their financial situation to give them an idea on how extremely crucial this flight was for them. I guess it was enough for SpaceX to squeeze them in risking the ire of their backlogged customers.

Quote
That I do not know, my friend. I did not press my sources for more details. The extent of my knowledge is the flight is named ZUMA/Zuma and the NET is November 15th. Customer contract details and what kind of satellite I do not know. They just emphasized the on-time part of the launch, it would be out of 39A, and on a new booster.

My friends did say CRS-13's new NET is December 4th out of LC-40. SpaceX pitched the idea of a flown booster for CRS-13 to NASA and they will give them an answer in early November.

Quote
I don't know if this is a new customer or not, but yes, the customer would be able to hit their revenue forecasts for the next fiscal year, and SpaceX would most likely be bestowed many future contracts. Personally, I think SpaceX's launch cadence and reliability in 2017 has impressed many customers who are now eager to sign up.

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/76c3gw/spacex_has_an_approved_license_for_10_nov_launch/dofpocd/?context=3

Quote
Yup, critical for the operator in this case. They have revenue targets to hit and shareholders to keep happy.

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/76c3gw/spacex_has_an_approved_license_for_10_nov_launch/doe2ymt/?context=3

Quote
I trust the folks to told me 100%. All had the same info. It would be something if only one told me, but all told me the same. We'll find out in a month.. =)

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/76c3gw/spacex_has_an_approved_license_for_10_nov_launch/doe2uuo/?context=1

Quote
True, but my friends seemed to emphasize this one more than the others. We'll find out in a month.

Edit: They super emphasized the on-time bit.

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/76c3gw/spacex_has_an_approved_license_for_10_nov_launch/dod9yjf/?context=2

(Links will take you to the discussion so you can get more context as to what he's talking about)

Based on his other comments he does seem to have reliable sources, so perhaps these comments are worth considering.
Thank you - that was exactly what I was looking for...
John Hanzl. Author, action / adventure www.johnhanzl.com

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10205
  • US
  • Liked: 13885
  • Likes Given: 5933
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #1648 on: 01/23/2018 09:14 pm »
Thank you - that was exactly what I was looking for...

And all of that is almost certainly bulls---.
« Last Edit: 01/23/2018 09:15 pm by gongora »

Thank you - that was exactly what I was looking for...

And all of that is almost certainly bulls---.

Very likely despite what I said.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #1650 on: 01/23/2018 09:21 pm »
Thank you - that was exactly what I was looking for...

And all of that is almost certainly bulls---.

Definitely

Offline the_other_Doug

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3010
  • Minneapolis, MN
  • Liked: 2191
  • Likes Given: 4620
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #1651 on: 01/23/2018 09:27 pm »
When a lot of people are fed a line simultaneously, it often is more likely evidence of a coordinated plan of obfuscation than a well-confirmed tidbit of truth.  Especially about a classified project.
-Doug  (With my shield, not yet upon it)

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14159
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #1652 on: 01/24/2018 01:44 am »
So much for 'self-insurance':
Quote
SpaceX Lost Satellite on U.S. Mission Was Uninsured
Quote
“The policy of the U.S. government has been that they do not buy insurance. They rely on the taxpayer to foot the bill when things go wrong.”

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2018/01/23/478112.htm

Edit: added reference

Hardly new news I posted an article about this several days ago that the US taxpayers will be picking up the news for any loss.
Come on, that's not fair.

By the same logic, the US tax payer has been stuffing their pockets with saved insurance premiums.

Self insurance simply means what it says.  You are the insurance company, for better and for worse, and irrespective of how you (mis)manage your budget.
« Last Edit: 01/24/2018 03:29 am by meekGee »
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2422
  • California
  • Liked: 2006
  • Likes Given: 5634
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #1653 on: 01/24/2018 04:02 am »
So much for 'self-insurance':
Quote
SpaceX Lost Satellite on U.S. Mission Was Uninsured
Quote
“The policy of the U.S. government has been that they do not buy insurance. They rely on the taxpayer to foot the bill when things go wrong.”

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2018/01/23/478112.htm

Edit: added reference

Hardly new news I posted an article about this several days ago that the US taxpayers will be picking up the news for any loss.

I've seen comments/reports saying that Zuma was a billion dollar satellite but, just to be super conservative, let's say it was a $2B sat.  The US Gov. annual budget is about $4 Trillion.  That means Zuma would represent 0.0005 of total annual spending.  If you spent $100,000 a year, this would represent an expenditure of $50.  Still think insurance is a big deal?  You could make a more conservative estimate by basing it on just the discretionary spending of the budget-- ~$1.25 Trillion.  There, Zuma represents ~0.0016 of discretionary spending.  Still not a huge amount. 

The second thing to keep in mind is that insurance companies make money.  This means that on the aggregate, it is a money loser to buy insurance so long as you can afford to absorb the losses.  For individual companies or for a homeowner, etc., this doesn't work because the risk is too high.  But at the government's scale and the fact that there isn't any real financial risk, the government self insuring is both no big deal and an overall, long-term financial win.
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #1654 on: 01/24/2018 04:04 am »
How would you insure a black program?

I think we're reaching the bottom of the barrel here.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8840
  • Lower 48
  • Liked: 60431
  • Likes Given: 1305
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #1655 on: 01/24/2018 04:23 am »
How would you insure a black program?

I think we're reaching the bottom of the barrel here.

No, we've gone through the bottom of the barrel, through the floor under the barrel and half way to the earth's outer core. There's more baseless nonsense popping up here than the CNN comments section.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline pb2000

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 671
  • Calgary, AB
  • Liked: 759
  • Likes Given: 237
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #1656 on: 01/24/2018 05:23 am »
Just as a minor aside, the sunk cost on the program that produced Zuma might be $1B, but that cost could have been largely R&D, which isn't lost with the satellite.
Launches attended: Worldview-4 (Atlas V 401), Iridium NEXT Flight 1 (Falcon 9 FT), PAZ+Starlink (Falcon 9 FT), Arabsat-6A (Falcon Heavy)
Pilgrimaged to: Boca Chica (09/19 & 01/22)

Offline georgegassaway

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 226
    • George's Rockets
  • Liked: 286
  • Likes Given: 76
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #1657 on: 01/24/2018 07:13 am »
There's more baseless nonsense popping up here than the CNN comments section.
Clearly you have not looked at the comments section on Fox News' Zuma failure report.   :)
« Last Edit: 01/24/2018 07:16 am by georgegassaway »
Info on my flying Lunar Module Quadcopter: https://tinyurl.com/LunarModuleQuadcopter

Offline psionedge

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 102
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #1658 on: 01/24/2018 07:21 am »
So much for 'self-insurance':
Quote
SpaceX Lost Satellite on U.S. Mission Was Uninsured
Quote
“The policy of the U.S. government has been that they do not buy insurance. They rely on the taxpayer to foot the bill when things go wrong.”

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2018/01/23/478112.htm

Edit: added reference

Hardly new news I posted an article about this several days ago that the US taxpayers will be picking up the news for any loss.
Come on, that's not fair.

By the same logic, the US tax payer has been stuffing their pockets with saved insurance premiums.

Self insurance simply means what it says.  You are the insurance company, for better and for worse, and irrespective of how you (mis)manage your budget.
Stop assuming the government budget works the same as a household or even company budget.

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4207
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #1659 on: 01/24/2018 08:17 am »
For beginners homeowners & businesses can't print their own money, devaluing their debts and losses over time.
DM

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0