Quote from: ZachS09 on 11/22/2017 06:44 pmNow the question is whether Zuma was just a fictitious mission or not.To what end?
Now the question is whether Zuma was just a fictitious mission or not.
Quote from: pb2000 on 11/22/2017 07:14 pmQuote from: ZachS09 on 11/22/2017 06:44 pmNow the question is whether Zuma was just a fictitious mission or not.To what end?Rapid Response test for the military
Quote from: Flying Beaver on 11/22/2017 06:24 pmBig news, 1043 is off the TEL.FH mods continuing.https://twitter.com/Delta_IV_Heavy/status/933405458051862528As if Zuma wasn't an odd mission already...
Big news, 1043 is off the TEL.FH mods continuing.https://twitter.com/Delta_IV_Heavy/status/933405458051862528
It may not mean a new fairing is required just yet. It may simply mean that de-encapsulation is required to inspect the fairing to make that determination.
Will Zuma require another static test since it was removed from TEL? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: MarekCyzio on 11/23/2017 11:52 amWill Zuma require another static test since it was removed from TEL? Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkNot by default. No clue what criteria would be used to decide if it needed one.If they move it to SLC-40, that might be a factor.
On the other hand there's no such thing as too many tests
Quote from: CorvusCorax on 11/25/2017 01:40 pmOn the other hand there's no such thing as too many tests Actually - in fact, OF COURSE - there's such a thing as too many tests, especially of systems that involve high-energy combustion, pressurization events, and cryogenic fluids. See, e.g., AMOS-6.Tests cause wear and tear; they reveal latent defects (e.g., quality control problems in materials, assembly and/or operations). Tests create data that needs to be reviewed, analyzed, and evaluated. That involves work for the test team and quality assurance team. So test as often as you must and then stop. Mature organizations know where that point is. Presumably, by this point, SpaceX is such an organization.
Don't know if its been talked about officially yet but I am thinking its becoming very unlikely we see FH fly this year. Any idea what the NET date is for Zuma or if there even is one yet?
Not in a reusable system.AMOS-6 is a terrible example. What's your alternative, that it would fail during launch? Or on its next flight?Irrespective of the "payload during static fire", a reusable rocket should be able to be tested with impunity.The extra work to perform the test is, again, a different issue. The original concern was risk.
Irrespective of the "payload during static fire", a reusable rocket should be able to be tested with impunity.
Quote from: meekGee on 11/26/2017 02:05 pmNot in a reusable system.AMOS-6 is a terrible example. What's your alternative, that it would fail during launch? Or on its next flight?Irrespective of the "payload during static fire", a reusable rocket should be able to be tested with impunity.The extra work to perform the test is, again, a different issue. The original concern was risk.Wrong, it is a perfect example, since there is no fully reusable system.Quote from: meekGee on 11/26/2017 02:05 pmIrrespective of the "payload during static fire", a reusable rocket should be able to be tested with impunity.Not true either. Not until reusable rockets are actually like aircraft which will not apply to Falcon 9. F9 still won't be tested with impunity, it will have limited life items.
If it weren't for the payload decision, the test would have unmasked the design flaw before the actual flight - exactly as intended.