The range (http://www.patrick.af.mil/) went back to "TBD" from yesterday's "Jan 5". It was TBD the day before.
Just out of interest, how easy would it be to make a launch attempt initially look like a WDR or static fire? The only difference would be that the payload is attached to the stack. Would it be plausible to hide that?
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 01/04/2018 11:18 amJust out of interest, how easy would it be to make a launch attempt initially look like a WDR or static fire? The only difference would be that the payload is attached to the stack. Would it be plausible to hide that?No, not plausible. Too many entities involved to pull off such a stunt. Besides, the only thing that really needs to be kept secret is the payload. The orbit will be independently determined soon enough after launch.
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 01/04/2018 11:18 amJust out of interest, how easy would it be to make a launch attempt initially look like a WDR or static fire? The only difference would be that the payload is attached to the stack. Would it be plausible to hide that?A launch needs range support (WDR doesn't) and NOTAMs (neither WDR nor static fire do). So a launch attempt would be public.
Maybe I missed it, but I thought they where still not 100% certain they have independently found OTV-5.
Quote from: kevin-rf on 01/04/2018 02:07 pmMaybe I missed it, but I thought they where still not 100% certain they have independently found OTV-5.The ~50 deg inclination of ZUMA will have much favorable visiblity to the amateur satellite trackers than the ~40 deg inclination of OTV-5.
Some truly bizarre rumours doing the rounds online about this payload. Not worthy of being repeated on this forum.
Quote from: Star One on 01/04/2018 09:12 pmSome truly bizarre rumours doing the rounds online about this payload. Not worthy of being repeated on this forum.Oh my gosh, yes.
The Northrop Grumman mission was on the SpaceX manifest for a while, we just didn't know it was called Zuma or when it would launch.
Speculation about this being a "responsive" launch...Quote from: gongora on 01/04/2018 04:07 pmThe Northrop Grumman mission was on the SpaceX manifest for a while, we just didn't know it was called Zuma or when it would launch.I don't think this is a contradiction. For the first responsive launch, they would probably tell SpaceX to build a booster for a payload to be named later. Then once SpaceX says the booster is ready, Grumman would say that at some future time they will give them a call, tell them about the payload, and the 30 day clock starts ticking. This would provide a good test of whether they could integrate and launch an unknown payload in 30 days.This would explain why SpaceX knew there was a Grumman launch, but not when or the payload name. That would be by design.
Chris B on update thread says the launch is net saturday, but may slip to sunday.......... seems like zuma doesn't want to fly.....
jan 4,erm 5, erm 6,erm 7I understand that delays can and will happen, but this steady cadence of one-day-at-a-time-delay is quite soporific.