Author Topic: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION (Read 814674 times)

ChrisGebhardt · « **on:** 10/14/2017 01:07 pm »

Discussion Thread for unknown Northrop Grumman payload Codename Zuma mission.

NSF Threads for Codename Zuma : Discussion / Updates / L2 Coverage November-December January-February / ASDS / Party

NSF Articles for Codename Zuma :
[Oct. 16, 2017] SpaceX adds mystery “Zuma” mission, Iridium-4 aims for Vandenberg landing
[Nov. 11, 2017] SpaceX static fires Zuma Falcon 9; engine test anomaly no issue for manifest
[Jan. 7, 2018] SpaceX launches clandestine Zuma satellite – questions over spacecraft’s health

Launched Jan. 7, 2018 at 2000 EST (0100 UTC on the 8th) on new booster 1043. Successful RTLS landing at CCAFS. Falcon 9 performance said to be nominal. Classified payload rumored to be lost, circumstances unclear.

Getting this started per this FCC launch license from yesterday

Quote from: saliva_sweet on 10/14/2017 11:40 am

There are approved FCC licences for an RTLS launch 1390 from 39A on November 10th.

1446-EX-ST-2017:
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=80568&RequestTimeout=1000

1318-EX-ST-2017:
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=80217&RequestTimeout=1000

Licenses call for this to go from LC-39A on 10 November 2017 and RTLS to LZ-1.

Currently targeting launch 12 days after Koreasat (which is NET 30 October).

Other SpaceX resources on NASASpaceflight:
SpaceX News Articles (Recent)
SpaceX News Articles from 2006 (Including numerous exclusive Elon interviews)
SpaceX Dragon Articles
SpaceX Missions Section (with Launch Manifest and info on past and future missions)

L2 SpaceX Section

SmallKing · « **Reply #1 on:** 10/14/2017 01:28 pm »

Even launchphotography.com and SFN didn't have any information about this launch, it's more like a military payload I thought

wannamoonbase · « **Reply #2 on:** 10/14/2017 01:40 pm »

Interesting. Something they kept this quiet, I wonder if there will even be a webcast

Galactic Penguin SST · « **Reply #3 on:** 10/14/2017 01:42 pm »

I'm thinking if there are any light geostationary comsats (say 2 to 3.5 tonnes) around that had never had a launch contract announced, or even without their identities known, that might be launching by now.

For example, there was that 3 Boeing 702SP order from the US government in 2013 that cannot be pinned down to any known satellite and was once floated around as a candidate for NROL-76 earlier this year. So far none of them seemed to have been launched yet, and if they are launched on F9 one at a time the 1st stage would have easily made an RTLS.

vapour_nudge · « **Reply #4 on:** 10/14/2017 02:02 pm »

Perhaps it's another PAN or CLIO type launch similar to what was launched on Atlas V. The agency responsible for those sats wasn't even named. Assuming, of course, this is military.

ZachS09 · « **Reply #5 on:** 10/14/2017 02:20 pm »

Maybe this mission will use B1043.

Just a total assumption; nothing to do with L2 info.

ZachS09 · « **Reply #6 on:** 10/14/2017 02:22 pm »

Quote from: wannamoonbase on 10/14/2017 01:40 pm

Interesting. Something they kept this quiet, I wonder if there will even be a webcast

If SpaceX does not stream this launch, the only evidence of a successful launch/landing will be from spectators and photographers at the press sites.

su27k · « **Reply #7 on:** 10/14/2017 02:32 pm »

Does SpaceX need to file papers with FCC if it's a government payload? I thought the filing is only for commercial launches. Kind of defeat the purpose of a secret payload if you have to get public license from FCC.

Thorny · « **Reply #8 on:** 10/14/2017 02:37 pm »

Dragonlab?

rockets4life97 · « **Reply #9 on:** 10/14/2017 02:38 pm »

Quote from: Thorny on 10/14/2017 02:37 pm

Dragonlab?

Unlikely, SpaceX would be talking it up to recruit future customers.

jfallen · « **Reply #10 on:** 10/14/2017 02:58 pm »

Since it seems speculation is permitted, I'm going to go with a Starlink launch. Keep it quiet to not tip the hand?

Or there is simply a commercial customer that doesn't want it announced.

yokem55 · « **Reply #11 on:** 10/14/2017 03:10 pm »

Quote from: jfallen on 10/14/2017 02:58 pm

Since it seems speculation is permitted, I'm going to go with a Starlink launch. Keep it quiet to not tip the hand?

Or there is simply a commercial customer that doesn't want it announced.

Unless this is a used booster, I don't see SpaceX launching their own payload on a new one.

Oberon_Command · « **Reply #12 on:** 10/14/2017 03:14 pm »

SpaceFlightNow lists a Falcon 9 launch with "Hispasat 30W-6" in 4th quarter 2017 before two other November launches, but no specific date. Could this be that launch?

gth871r · « **Reply #13 on:** 10/14/2017 03:18 pm »

Any possibility this is SpaceIL or some other Lunar X-Prize entrant?

old_sellsword · « **Reply #14 on:** 10/14/2017 03:18 pm »

Quote from: jfallen on 10/14/2017 02:58 pm

Since it seems speculation is permitted, I'm going to go with a Starlink launch. Keep it quiet to not tip the hand?

Or there is simply a commercial customer that doesn't want it announced.

Starlink sats (Microsats 2a, -b) are launching as secondary payloads with Paz next year.

ChrisGebhardt · « **Reply #15 on:** 10/14/2017 03:36 pm »

Quote from: Oberon_Command on 10/14/2017 03:14 pm

SpaceFlightNow lists a Falcon 9 launch with "Hispasat 30W-6" in 4th quarter 2017 before two other November launches, but no specific date. Could this be that launch?

No. Hispasat is GTO and way too heavy for RTLS.

This is an as yet publicly unannounced mission.

input~2 · « **Reply #16 on:** 10/14/2017 03:46 pm »

In these FCC licenses, the "operation start date" of the"requested period of operation" (here November 10) is not necessarily the planned launch date..
For example the requested period of operation for the last Iridium Next launch from Vandenberg (SpaceX Mission 1339)[/font] started on September 30, and the launch took place on October 9

Bubbinski · « **Reply #17 on:** 10/14/2017 03:49 pm »

Will this be a new core, or a flight-proven core?

ChrisGebhardt · « **Reply #18 on:** 10/14/2017 03:49 pm »

Quote from: input~2 on 10/14/2017 03:46 pm

In these FCC licenses, the "operation start date" of the"requested period of operation" (here November 10) is not necessarily the planned launch date..
For example the requested period of operation for the last Iridium Next launch from Vandenberg (SpaceX Mission 1339)[/font] started on September 30, and the launch took place on October 9

When they filed the launch license for Iridium 3, 30 September was the target launch date. It then slipped to 4 Oct and then 9 Oct.

saliva_sweet · « **Reply #19 on:** 10/14/2017 03:54 pm »

Quote from: input~2 on 10/14/2017 03:46 pm

In these FCC licenses, the "operation start date" of the"requested period of operation" (here November 10) is not necessarily the planned launch date..

Yes, but they are usually the expected NET dates at the time of requesting the license. CRS-13 license has a start date of Nov. 28 for example. This one was also previously assigned to pad 40 and only recently moved to 39A
previous lilcense:
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=80178&RequestTimeout=1000

This suggest that they want to fly it before pad 40 is ready.