Author Topic: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION  (Read 539047 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32227
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10884
  • Likes Given: 324
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #200 on: 10/25/2017 02:18 PM »
So, is it even a national security launch?
It's really hard to imagine a non-military agency of the US government keeping a secret satellite.
I mean REALLY hard.  Would anyone really believe that the FBI, DEA, or ICE would ever get past the planning stage before this would be public?

So that leave some sort of military support that is not reconnaissance.  Perhaps communications?

see, CLIO and PAN
CIA & NSA are non-military agency of the US government

Online abaddon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1670
  • Liked: 1124
  • Likes Given: 958
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #201 on: 10/25/2017 02:19 PM »
Not sure if we should trust this kind of news. I think that depending on classification level they may be obliged to deny their very involvement in a project even if they in fact are are involved. We may never know.
The quote is "doesn't belong to", not "not involved with".  As a hypothetical example, it could be a technology demonstrator serving multiple purposes, and hosting a NRO payload in addition to others, while still "not belonging" to the NRO.

Generally speaking, have we seen a pattern of actual disinformation (as opposed to "no information") in the past?  Seems like we tend to take these kinds of statements at face value, although the language should be parsed carefully.
« Last Edit: 10/25/2017 02:20 PM by abaddon »

Offline ChrisGebhardt

  • Assistant Managing Editor
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6695
  • ad astra scientia
  • ~1 AU
  • Liked: 5122
  • Likes Given: 619
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #202 on: 10/25/2017 03:55 PM »
Not sure if we should trust this kind of news. I think that depending on classification level they may be obliged to deny their very involvement in a project even if they in fact are are involved. We may never know.
The quote is "doesn't belong to", not "not involved with".  As a hypothetical example, it could be a technology demonstrator serving multiple purposes, and hosting a NRO payload in addition to others, while still "not belonging" to the NRO.

Generally speaking, have we seen a pattern of actual disinformation (as opposed to "no information") in the past?  Seems like we tend to take these kinds of statements at face value, although the language should be parsed carefully.

Exactly.  And this would fit with Zuma being commercially owned and operated (i.e.: It doesn't belong to the U.S. government) but all its systems are for the U.S. government's use.  Therefore, it's technically not a government payload.  The government is just the customer using the satellite.  <<< And that is exactly what we know for absolute certain because.... https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/10/spacex-zuma-iridium-4-aims-vandenberg-landing/ ;)

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3363
  • US
  • Liked: 2720
  • Likes Given: 1633
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #203 on: 10/26/2017 04:12 AM »
A bunch of people who can't be bothered to look up where an agency that may or may not be involved with the launch lies in the executive branch is the last thing this thread needs.  Please make some attempt to stay on topic.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10109
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 6953
  • Likes Given: 4743
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #204 on: 10/27/2017 03:35 PM »
Agency structure, and whether NRO or NSA or CIA have generals or admirals at their heads? Anyone seriously think that's on topic???  Press report to mod on this post and make your case. But no.

(Second warning, some posts removed outright)
« Last Edit: 10/27/2017 03:35 PM by Lar »
"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 the_other_Doug

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2726
  • Minneapolis, MN
  • Liked: 1782
  • Likes Given: 3387
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #205 on: 10/28/2017 02:44 AM »
If there is no live video from inside the payload shroud, or from stage 2, after MECO/staging, that will say a lot about the nature of this payload, won't it?

I don't recall any launches except spysat/DoD support payloads (of one form or another), in the rocketcam era, restricting the broadcast of video from stage 2 of their launch vehicles.  So, if they do restrict the stage 2 video on this one, then I'd say the expectation has been set that this means it's a spysat or DoD support payload of some ilk or flavor...
-Doug  (With my shield, not yet upon it)

Offline vanoord

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 586
  • Liked: 347
  • Likes Given: 65
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #206 on: 10/28/2017 07:37 AM »
Given the late announcement of the mission and the secrecy thatís surrounded it, Iíd be pleasantly surprised just to have a webcast showing footage from the ground and the post- separation footage of the S1 core.

Offline ZachS09

Given the late announcement of the mission and the secrecy thatís surrounded it, Iíd be pleasantly surprised just to have a webcast showing footage from the ground and the post- separation footage of the S1 core.

Don't be surprised; it's happened twice during NROL-76 and X-37B OTV-5.
"Liftoff of Falcon 9: the world's first reflight of an orbital-class rocket."

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6199
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 5654
  • Likes Given: 1615
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #208 on: 11/04/2017 05:48 PM »
This may be normal but I find it interesting:

Quote
SpaceX Falcon 9 Strongback still sits on top of LC-39A following Monday's successful launch.

https://twitter.com/NASA_Nerd/status/926871276341174272
« Last Edit: 11/04/2017 09:01 PM by FutureSpaceTourist »

Offline old_sellsword

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 632
  • Liked: 531
  • Likes Given: 463
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #209 on: 11/04/2017 06:20 PM »
This may be normal but I find it interesting:

Quote
SpaceX Falcon 9 Strongback still sits on top of LC-39A following Monday's successful launch.

SpaceX Falcon 9 Strongback still sits on top of LC-39A following Monday's successful launch.

Your url on that is broken, here it is: https://twitter.com/NASA_Nerd/status/926871276341174272
« Last Edit: 11/04/2017 06:20 PM by old_sellsword »

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4460
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1056
  • Likes Given: 573
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #210 on: 11/04/2017 06:28 PM »
This may be normal but I find it interesting:

Quote
SpaceX Falcon 9 Strongback still sits on top of LC-39A following Monday's successful launch.

https://twitter.com/NASA_Nerd/status/926871276341174272
They finally installed the final 2 rain birds on the north side of the pad. Only 2 Hold Downs (HD) and 2 Tail Service Masts (TSM) and final TEL outfitting for FH visibly remain to be installed.
« Last Edit: 11/04/2017 09:20 PM by russianhalo117 »

Offline Wolfram66

Static fire is scheduled for when? T-5 days?? approx 11/9 or 11/10  ??? :-\
Thanks in advance!

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6199
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 5654
  • Likes Given: 1615
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #212 on: 11/07/2017 07:06 PM »

Offline jjyach

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 114
  • Denver, CO
  • Liked: 464
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #213 on: 11/07/2017 11:37 PM »
It was up, down, and halfway many times today.  No more progress on the last two hold downs, and saw some more being removed from the RSS.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3363
  • US
  • Liked: 2720
  • Likes Given: 1633
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #214 on: 11/09/2017 03:15 PM »
This really is a dark mission, the moon won't even be up.

Moonrise 4:04 am   Moonset 4:07 pm

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6199
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 5654
  • Likes Given: 1615
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #215 on: 11/09/2017 07:46 PM »
Quote
Mandatory tour bus shot of 39A today ahead of #Zuma preparations.

https://twitter.com/julia_bergeron/status/928723026874650628

Online rpapo

  • Cybernetic Mole
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1156
  • Michigan, USA
  • Liked: 584
  • Likes Given: 458
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #216 on: 11/09/2017 08:23 PM »
This really is a dark mission, the moon won't even be up.

Moonrise 4:04 am   Moonset 4:07 pm
Until the Merlins fire up, of course.  It's not like you can stealth launch a rocket.  At least not yet.
An Apollo fanboy . . . fifty years ago.

Offline vaporcobra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1013
  • Tacoma, WA
  • Liked: 1716
  • Likes Given: 2194
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #217 on: 11/09/2017 08:43 PM »
This really is a dark mission, the moon won't even be up.

Moonrise 4:04 am   Moonset 4:07 pm
Until the Merlins fire up, of course.  It's not like you can stealth launch a rocket.  At least not yet.

Having fun imagining a huge suppressor screwing onto the bottom of Falcon 9.

Online Chris Bergin

We're still on the schedule for the Static Fire on Saturday, but apparently this document shows a reschedule for the launch date to the 16th:

http://www.patrick.af.mil/Portals/14/documents/Launch%20Hazard%20Area%20Maps/11-15-2017%20%20LHA.pdf?ver=2017-11-09-154517-137

We'll stay as we are until it's got a secondary confirmation via KSC schedules, etc.

Offline Maestro19

  • Member
  • Posts: 12
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #219 on: 11/09/2017 10:07 PM »
This really is a dark mission, the moon won't even be up.

Moonrise 4:04 am   Moonset 4:07 pm
Until the Merlins fire up, of course.  It's not like you can stealth launch a rocket.  At least not yet.

Having fun imagining a huge suppressor screwing onto the bottom of Falcon 9.
Re stealth launching rockets -
Not yet, not ever I think, while rockets work by producing immense shear and relative motion between two volumes of gas. OTOH if someone invents anti-gravity or teleportation, then you can perhaps stealth launch a payload.

Tags: