Author Topic: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION  (Read 530891 times)

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3831
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2541
  • Likes Given: 3264
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #320 on: 11/16/2017 10:20 PM »
I was thinking this morning that there was a possibility for a postponement today - because Musk is unveiling his electric truck at Tesla tonight, and why risk bad PR in case something happens on the Zuma launch...  ;)

Probably not connected, but couldn't resist throwing it out there.
I would think of this like a slap in the face if I worked at SpaceX.

No doubt.

Rarely do Musk-related events coincide, which is why it came to mind. And I agree with all that SpaceX launch operations would not consider Tesla events to be a factor.

Back to more meaningful discussions I hope...   :o
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2211
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 177
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #321 on: 11/16/2017 10:28 PM »
SpaceX Statement:

“We have decided to stand down and take a closer look at data from recent fairing testing for another customer. Though we have preserved the range opportunity for tomorrow, we will take the time we need to complete the data review and will then confirm a new launch date.”

Can someone explain this for me? Is there something wrong with the fairing?

Offline old_sellsword

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 632
  • Liked: 531
  • Likes Given: 463
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #322 on: 11/16/2017 10:30 PM »
SpaceX Statement:

“We have decided to stand down and take a closer look at data from recent fairing testing for another customer. Though we have preserved the range opportunity for tomorrow, we will take the time we need to complete the data review and will then confirm a new launch date.”

Can someone explain this for me? Is there something wrong with the fairing?

They were running tests on another customer’s fairing for an upcoming mission, and they were getting data they didn’t expect. They thought this issue might be present in Zuma’s fairing too, so they’re standing down to investigate the issue.

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2185
  • California
  • Liked: 1691
  • Likes Given: 3394
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #323 on: 11/16/2017 10:32 PM »
A day time shot:

Quote
gooooood morning from historic Launch Complex 39A. Just finished setting my remote cameras for tonight's 8PM launch of the mystery #Zuma payload. #SpaceX

https://twitter.com/TrevorMahlmann/status/931201861071368194

Interesting - they leave two red working machines (cranes, forklifts or what ever) inside the partially demolished rotating structure during launch.

JLG boom lifts.  They've been up there a while.  Go look in the Pad 39A - Transition to FH thread in SpaceX General for past pictures where they are visible.
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2185
  • California
  • Liked: 1691
  • Likes Given: 3394
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #324 on: 11/16/2017 10:51 PM »

Sound like features for which the USG might be willing to pay a significant amount -- $1B/yr maybe?

nope, can't launch most USG spacecraft

...yet

Nope, never. This capability only applies to single stick vehicles.  SpaceX can't add a FH into the schedule like a F9.

SpaceX is using refurbished F9s (of which they have a whole bunch) for the side cores of the demo mission and that may be the plan for all FH missions(?).  So, to me, the limitation actually seems related to FH center core production and not a complication due to "multiple cores" vs. "single stick".  F9s are more or less interchangeable and given the high production throughput on them, it's easy for SpaceX to swap/delay one core or another without much in the way of lasting schedule impact.  But, since production of FH center cores will be much lower--its manifest is much shorter currently--unless SpaceX have stockpiled one in advance, they don't have the ability to play with the launch order without potentially significant schedule impacts.  Of course, this barrier totally disappears if FH starts flying often.  Center core reuse would certainly help reduce the impacts but so long as FH requires a specialized upper stage it will still somewhat limit their flexibility.  In low flight rate operations, long lead items that are FH specific will be the gating item.
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Online Michael Baylor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 399
  • Liked: 774
  • Likes Given: 364
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #325 on: 11/16/2017 10:52 PM »
My guess is that the Iridium-4 fairing is the culprit for this delay. SpaceX specifically stated that it happened during a test for another customer, so that means it is not an issue based on data from a past launch. The next three launches are expected to be CRS-13, Iridium-4, and Falcon Heavy. CRS-13 will not have a fairing and Falcon Heavy is not for a customer. Only other option is that it is for a 2018 launch, but that's a ways in the future.

Offline Rogerstigers

My guess is that the Iridium-4 fairing is the culprit for this delay. SpaceX specifically stated that it happened during a test for another customer, so that means it is not an issue based on data from a past launch. The next three launches are expected to be CRS-13, Iridium-4, and Falcon Heavy. CRS-13 will not have a fairing and Falcon Heavy is not for a customer. Only other option is that it is for a 2018 launch, but that's a ways in the future.

On that same note, it could be related to some sort of fairing v.Next that might have been launching with this mission.  This might explain why it is something just now surfacing. 

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6105
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 5544
  • Likes Given: 1567
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #327 on: 11/17/2017 07:13 PM »
With Zuma still at the pad SpaceX presumably hasn’t yet established that there is an issue with the Zuma fairing.

I've heard that the Falcon 9 is no longer at the pad. Can anyone in the area to confirm this?
« Last Edit: 11/18/2017 12:19 AM by tvg98 »

Offline ZachS09

If they're taking the Falcon 9/Zuma stack off the TEL, why not keep it to the side and continue work on the Falcon Heavy Demo preps?
"Liftoff of Falcon 9: the world's first reflight of an orbital-class rocket."

Offline IanThePineapple

If they're taking the Falcon 9/Zuma stack off the TEL, why not keep it to the side and continue work on the Falcon Heavy Demo preps?

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they do some FH/ RSS removal work during the Zuma stand down, but only if there will clearly be a long delay (4+ days)

Offline RotoSequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 898
  • Liked: 643
  • Likes Given: 825
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #331 on: 11/18/2017 01:02 AM »
If they're taking the Falcon 9/Zuma stack off the TEL, why not keep it to the side and continue work on the Falcon Heavy Demo preps?

They probably won't do any work that could delay the launch, though. Zuma is contracted to launch by November 30th.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32194
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10839
  • Likes Given: 321
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #332 on: 11/18/2017 01:39 AM »
If they're taking the Falcon 9/Zuma stack off the TEL, why not keep it to the side and continue work on the Falcon Heavy Demo preps?

there is no side when it comes to an integrated launch vehicle

Offline ZachS09

If they're taking the Falcon 9/Zuma stack off the TEL, why not keep it to the side and continue work on the Falcon Heavy Demo preps?

there is no side when it comes to an integrated launch vehicle

I meant leave the Zuma stack in the LC-39A hangar, finish Falcon Heavy modifications, then integrate the Falcon Heavy vehicle on the TEL.
"Liftoff of Falcon 9: the world's first reflight of an orbital-class rocket."

Offline Formica

  • Rocket Boi
  • Member
  • Posts: 67
  • Richmond, CA
  • Liked: 61
  • Likes Given: 425
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #334 on: 11/18/2017 04:38 AM »
If they're taking the Falcon 9/Zuma stack off the TEL, why not keep it to the side and continue work on the Falcon Heavy Demo preps?

there is no side when it comes to an integrated launch vehicle

I meant leave the Zuma stack in the LC-39A hangar, finish Falcon Heavy modifications, then integrate the Falcon Heavy vehicle on the TEL.

I doubt it. Zuma has a hard NLT of 11/30 and FH is non revenue. They wouldn't jeopardize it. FH will slide right to get Zuma off the pad. Bummer for fans, but great for SpaceX demoing rapid launch capabilities!  8)
I'm just a space fan, please correct me if I'm wrong!

Offline old_sellsword

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 632
  • Liked: 531
  • Likes Given: 463
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #335 on: 11/18/2017 05:11 AM »
If they're taking the Falcon 9/Zuma stack off the TEL, why not keep it to the side and continue work on the Falcon Heavy Demo preps?

there is no side when it comes to an integrated launch vehicle

I meant leave the Zuma stack in the LC-39A hangar, finish Falcon Heavy modifications, then integrate the Falcon Heavy vehicle on the TEL.

I’m pretty sure he understood what you meant, and his reply was stating that integrated launch vehicles (especially ones of this much importance) do not simply “get put to the side,” especially by something like FH-1.

Integrated launch vehicles get all the attention until they’ve safely done their job.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7115
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 639
  • Likes Given: 750
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #336 on: 11/18/2017 06:53 AM »
So, as I understand it, there is a possibility of a defective batch of fairings? Or is it that SpaceX were trying out a modification for some reason and it has basically not worked out so well?
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline smoliarm

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 538
  • Moscow, Russia
  • Liked: 299
  • Likes Given: 106
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #337 on: 11/18/2017 10:15 AM »
...
1
 Or is it that SpaceX were trying out a modification for some reason...
2
... and it has basically not worked out so well?

1. - we do know that SpaceX works on payload fairing return for reuse. This effectively means a "yes" for your first question: we do know that there are ongoing modifications to Falcon's fairing - right now, in progress.
And, BTW, I would not expect *batch* right now - most likely these modifications are of "one step at a time" kind, so that each fairing in a row is different. Hopefully the differences are minor.

2. - well, as it was enough to postpone a launch - it is safe to assume it did not work out so well...

Offline MarekCyzio

Assuming SpaceX needs to replace payload fairing - would this require demating the whole payload, returning it to payload processing facility and doing it there? Or it can be done on LC-39A?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline Dante2121

  • Member
  • Posts: 47
  • United States
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #339 on: 11/18/2017 11:59 AM »
Assuming SpaceX needs to replace payload fairing - would this require demating the whole payload, returning it to payload processing facility and doing it there? Or it can be done on LC-39A?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Even if they could do it on 39A - I'd expect them to do it in the payload processing facility to avoid prying eyes on this super secret payload.
« Last Edit: 11/18/2017 12:00 PM by Dante2121 »

Tags: