Author Topic: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION  (Read 500642 times)

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8948
  • UK
  • Liked: 1526
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #420 on: 11/22/2017 07:32 PM »
Now the question is whether Zuma was just a fictitious mission or not.
To what end?

Rapid Response test for the military

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7926
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 3902
  • Likes Given: 1193
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #421 on: 11/22/2017 08:44 PM »
Now the question is whether Zuma was just a fictitious mission or not.
To what end?

Rapid Response test for the military
And throw their credibility in the trash can while doing it?  Elon might be a bit odd, but he is not that crazy.

Edit: fixed typo.
« Last Edit: 11/23/2017 08:10 AM by woods170 »

Offline vanoord

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 576
  • Liked: 344
  • Likes Given: 59
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #422 on: 11/22/2017 09:19 PM »
Big news, 1043 is off the TEL.

FH mods continuing.

https://twitter.com/Delta_IV_Heavy/status/933405458051862528
As if Zuma wasn't an odd mission already...

I don't see mods to the TEL being incompatible with the delay, ie it will be capable of launching F9 as well as FH, so using a week of downtime to continue work doesn't have any implications as to the nature of 'Zuma'.

It simply makes sense from a logistical point of view.

It might also be interesting to know whether the TEL is designed to hold a core stage for extended durations anyway, ie whether removal would be standard practice or not.

No obvious reason that 'Zuma' can't still launch from 39A in early December, other than if the ground crew are going to be working at 39A and 40 so can't conduct two launches within a couple of days.

Shall we gamble on something like a 48 to 72 hour turnaround between 'Zuma' and CRS-13?

Online cppetrie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 560
  • Liked: 318
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #423 on: 11/22/2017 09:26 PM »
Much of the FH prep have been small incremental steps that could be completed between launches, but one of the few remaining tasks is a 2-week cut and weld operation. Starting that step is a guaranteed several week delay while they complete the prep then remate the Zuma stack on the TEL and roll back out. I think the general consensus is that they will not begin that final step until after Zuma is away unless it becomes so far delayed that it could move to 40 after CRS-13. Otherwise FH waits for Zuma.

Online pb2000

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 191
  • Calgary, AB/Mesquite, NV
  • Liked: 128
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #424 on: 11/22/2017 10:11 PM »
Now the question is whether Zuma was just a fictitious mission or not.
To what end?

Rapid Response test for the military

SpaceX is stamping out new boosters every month; if a critical military satellite failed, the limiting factor would be preparation of a ground spare, not the F9 (it would be a safe bet that the US military can pull rank on the manifest).
Launches attended: Worldview-4 (Atlas V 401), Iridium NEXT Flight 1 (Falcon 9 FT), PAZ+Starlink (Falcon 9 FT)

Offline cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2848
  • Liked: 1971
  • Likes Given: 664
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #425 on: 11/23/2017 01:04 AM »
I think this means that (a) a new fairing is required (ie, both this fairing and the future fairing for the other mission were found to have unrepairable defects), and (b) the bottleneck to rapid response (in this case) is fairing production, not stage production.

I wonder if the item transported from 39A is the other FH compression bridge, going to the load testing facility.  The payload went a while ago (we hear) and it doesn't make sense for the core to leave the 39A hanger.

Online cppetrie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 560
  • Liked: 318
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #426 on: 11/23/2017 01:10 AM »
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.

Offline cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2848
  • Liked: 1971
  • Likes Given: 664
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #427 on: 11/23/2017 03:34 AM »
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.
To be clear, I believe that the removal of the F9 from the TEL means that they expect the wait to be long => a new fairing is required.

The payload went to the de-encapsulation facility a few days ago. If they thought that all that was needed was a quick look inside and then back to the pad, the F9 would still be keeping the TEL warm waiting for it.

Online Elthiryel

  • Member
  • Posts: 86
  • Kraków, Poland
  • Liked: 107
  • Likes Given: 619
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #428 on: 11/23/2017 08:36 AM »
I think there is also a possibility that the range maintenance actually affects KSC (this is still unclear to me), so they have to wait until December even if the fairing issue is fixed by now. It would mean they have about a week now to do some TEL modifications and they don't want to waste that time.
GO for launch, GO for age of reflight

Offline MarekCyzio

Will Zuma require another static test since it was removed from TEL?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline Jarnis

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • Liked: 560
  • Likes Given: 154
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #430 on: 11/23/2017 12:49 PM »
Will Zuma require another static test since it was removed from TEL?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not 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.

Offline CorvusCorax

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 398
  • Germany
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 273
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #431 on: 11/25/2017 01:40 PM »
Will Zuma require another static test since it was removed from TEL?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not 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.

Well a static fire is effectively a wet dress rehearsal + ignition sequence and hot engine test.

The engines are tested fine, so technically they don't need to fire them. If it was the first launch from the freshly repaired pad, it would have made sense to still do it to dress rehearse the pad systems, including ignition to rule out GSE issues with the TEA-TEB system.

But if the dragon launch launches first, all hat stuff is already checked out. They could go straight to launch then, without another hot fire or even WDR

On the other hand there's no such thing as too many tests ;)

Offline Herb Schaltegger

On 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.

Ad astra per aspirin ...

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8054
  • N. California
  • Liked: 4301
  • Likes Given: 859
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #433 on: 11/26/2017 02:05 PM »


On 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.

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.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3875
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 293
  • Likes Given: 137
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #434 on: 11/26/2017 02:08 PM »
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?
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3875
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 293
  • Likes Given: 137
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #435 on: 11/26/2017 02:09 PM »
Now the question is whether Zuma was just a fictitious mission or not.
There is a real payload.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Online ChrisGebhardt

  • Assistant Managing Editor
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6209
  • ad astra scientia
  • ~1 AU
  • Liked: 4071
  • Likes Given: 518
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #436 on: 11/26/2017 02:53 PM »
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?

If there was a NET date to report, we would. ;)
« Last Edit: 11/26/2017 02:54 PM by ChrisGebhardt »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32041
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10669
  • Likes Given: 318
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #437 on: 11/26/2017 03:37 PM »

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.

Wrong, it is a perfect example, since there is no fully reusable system.


Irrespective 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.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8054
  • N. California
  • Liked: 4301
  • Likes Given: 859
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #438 on: 11/26/2017 04:11 PM »

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.

Wrong, it is a perfect example, since there is no fully reusable system.


Irrespective 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.
F9 is not airplane like, but AMOS-6 is still a terrible example.

If it weren't for the payload decision, the test would have unmasked the design flaw before the actual flight - exactly as intended.

If anything, AMOS-6 fully demonstrated the value of a "test as you fly" static fire, since the design flaw caused the explosion of the He tank only under very specific circumstances.

So since they're going to a new barely-tested pad, I wouldn't be surprised if they do a static fire again.
« Last Edit: 11/26/2017 07:05 PM by meekGee »
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Online envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3576
  • Liked: 1760
  • Likes Given: 1125
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #439 on: 11/26/2017 08:20 PM »
If it weren't for the payload decision, the test would have unmasked the design flaw before the actual flight - exactly as intended.
The static fire is not intended to uncover design flaws, that is done by qualification tests.

Tags: