Author Topic: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION  (Read 539693 times)

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8244
  • N. California
  • Liked: 4465
  • Likes Given: 870
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #440 on: 11/26/2017 08:26 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.
Clearly not all flaws are discovered at qual, that should be obvious.

The static fire is an "all up" closest-thing-to-a-real-launch test, intended to be a catch-all.

Otherwise, what's the point.

With AMOS-6, the static fire caught a biggie. Regrettably, AMOS was on top... But the lesson is that if you change things (e.g. new pad) then a static fire is a good idea.

« Last Edit: 11/26/2017 11:51 PM by meekGee »
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline kevinstout

  • Member
  • Posts: 22
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #441 on: 11/27/2017 09:11 AM »
It seems that people tend to append the word test to static fire, when it should really be rehearsal.  like a wet dress rehearsal. 

its really not a test.  its practice.

Online jacqmans

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Houten, The Netherlands
  • Liked: 2896
  • Likes Given: 185
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #442 on: 11/27/2017 12:02 PM »
And now back to the ZUMA mission, what this topic should be.....

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2218
  • California
  • Liked: 1729
  • Likes Given: 3594
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #443 on: 11/28/2017 09:14 PM »
FAA Zuma launch license attached. It’s dated Nov 9, but I think has only been posted on the FAA’s website this week.

I didn't expect them to release the license, but interestingly, even though they did it doesn't list the flight azimuth from KSC like licenses usually do.  I assume this is due to the classified nature of the payload.  But if that's the case, why publicly release the license at all?  They didn't for the NROL-76 mission which was also a commercial launch (for Ball who was delivering to NRO on orbit) just like this one (Northrup delivering on orbit to an unidentified USG customer).  And, with the eventually published NOTAM and NOTMAR restrictions we'll have a decent idea of the launch azimuth anyway.  Seems a weird way to do things.
« Last Edit: 11/28/2017 09:14 PM by deruch »
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3368
  • US
  • Liked: 2724
  • Likes Given: 1641
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #444 on: 11/28/2017 09:32 PM »
FAA Zuma launch license attached. Its dated Nov 9, but I think has only been posted on the FAAs website this week.

If Zuma had launched on time we probably never would have seen an active link to this license on the FAA site.  I don't know if that's really their intent or just incompetent web design.
« Last Edit: 11/28/2017 09:32 PM by gongora »

Offline Herb Schaltegger

FAA Zuma launch license attached. It’s dated Nov 9, but I think has only been posted on the FAA’s website this week.

If Zuma had launched on time we probably never would have seen an active link to this license on the FAA site.  I don't know if that's really their intent or just incompetent web design.

I've followed commercial launch licenses for certain types of payloads for over 10 years now. Some licenses seem to be granted well in advance, others just in the nick of time. Some are published several weeks before a launch, some seem to just never show up until a search a few years later when I run across them looking for something else. *shrug* I think it's just a combination of bad government IT policies, lackadaisical implementation of those policies and ever-tighter funding.
Ad astra per aspirin ...

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3368
  • US
  • Liked: 2724
  • Likes Given: 1641
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #446 on: 11/29/2017 01:16 AM »
Is the liability insurance requirement mostly dependent on the launch azimuth, or RTLS?  The liability insurance requirement for the Zuma flight is the same as CRS missions and NROL-76, $160M.  The GTO launches are much lower ($30M typical, $68M on BulgariaSat for some reason).
« Last Edit: 11/29/2017 01:16 AM by gongora »

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2218
  • California
  • Liked: 1729
  • Likes Given: 3594
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #447 on: 11/29/2017 01:41 AM »
Is the liability insurance requirement mostly dependent on the launch azimuth, or RTLS?  The liability insurance requirement for the Zuma flight is the same as CRS missions and NROL-76, $160M.  The GTO launches are much lower ($30M typical, $68M on BulgariaSat for some reason).

RTLS definitely has increased requirements.  I think there are differences based on where they are launching from.  I think the baseline limits for launches from KSC are higher than those from CCAFS.  I assume this is based on an evaluation of surrounding property, etc.
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline vanoord

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 586
  • Liked: 347
  • Likes Given: 65
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #448 on: 11/29/2017 06:20 AM »
I wonder if the decision to push FH back to January - after a December static fire - increases the possibility of launching Zuma at the end of December?

A bit of a hassle if Zuma is going from 39A as FH would have to be de-stacked though.

Offline fast

  • Member
  • Posts: 61
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #449 on: 11/29/2017 11:02 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.


What if its not a fairing problem but payload? It is just strange that Iridium is not affected...

Offline Shanuson

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
  • Liked: 197
  • Likes Given: 498
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #450 on: 11/29/2017 11:25 AM »
If the Fairing issue itself is minor but can only be corrected at the factory -> easy fix for iridium IV since faring was still at the factory -> therefore no delay to that mission.
But the Zuma faring would need to be shipped back to the factory with all that entails (demate, decapsulation, repair, encapsulation, remate) -> at least a few weeks delay.

Also you can not just swap to an other fairing since they are custom made with certain payload specific openings. At least this was stated earlier in this thread. (Can someone with knowledge confirm this part)

Online Johnnyhinbos

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1343
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 1493
  • Likes Given: 212
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #451 on: 11/29/2017 11:47 AM »
After all, fairings are not LEGOs you know...
John Hanzl. Author, action / adventure www.johnhanzl.com

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9326
  • UK
  • Liked: 1654
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #452 on: 11/29/2017 12:34 PM »
If the Fairing issue itself is minor but can only be corrected at the factory -> easy fix for iridium IV since faring was still at the factory -> therefore no delay to that mission.
But the Zuma faring would need to be shipped back to the factory with all that entails (demate, decapsulation, repair, encapsulation, remate) -> at least a few weeks delay.

Also you can not just swap to an other fairing since they are custom made with certain payload specific openings. At least this was stated earlier in this thread. (Can someone with knowledge confirm this part)

I remember that statement being posted in this thread earlier on.

Offline Norm38

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1108
  • Liked: 471
  • Likes Given: 660
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #453 on: 11/29/2017 12:58 PM »
Also you can not just swap to an other fairing since they are custom made with certain payload specific openings. At least this was stated earlier in this thread. (Can someone with knowledge confirm this part)

That makes fairing reuse a lot more problematic doesn't it?  If they're payload specific?

Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2222
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 178
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #454 on: 11/29/2017 01:16 PM »
I guess it will become another trade down the line, use standard fairing for $$ or a custom one for $$$. Eventually this could be incorporated into spacecraft design from the outset. At the moment there is probably not enough demand for a standard as every fairing is custom.

Online envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4107
  • Liked: 2126
  • Likes Given: 1272
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #455 on: 11/29/2017 01:16 PM »
Also you can not just swap to an other fairing since they are custom made with certain payload specific openings. At least this was stated earlier in this thread. (Can someone with knowledge confirm this part)

That makes fairing reuse a lot more problematic doesn't it?  If they're payload specific?

Not for repeat payloads like satellite constellations. And it is probably cheaper and faster to recover and modify a fairing than to discard it and build a new one from scratch.

Recovery and reuse is a whole different operation then trying to swap fairing between payloads on a few days notice.

Offline intrepidpursuit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 589
  • Orlando, FL
  • Liked: 377
  • Likes Given: 234
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #456 on: 11/29/2017 05:08 PM »
I believe it has been said on these forums that SpaceX does try to use a standard fairing and pushes back when clients want custom openings. That was one of the issues cited with doing government payloads. The Falcon 9 users manual from 2015 has this statement:
Quote
The fairing can accommodate up to two access doors in the cylindrical portion as a standard service. The
standard payload fairing door is elliptical, with a maximum size of 450 x 550 mm (17.7 x 21.7 in.).

To me that is unclear if that means there are two available openings of that size or if you can make your own openings according to those parameters. It is also an old manual so things could have changed.

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2218
  • California
  • Liked: 1729
  • Likes Given: 3594
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #457 on: 11/29/2017 05:54 PM »
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.


What if its not a fairing problem but payload? It is just strange that Iridium is not affected...

Could, for example, be that the issue is a material defect and the Iridium fairing (or part(s)) came from a different lot/batch that was unaffected.  Or they were able to test the Iridium fairing more easily because that payload hadn't been encapsulated yet.  Or the Zuma fairing was different from the Iridium one in some way that made it an item of concern.  Or it is an investigation/analysis that SpaceX thinks they can close out in very short order but not before the end of November and since Zuma wasn't going to be able to launch before their primary deadline a longer delay was irrelevant.  Etc. 

Regardless, why are people so insistent on trying to fabricate convoluted, contrary explications for something (apparently) very straightforward?  SpaceX said they delayed the launch because they found a problem with 1 of their fairings and needed to investigate.  Why, suddenly, is everyone building "conspiracies" where that's not what actually happened?  First the "Zuma wasn't a real payload" thing and now this.
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline Brian45

  • Member
  • Posts: 45
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #458 on: 11/29/2017 10:37 PM »
I suspect that the lack of information on what the issue was with the fairing is causing people to speculate, sometime wildly. SpaceX is under no compulsion to reveal what the problem was, which is too bad, but hey, they're not government but a private enterprise and they can do what they want. I hope that someday the problem they encountered will be revealed, but until then, we're all in the dark.

Offline dorkmo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 683
  • Liked: 308
  • Likes Given: 816
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #459 on: 11/30/2017 12:52 AM »
Werent they sorta inbetween fairing recovery designs? I think itd be fair to speculate a design change caused an issue.

Tags: