Author Topic: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION  (Read 497365 times)

Offline Johnnyhinbos

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1264
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 1379
  • Likes Given: 207
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #500 on: 01/03/2018 02:23 PM »
I was wondering about the WDR safety issue as well. I would think that it would require much of the same safety requirements as a static fire.
John Hanzl. Author, action / adventure www.johnhanzl.com

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2783
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2881
  • Likes Given: 2249
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #501 on: 01/03/2018 04:46 PM »
WDR does not require the range. Does require pad safety issues. WDR does prove the vehicle interfaces / GSE change.

Online abaddon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1630
  • Liked: 1087
  • Likes Given: 899
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #502 on: 01/03/2018 04:55 PM »
I fail to see much difference between a WDR and a static fire, unless you presume that the hold-down clamps might accidentally be released.  As much as Hollywood might love that idea, it seems like a vanishingly small probability to me.

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2783
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2881
  • Likes Given: 2249
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #503 on: 01/03/2018 05:07 PM »
There's clearly more paranoia/concern with this payload. First with the fairing, and now with the pad/GSE switch.

Perhaps someone constantly is bringing up "what could go wrong?". And SX answers with "well, we could do X", so X gets done ...

This one's been a bit different.

Offline whitelancer64

A full WDR would do the exact same things as a static fire except light the engines.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2910
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 660
  • Likes Given: 1064
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #505 on: 01/03/2018 05:26 PM »
There's clearly more paranoia/concern with this payload. First with the fairing, and now with the pad/GSE switch.

Perhaps someone constantly is bringing up "what could go wrong?". And SX answers with "well, we could do X", so X gets done ...

This one's been a bit different.

I wonder if they get paid extra to doing 'X'?
SpaceX, just a few things planned for 2018: FH, Starlink Prototypes, Block 5, Dragon 2, Increased launch rate.

Offline pb2000

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 185
  • Calgary, AB/Mesquite, NV
  • Liked: 121
  • Likes Given: 63
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #506 on: 01/03/2018 05:33 PM »
I would hazard a guess that they only loaded a fraction of the propellant and just did leak and systems check. There's a lot that can go wrong between McGregor and the Cape, but not a lot between the barns.
Launches attended: Worldview-4 (Atlas V 401), Iridium NEXT Flight 1 (Falcon 9 FT), PAZ+Starlink (Falcon 9 FT)

Online woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7910
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 3878
  • Likes Given: 1180
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #507 on: 01/03/2018 06:08 PM »
A full WDR would do the exact same things as a static fire except light the engines.

And that is in fact a MAJOR difference.

A WDR doesn't require the services of the range. In this case the WDR was a propellant loading test. IMO it is a safe guess that SpaceX only partially loaded the vehicle and didn't even bother pressurizing the tanks to flight pressure.

A Static Fire does require the range because a static fire is considered to be a potential launch, coming with all the hazards that are associated with an actual launch, such as having a fully fueled and fully pressurized vehicle.
« Last Edit: 01/03/2018 06:14 PM by woods170 »

Offline Formica

  • Rocket Boi
  • Member
  • Posts: 67
  • Richmond, CA
  • Liked: 61
  • Likes Given: 422
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #508 on: 01/03/2018 06:10 PM »
I've given Chris Gebhardt's previous Zuma article a big update based on latest status, etc. And also to revamp it into the new NSF news site style (all images changed, etc.)

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/01/spacex-falcon-9-launch-clandestine-zuma-satellite/

Great update to a great article, Chris G and Chris B  :) Once again, NSF's articles are clear, well written, detail oriented for the space nerds, and accessible to the casual reader. Bravo.
I'm just a space fan, please correct me if I'm wrong!

Offline RocketLover0119

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 202
  • Space Geek
  • Tampa, Florida
  • Liked: 105
  • Likes Given: 172
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #509 on: 01/03/2018 06:36 PM »
This may mean nothing but why hasn't the L-2 forecast been released yet?
« Last Edit: 01/03/2018 06:36 PM by RocketLover0119 »
"The Falcon has landed"

Offline jpo234

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 855
  • Liked: 660
  • Likes Given: 98
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #510 on: 01/03/2018 06:51 PM »
This may mean nothing but why hasn't the L-2 forecast been released yet?
Just appeared in the update thread.
You want to be inspired by things. You want to wake up in the morning and think the future is going to be great. That's what being a spacefaring civilization is all about. It's about believing in the future and believing the future will be better than the past. And I can't think of anything more exciting than being out there among the stars.

Online smndk

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 85
  • Denmark
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #511 on: 01/03/2018 08:28 PM »
Could the detection of particles in the second stage fuel system of CRS-13 have anything to do with the need of a WDR?

Online speedevil

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1697
  • Fife
  • Liked: 811
  • Likes Given: 918
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #512 on: 01/03/2018 11:07 PM »
I wonder if they get paid extra to doing 'X'?

They already get paid a lot more typically for doing government launches.
The customer having more options to make them screw with the rocket and say what they're not happy with is likely one of the reasons for this.
« Last Edit: 01/04/2018 05:51 AM by speedevil »

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2783
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2881
  • Likes Given: 2249
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #513 on: 01/03/2018 11:33 PM »
I wonder if they get paid extra to doing 'X'?

They already get paid a lot more typically for doing government launches.
The customer having more options to make them screw with the rocket and say what they're not happy with could is likely one of the reasons for this.
Ironically, for wanting to do a low-profile launch, they've drawn increasing amounts of scrutiny by every one of this moves.

It's almost as if someone is trying to constantly find flaw to make things more difficult and annoying for the customer's customer here. Which doesn't make much sense.

Offline Johnnyhinbos

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1264
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 1379
  • Likes Given: 207
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #514 on: 01/03/2018 11:36 PM »
There's clearly more paranoia/concern with this payload. First with the fairing, and now with the pad/GSE switch.

Perhaps someone constantly is bringing up "what could go wrong?". And SX answers with "well, we could do X", so X gets done ...

This one's been a bit different.
I would not recommend doing X...
John Hanzl. Author, action / adventure www.johnhanzl.com

Offline su27k

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 851
  • Liked: 569
  • Likes Given: 63
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #515 on: 01/04/2018 03:59 AM »
There's clearly more paranoia/concern with this payload. First with the fairing, and now with the pad/GSE switch.

Perhaps someone constantly is bringing up "what could go wrong?". And SX answers with "well, we could do X", so X gets done ...

This one's been a bit different.

I wonder if they get paid extra to doing 'X'?

I think this is just SpaceX/Elon running at maximum paranoid mode. From the reddit source: https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/7dgvlz/spacex_launch_of_secretive_zuma_mission_from_ksc/dpy98qs/

Quote
Not only does Elon say it, he also emails the entire company. My friends on the inside mentioned that he sent an email about this launch stating that it was the most valuable satellite they have launched to date. Any misgivings or inklings of issues, then to call or email him directly and he would get teams on it to verify.

Online speedevil

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1697
  • Fife
  • Liked: 811
  • Likes Given: 918
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #516 on: 01/04/2018 04:49 AM »
Not only does Elon say it, he also emails the entire company. My friends on the inside mentioned that he sent an email about this launch stating that it was the most valuable satellite they have launched to date.

Assuming he is talking about dollar value of a particular satellite launch - which is admittedly only one interpretation - what would this be?
X-37B came to mind, but this does not as far as I'm aware have a published number.

I guess alternatives would be if he's referring to requiring this to get further air force / ... work.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44184.msg1747406#msg1747406 - for example the still-to-be-awarded contract for the air force batch of 5 launches.

Offline TorenAltair

  • Member
  • Posts: 27
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #517 on: 01/04/2018 07:07 AM »
The range (http://www.patrick.af.mil/) went back to "TBD" from yesterday's "Jan 5". It was TBD the day before.

Offline Pete

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 189
  • Cubicle
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 104
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #518 on: 01/04/2018 08:20 AM »
Considering the level of secrecy surrounding this launch,
I guess we should be happy to know *anything*.
If they could have managed it, I bet they would have done a complete access shutdown and only informed us after the fact that a launch has occurred.

Online Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7099
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 623
  • Likes Given: 739
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #519 on: 01/04/2018 11:18 AM »
Just out of interest, how easy would it be to make a launch attempt initially look like a WDR or static fire? The only difference would be that the payload is attached to the stack. Would it be plausible to hide that?
« Last Edit: 01/04/2018 11:19 AM by Ben the Space Brit »
"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!!!

Tags: