Author Topic: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION  (Read 557464 times)

Offline RocketLover0119

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 307
  • Space Geek
  • Tampa, Florida
  • Liked: 209
  • Likes Given: 253
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #520 on: 01/04/2018 11:45 AM »
As far as I'm concerned, they have not yet updated that, the L-2 forecast was released yesterday so......

EDIT: well, Chris B states Friday is off and another WDR may be occurring right now....

The range (http://www.patrick.af.mil/) went back to "TBD" from yesterday's "Jan 5". It was TBD the day before.
« Last Edit: 01/04/2018 11:51 AM by RocketLover0119 »
"The Falcon has landed"

Online woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8505
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 5010
  • Likes Given: 1593
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #521 on: 01/04/2018 11:57 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?
No, not plausible. Too many entities involved to pull off such a stunt. Besides, the only thing that really needs to be kept secret is the payload. The orbit will be independently determined soon enough after launch.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8652
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1123
  • Likes Given: 243
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #522 on: 01/04/2018 02:07 PM »
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?
No, not plausible. Too many entities involved to pull off such a stunt. Besides, the only thing that really needs to be kept secret is the payload. The orbit will be independently determined soon enough after launch.
Maybe I missed it, but I thought they where still not 100% certain they have independently found OTV-5.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4622
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 1395
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #523 on: 01/04/2018 02:45 PM »
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?

A launch needs range support (WDR doesn't) and NOTAMs (neither WDR nor static fire do). So a launch attempt would be public.

Offline ChrisGebhardt

  • Assistant Managing Editor
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6933
  • ad astra scientia
  • ~1 AU
  • Liked: 5577
  • Likes Given: 715
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #524 on: 01/04/2018 03:01 PM »
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?

A launch needs range support (WDR doesn't) and NOTAMs (neither WDR nor static fire do). So a launch attempt would be public.

Exactly.  It's kind of necessary to warn the air and maritime community of restricted zones.  And those have to be public.  Shooting a rocket off into busy air- and sea-space (Port Canaveral) is not gonna happen.  Also, we have published launch dates and media invited to cover this.  So the question is really moot.
« Last Edit: 01/04/2018 03:02 PM by ChrisGebhardt »

Offline LouScheffer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1883
  • Liked: 2462
  • Likes Given: 273
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #525 on: 01/04/2018 03:19 PM »
Everyone seems to assume that the Zuma mission was in the works for a while, but kept secret until 30 days before launch. Example:  SpaceX adds mystery “Zuma” mission, Iridium-4 aims for Vandenberg landing

But what if the mission did not even exist before then?  Suppose some government branch wanted the ability to launch on short notice - pick up the phone, say "I've got a payload here and I want it launched within 30 days".  I see no reason this could not be done technically - the agency would need to provide a satellite built and ready to go, analysis such as coupled loads would need to be pre-done, some sort of retainer would need to go the launch provider to reserve the ability to jump the queue, and so on.  All seem solvable by applying money, and national security implications, to the problem.

This report by the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board of the National Academy of Sciences in 2010,  Review and Assessment of Reusable Booster System for USAF Space Command looked at cost, responsiveness, and reliability.

Two of their findings are (RBS = Reusable Booster System, bold is mine):

 (3) Reusability remains a potential option for achieving full spectrum launch capabilities at reduced cost with important launch flexibility to enable significant new capabilities

 (4) To significantly impact USAF operations, RBS must be more responsive than current systems, but no responsiveness requirement has been identified

Their very first recommendation is:  "USAF should establish specific launch responsiveness objectives to drive associated technology development".   

Launch with 30 days notice sure sounds like a responsiveness objective to me.  And if such a requirement exists, ZUMA looks like exactly what we would expect to see.  Coinicidence?  You decide...

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3786
  • US
  • Liked: 3138
  • Likes Given: 1845
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #526 on: 01/04/2018 04:07 PM »
The Northrop Grumman mission was on the SpaceX manifest for a while, we just didn't know it was called Zuma or when it would launch.

Offline RocketLover0119

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 307
  • Space Geek
  • Tampa, Florida
  • Liked: 209
  • Likes Given: 253
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #527 on: 01/04/2018 05:51 PM »
this may mean nothing, but the new L-2 forecast hasnt been released yet, and on the 45th SW weather page it says, ''no current launch forecasts''  ???
"The Falcon has landed"

Offline satwatcher

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 129
  • Liked: 91
  • Likes Given: 86
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #528 on: 01/04/2018 07:50 PM »
Maybe I missed it, but I thought they where still not 100% certain they have independently found OTV-5.
The ~50 deg inclination of ZUMA will have much favorable visiblity to the amateur satellite trackers than the ~40 deg inclination of OTV-5.

Offline IanThePineapple

Maybe I missed it, but I thought they where still not 100% certain they have independently found OTV-5.
The ~50 deg inclination of ZUMA will have much favorable visiblity to the amateur satellite trackers than the ~40 deg inclination of OTV-5.

If the Zuma-running agency even wanted to work with the OTV, they'd need some serious plane changes. Kind of puts that idea to rest

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9637
  • UK
  • Liked: 1818
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #530 on: 01/04/2018 09:12 PM »
Some truly bizarre rumours doing the rounds online about this payload. Not worthy of being repeated on this forum.
« Last Edit: 01/04/2018 09:12 PM by Star One »

Offline IanThePineapple

Some truly bizarre rumours doing the rounds online about this payload. Not worthy of being repeated on this forum.

Oh my gosh, yes.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9637
  • UK
  • Liked: 1818
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #532 on: 01/04/2018 09:15 PM »
Some truly bizarre rumours doing the rounds online about this payload. Not worthy of being repeated on this forum.

Oh my gosh, yes.

You’ve seen them then, even You Tube videos with 200K+ views.

I am putting it down partly to Space X phenomenally high public profile and partly the classified nature of the payload.
« Last Edit: 01/04/2018 09:25 PM by Star One »

Offline RocketLover0119

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 307
  • Space Geek
  • Tampa, Florida
  • Liked: 209
  • Likes Given: 253
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #533 on: 01/04/2018 09:18 PM »
Chris B on update thread says the  launch is net saturday, but may slip to sunday.......... seems like zuma doesn't want to fly.....
"The Falcon has landed"

Offline LouScheffer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1883
  • Liked: 2462
  • Likes Given: 273
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #534 on: 01/04/2018 11:15 PM »
Speculation about this being a "responsive" launch...

The Northrop Grumman mission was on the SpaceX manifest for a while, we just didn't know it was called Zuma or when it would launch.

I don't think this is a contradiction.  For the first responsive launch, they would probably tell SpaceX to build a booster for a payload to be named later.   Then once SpaceX says the booster is ready, Grumman would say that at some future time they will give them a call, tell them about the payload, and the 30 day clock starts ticking.  This would provide a good test of whether they could integrate and launch an unknown payload in 30 days.

This would explain why SpaceX knew there was a Grumman launch, but not when or the payload name.   That would be by design.

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6549
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 6255
  • Likes Given: 1882
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #535 on: 01/05/2018 06:45 AM »
I understand that high-level winds were the cause of some of the recent Zuma delays. What about cold weather? I don’t recall seeing any info previously about whether there’s a minimum temperature needed to be able to launch?

Offline Ictogan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 128
  • Germany
  • Liked: 76
  • Likes Given: 111
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #536 on: 01/05/2018 07:35 AM »
Speculation about this being a "responsive" launch...

The Northrop Grumman mission was on the SpaceX manifest for a while, we just didn't know it was called Zuma or when it would launch.

I don't think this is a contradiction.  For the first responsive launch, they would probably tell SpaceX to build a booster for a payload to be named later.   Then once SpaceX says the booster is ready, Grumman would say that at some future time they will give them a call, tell them about the payload, and the 30 day clock starts ticking.  This would provide a good test of whether they could integrate and launch an unknown payload in 30 days.

This would explain why SpaceX knew there was a Grumman launch, but not when or the payload name.   That would be by design.
If that were the case, would there be any reason to keep it a secret? Why not say publicly that you are testing SX's ability to launch on short notice?

Online Pete

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 211
  • Cubicle
  • Liked: 198
  • Likes Given: 115
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #537 on: 01/05/2018 08:29 AM »
Chris B on update thread says the  launch is net saturday, but may slip to sunday.......... seems like zuma doesn't want to fly.....

The Zuma launch really counts!
launch date is: Nov 15,erm 16, erm 17,
jan 4,erm 5, erm 6,erm 7

I understand that delays can and will happen, but this steady cadence of one-day-at-a-time-delay is quite soporific.

Offline dnavas

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 143
  • San Jose
  • Liked: 62
  • Likes Given: 164
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #538 on: 01/05/2018 01:59 PM »
jan 4,erm 5, erm 6,erm 7

I understand that delays can and will happen, but this steady cadence of one-day-at-a-time-delay is quite soporific.

Same thing we do every day, Pinky -- wake up two days from a Zuma launch.
Ah well, can't do anything about the weather.  At least I'm not waking up to a day forecast to remain below 0F!

Is it back in the barn yet, or are they still running tests?

Offline ZachS09

It's still on the launch pad at the present time.

Don't know when it'll go back into the HIF for payload mating.
Because the Falcon Heavy Test Flight was successful, it has inspired thousands of people to consider changing the future of space travel.

Tags: