Quote from: meekGee on 11/26/2017 04:11 pmIf 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.
If it weren't for the payload decision, the test would have unmasked the design flaw before the actual flight - exactly as intended.
FAA Zuma launch license attached. It’s dated Nov 9, but I think has only been posted on the FAA’s website this week.
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 11/28/2017 09:00 pmFAA 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.
FAA Zuma launch license attached. Its dated Nov 9, but I think has only been posted on the FAAs website this week.
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).
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.
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)
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)
Quote from: Shanuson on 11/29/2017 11:25 amAlso 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?
The fairing can accommodate up to two access doors in the cylindrical portion as a standard service. Thestandard payload fairing door is elliptical, with a maximum size of 450 x 550 mm (17.7 x 21.7 in.).
Quote from: cscott on 11/23/2017 01:04 amI 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...