If they need to replace the fairing they will do in an appropriate processing facility. In case of this payload, it will not be done by SpaceX but by a contractor employing people with required security clearances.
Quote from: tleski on 11/19/2017 08:47 pmIf they need to replace the fairing they will do in an appropriate processing facility. In case of this payload, it will not be done by SpaceX but by a contractor employing people with required security clearances.Why wouldn't it be done by SpaceX employees with required security clearances?
Sure, it could be done by SpaceX people with proper clearances. I had an impression that someone reported that SpaceX was not involved in the pre-integration processing of this payload but can't find it anymore. My main point was that there is no way they are going to do a fairing swap in the HIF.
Quote from: tleski on 11/19/2017 09:21 pmSure, it could be done by SpaceX people with proper clearances. I had an impression that someone reported that SpaceX was not involved in the pre-integration processing of this payload but can't find it anymore. My main point was that there is no way they are going to do a fairing swap in the HIF.Spacex wouldn't be involved with pre-integration processing. Encapsulation is part of the integration process and would only be done by Spacex. The only time LV personnel are not involved in encapsulation is when the LV does not provide the fairing like in the case of Hexagon
Thanks for claryfying this. So, SpaceX has to have properly cleared people able to see a highly classified payload to integrate it with the payload adaptor and fairing and if needed they would just move it to their pyload processing facility to do a fairing swap?
Quote from: ZachS09 on 11/19/2017 05:15 pmI'm thinking that if Zuma does not launch by November 30th, the payload might either be sent to the scrapyard, or have its parts reused for other satellites.That stirkes me as highly implausible. Why would a very expensive bird be scrapped? Much more likely that SpaceX pays a lot of penalty and gets bad PR. If the mission was actually that time sensitive I could see repurposing.
I'm thinking that if Zuma does not launch by November 30th, the payload might either be sent to the scrapyard, or have its parts reused for other satellites.
Could they switch Zuma to SLC-40 so they can keep 39-A modifications for Falcon Heavy on schedule?
If the fairing is swapped, I wonder if SpaceX will go through another hotfire test. In theory, nothing that has been changed is related to test, but it will have been longer than usual between the hotfire and the launch.
Quote from: StuffOfInterest on 11/20/2017 11:40 amIf the fairing is swapped, I wonder if SpaceX will go through another hotfire test. In theory, nothing that has been changed is related to test, but it will have been longer than usual between the hotfire and the launch.Hotfire is done without payload - why would they need to do another hotfire?
I'd guess NG is pushing for Nov 30 to meet some contractual delivery date. This is probably what was meant when it was previously discussed the customer was intent on meeting some revenue milestone.
Quote from: Jim on 11/20/2017 12:27 amQuote from: tleski on 11/19/2017 09:21 pmSure, it could be done by SpaceX people with proper clearances. I had an impression that someone reported that SpaceX was not involved in the pre-integration processing of this payload but can't find it anymore. My main point was that there is no way they are going to do a fairing swap in the HIF.Spacex wouldn't be involved with pre-integration processing. Encapsulation is part of the integration process and would only be done by Spacex. The only time LV personnel are not involved in encapsulation is when the LV does not provide the fairing like in the case of HexagonThanks for claryfying this. So, SpaceX has to have properly cleared people able to see a highly classified payload to integrate it with the payload adaptor and fairing and if needed they would just move it to their pyload processing facility to do a fairing swap?
Occam's razor says that the problem is with delamination or voids in the composite fairing. That's the most common problem with composite structures. It would have to be in some place or under some condition that it is not caught by the usual NDE tests done during manufacturing, of course, but there are lots of ways for Murphy to offer surprises.
Quote from: cscott on 11/20/2017 03:27 pmOccam's razor says that the problem is with delamination or voids in the composite fairing. That's the most common problem with composite structures. It would have to be in some place or under some condition that it is not caught by the usual NDE tests done during manufacturing, of course, but there are lots of ways for Murphy to offer surprises.The phrasing used from memory also did not seem to exclude tests on recovered fairing, and the timing might almost be right for a teardown of the most recent recovered fairing to reveal stuff.