Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 - Jason 3 - SLC-4E Vandenberg - Jan 17, 2016 - DISCUSSION  (Read 586259 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Who knows, they might even be up to V1.2 or V1.3 by then.

Those would not be on contract.

Right. SpaceX has to deliver what is specified in the contract.
If the contract says they need to launch a F9 V1.0 from a West Coast pad, then they had better build one, or cancel the launch contract/return the deposit now.


No, they can provide a V1.1, since it is on the NLS II contract.  Other versions are not

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Who knows, they might even be up to V1.2 or V1.3 by then.

Those would not be on contract.

Right. SpaceX has to deliver what is specified in the contract.
If the contract says they need to launch a F9 V1.0 from a West Coast pad, then they had better build one, or cancel the launch contract/return the deposit now.


No, they can provide a V1.1, since it is on the NLS II contract.  Other versions are not
This begs the question if ULA is contracted to launch a payload on Atlas V 400, can they substitute Atlas V 500? In other words, if the contract specifies a certain launcher, can they substitute a more capable LV without customer approval?

Of course, doing so without customer approval is not good business.

In the specific case of SpaceX, there is a possibility that V1.1 will have teething problems, and customers may require that V1.0 be continued to meet deadlines.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Who knows, they might even be up to V1.2 or V1.3 by then.

Those would not be on contract.

Right. SpaceX has to deliver what is specified in the contract.
If the contract says they need to launch a F9 V1.0 from a West Coast pad, then they had better build one, or cancel the launch contract/return the deposit now.


No, they can provide a V1.1, since it is on the NLS II contract.  Other versions are not
This begs the question if ULA is contracted to launch a payload on Atlas V 400, can they substitute Atlas V 500? In other words, if the contract specifies a certain launcher, can they substitute a more capable LV without customer approval?

It all depends on the contract, but NASA does get approval on its.
Atlas V was substituted for Atlas III on MRO
Delta IV was substituted for Delta III on GOES

Offline Nate_Trost

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 436
  • Liked: 47
  • Likes Given: 2
The question I haven't seen answered is: did they already build a F9 1.0 core, including the set of 1Cs that would be used for this mission before switching production over to the 1.1/1D? At one point I seem to recall a mention of six flight cores, which would leave one if CRS3 is a 1.1.

Offline Jason1701

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2232
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 152
The first 1.0 core, I believe, was used for hotfire testing and publicity photos.

Offline Chris-A

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 35
The first 1.0 core, I believe, was used for hotfire testing and publicity photos.

It was the "welding" qualification tank, also known as the 'run tank' for F9 cluster testing. And the only F9 tank built in the former El Segundo facilitates.

For structure qualification, I'm not sure if it was the run tank, another tank, or the first flight tank.
« Last Edit: 02/08/2013 04:57 pm by Chris-A »

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1809
  • Likes Given: 1302
The question I haven't seen answered is: did they already build a F9 1.0 core, including the set of 1Cs that would be used for this mission before switching production over to the 1.1/1D? At one point I seem to recall a mention of six flight cores, which would leave one if CRS3 is a 1.1.

I suggested a guess that the 6th core is currently the Grasshopper testbed in the SpaceX Grasshopper thread.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Silly question but... would Jason 3 be a horizontal or vertically integrated satellite?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Silly question but... would Jason 3 be a horizontal or vertically integrated satellite?

During encapsulation or during mate to launch vehicle?

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Silly question but... would Jason 3 be a horizontal or vertically integrated satellite?

During encapsulation or during mate to launch vehicle?
Mating. I'm wondering if Jason-3 STP-3 and DSCVR require an MST. I guess DSCVR was baselined for Delta II and thus it does. STP-3 I don't know, but probably are too small to really care. But I ignore if Jason-3 was ever baselined for anything else. And if it does they would need to design a special MST for a single launch, probably cheaper to switch to v1.1.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Silly question but... would Jason 3 be a horizontal or vertically integrated satellite?

During encapsulation or during mate to launch vehicle?
Mating. I'm wondering if Jason-3 STP-3 and DSCVR require an MST. I guess DSCVR was baselined for Delta II and thus it does. STP-3 I don't know, but probably are too small to really care. But I ignore if Jason-3 was ever baselined for anything else. And if it does they would need to design a special MST for a single launch, probably cheaper to switch to v1.1.

no, DSCVR was baseline to fly on the shuttle sideways
« Last Edit: 02/25/2013 10:10 pm by Jim »

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
So all three can be horizontally mated? Thus, no of these payloads imply an MST?

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1553
  • Liked: 501
  • Likes Given: 759
So all three can be horizontally mated? Thus, no of these payloads imply an MST?

JASON 1 and 2 flew on Delta II, but other spacecraft using this s/c bus have flown on Soyuz.

JASON 3 status updates (publicly available ones at least) imply that they are modifying the spacecraft to facilitate integration. My guess is that they're planning on bolting the spacecraft to the LV in the hanger (i.e. horizontally).

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Who knows, they might even be up to V1.2 or V1.3 by then.

Those would not be on contract.

Right. SpaceX has to deliver what is specified in the contract.
If the contract says they need to launch a F9 V1.0 from a West Coast pad, then they had better build one, or cancel the launch contract/return the deposit now.


No, they can provide a V1.1, since it is on the NLS II contract.  Other versions are not

Correction.  V1.1 is not on the NLS II contract.  Spacex is under contract to deliver a V1.0

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Who knows, they might even be up to V1.2 or V1.3 by then.

Those would not be on contract.

Right. SpaceX has to deliver what is specified in the contract.
If the contract says they need to launch a F9 V1.0 from a West Coast pad, then they had better build one, or cancel the launch contract/return the deposit now.


No, they can provide a V1.1, since it is on the NLS II contract.  Other versions are not

Correction.  V1.1 is not on the NLS II contract.  Spacex is under contract to deliver a V1.0

Huh? Why is the vehicle even available through this page then : http://elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov/elvMap/staticPages/launch_vehicle_info1.html and what was the purpose of that NASA release about onramp of the v1.1?
« Last Edit: 03/13/2013 02:37 pm by ugordan »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Who knows, they might even be up to V1.2 or V1.3 by then.

Those would not be on contract.

Right. SpaceX has to deliver what is specified in the contract.
If the contract says they need to launch a F9 V1.0 from a West Coast pad, then they had better build one, or cancel the launch contract/return the deposit now.


No, they can provide a V1.1, since it is on the NLS II contract.  Other versions are not

Correction.  V1.1 is not on the NLS II contract.  Spacex is under contract to deliver a V1.0

Huh? Why is the vehicle even available through this page then : http://elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov/elvMap/staticPages/launch_vehicle_info1.html and what was the purpose of that NASA release about onramp of the v1.1?

Then I got some wrong info from some people I work with along with a brain cramp.  I now remember I posted that the V1.1 was available
« Last Edit: 03/13/2013 03:23 pm by Jim »

Offline dcporter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 881
  • Liked: 266
  • Likes Given: 422
Correction.  V1.1 is not on the NLS II contract.  Spacex is under contract to deliver a V1.0

This contract requirement appears to conflict with reality, right? AFAWK they don't have any more 1.0s. Jim, if that's right, do you have any theories on how this will shake out?

Edit: or did I misread your followon:

Then I got some wrong info from some people I work with along with a brain cramp.  I now remember I posted that the V1.1 was available

as Galactic Penguin seems to think below? That would definitely be the simplest explanation.
« Last Edit: 03/13/2013 04:13 pm by dcporter »

Online Galactic Penguin SST

Correction.  V1.1 is not on the NLS II contract.  Spacex is under contract to deliver a V1.0

This contract requirement appears to conflict with reality, right? AFAWK they don't have any more 1.0s. Jim, if that's right, do you have any theories on how this will shake out?

Apparently in his latest post Jim said that it's his memory that conflicted with reality - v1.1 IS available.  ;)
Astronomy & spaceflight geek penguin. In a relationship w/ Space Shuttle Discovery. Current Priority: Chasing the Chinese Spaceflight Wonder Egg & A Certain Chinese Mars Rover

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Is available in the sense Antares is - it's on the NLS-II contract, but can't get any missions yet because neither has at least 3 successful missions in a row. 
« Last Edit: 03/13/2013 04:23 pm by ugordan »

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
Or even 3 missions....

Hopefully V1.1 will fly more missions than V1.0.

And when the launcher changes again (a production F9R or new upper stage), they need to re-qualify, right ?

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0