Quote from: Jim on 02/08/2013 01:57 pmQuote from: Lurker Steve on 02/08/2013 01:49 pm 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.
Quote from: Lurker Steve on 02/08/2013 01:49 pm Who knows, they might even be up to V1.2 or V1.3 by then. Those would not be on contract.
Who knows, they might even be up to V1.2 or V1.3 by then.
Quote from: Lurker Steve on 02/08/2013 02:27 pmQuote from: Jim on 02/08/2013 01:57 pmQuote from: Lurker Steve on 02/08/2013 01:49 pm 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
Quote from: Jim on 02/08/2013 02:44 pmQuote from: Lurker Steve on 02/08/2013 02:27 pmQuote from: Jim on 02/08/2013 01:57 pmQuote from: Lurker Steve on 02/08/2013 01:49 pm 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 notThis 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?
The first 1.0 core, I believe, was used for hotfire testing and publicity photos.
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.
Silly question but... would Jason 3 be a horizontal or vertically integrated satellite?
Quote from: baldusi on 02/25/2013 08:45 pmSilly question but... would Jason 3 be a horizontal or vertically integrated satellite?During encapsulation or during mate to launch vehicle?
Quote from: Jim on 02/25/2013 09:39 pmQuote from: baldusi on 02/25/2013 08:45 pmSilly 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.
So all three can be horizontally mated? Thus, no of these payloads imply an MST?
Quote from: Jim on 02/08/2013 02:44 pmQuote from: Lurker Steve on 02/08/2013 02:27 pmQuote from: Jim on 02/08/2013 01:57 pmQuote from: Lurker Steve on 02/08/2013 01:49 pm 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 notCorrection. V1.1 is not on the NLS II contract. Spacex is under contract to deliver a V1.0
Quote from: Jim on 03/13/2013 02:32 pmQuote from: Jim on 02/08/2013 02:44 pmQuote from: Lurker Steve on 02/08/2013 02:27 pmQuote from: Jim on 02/08/2013 01:57 pmQuote from: Lurker Steve on 02/08/2013 01:49 pm 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 notCorrection. V1.1 is not on the NLS II contract. Spacex is under contract to deliver a V1.0Huh? 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?
Correction. V1.1 is not on the NLS II contract. Spacex is under contract to deliver a V1.0
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
Quote from: Jim on 03/13/2013 02:32 pmCorrection. V1.1 is not on the NLS II contract. Spacex is under contract to deliver a V1.0This 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?