Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 1)  (Read 791419 times)

Offline oiorionsbelt

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1766
  • Liked: 1190
  • Likes Given: 2685
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #1180 on: 03/08/2013 09:59 pm »
I took his original message with a grain of salt as it was quite out of context.

I'd be tempted to just call that a lucky guess on his part rather than actual info he had.
After 7 years of reading this forum I can say with certainty that wouldn't be wise.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #1181 on: 03/08/2013 10:09 pm »

It's ok, it was about two days after he went all double-o-ninja on me for saying that they should have the avionics, restart capability and fuel margin to do this even on the first flight...   

The argument was whether these components would add too much risk even though they only come into play after stage separation.

I figured if you get them into the first flight as part of the 1.1 "upgrade" then it is no an extra risk anymore, just part of that rocket.

Hopefully, this is what is going to happen.

It is  going to make their potential customers in NASA, USAF and NRO more leery.  The configuration of the F9 keeps changing vs settling down.  They won't get contracts for big ticket missions until the same configuration flies the 7 or 8 times.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14159
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #1182 on: 03/08/2013 10:32 pm »

It's ok, it was about two days after he went all double-o-ninja on me for saying that they should have the avionics, restart capability and fuel margin to do this even on the first flight...   

The argument was whether these components would add too much risk even though they only come into play after stage separation.

I figured if you get them into the first flight as part of the 1.1 "upgrade" then it is no an extra risk anymore, just part of that rocket.

Hopefully, this is what is going to happen.

It is  going to make their potential customers in NASA, USAF and NRO more leery.  The configuration of the F9 keeps changing vs settling down.  They won't get contracts for big ticket missions until the same configuration flies the 7 or 8 times.

Yes, and put this way, this is a statement that at least I can have a conversation with.

No doubt it will make them more leery, and the bottom line impact of this leeriness is TBD, but I see your point.

Right now, SpaceX views their manifest is basically a self-funding technology development program (not something that customers love, I'm sure) but so far it seems to have a good chance of working out for both sides.

From SpaceX's point of view, however, a happy steady state is not the main goal.  They see all of this as stepping stones, for better or for worse.

ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #1183 on: 03/08/2013 10:36 pm »
A reusable vehicle is much cheaper to test...
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Jamsta

  • Member
  • Posts: 73
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 1217
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #1184 on: 03/08/2013 10:37 pm »
It is  going to make their potential customers in NASA, USAF and NRO more leery.  The configuration of the F9 keeps changing vs settling down.  They won't get contracts for big ticket missions until the same configuration flies the 7 or 8 times.

Apologies for stupid question, but do they (nasa/spacex) weight changes to a configuration to determine how much has changed.

ie. small changes to the avionics software vs redesign of a rocket motor?

For risk analysis, etc.

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #1185 on: 03/08/2013 10:43 pm »
Based on noises from SpaceX about mass production, it certainly sounds like they are trying to settle on the v1.1 and mass produce that. (using lessons learned from F9v1.0)

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14159
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #1186 on: 03/08/2013 10:47 pm »
I've never seen a launch contract.

I don't know if what the customer receives is a guaranteed performance spec (everything from mechanical interface, acoustical environment, payload services etc) or are they guarantees a certain specific carrier rocket.

If it's just the environment that's specified, then customers can't really complain about something like the 1.1 upgrade.

Except, (just occurred to me) insurance rates come into play here.  Is insurance for the 1.1 more expensive?  Does SpaceX pick up the difference?

If SpaceX, at the time that the soon-to-fly contracts were signed, was already anticipating the 1.1, then perhaps there's no issue and all of this is already in the contract.

If not, I can see how it might have gotten complicated.

EDIT: Clarified "more expensive"
« Last Edit: 03/08/2013 11:07 pm by meekGee »
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Online butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2399
  • Liked: 1693
  • Likes Given: 598
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #1187 on: 03/08/2013 11:00 pm »
Iterate or stagnate. Those are the options.

Delta IV carried DoD payloads on its second and third launches (and in a different configuration than its maiden launch), so confidence in a launch vehicle is clearly not derived entirely from an accumulated flight history in a stable configuration. Atlas V didn't launch a major government payload until flight 10, and that was the one and only partial failure.

SpaceX would be wise to bundle their developments as much as practical to reduce the frequency of their product iterations, and so it makes sense to give F9v1.1 an independent first-stage avionics unit from the start. But it's not unreasonable for SpaceX to have evolutionary updates every 2-3 years.

Offline Mongo62

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • Liked: 834
  • Likes Given: 156
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #1188 on: 03/08/2013 11:01 pm »
Is the 1.1 more expensive?
My understanding is that the 1.1 is actually LESS expensive to manufacture than the 1.0, mainly due to lower costs for the M1D.  The extra mass is mainly in larger tanks, which are relatively inexpensive compared to the cost of the engines.

Offline rickl

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 899
  • Pennsylvania, USA
  • Liked: 146
  • Likes Given: 150
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #1189 on: 03/08/2013 11:06 pm »
Quote
-After separation during its first launch, the 1.1 first stage will flip around using cold gas thrusters, and relight its engine to reenter more slowly. Then it will try to "land" on the ocean as practice for eventually landing back near the pad.

I sure hope they have video of that, although I wouldn't want to be on a boat nearby.  At least not the first time.   :o
The Space Age is just starting to get interesting.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #1190 on: 03/09/2013 01:32 am »
Iterate or stagnate. Those are the options.

Delta IV carried DoD payloads on its second and third launches (and in a different configuration than its maiden launch), so confidence in a launch vehicle is clearly not derived entirely from an accumulated flight history in a stable configuration. Atlas V didn't launch a major government payload until flight 10, and that was the one and only partial failure.

SpaceX would be wise to bundle their developments as much as practical to reduce the frequency of their product iterations, and so it makes sense to give F9v1.1 an independent first-stage avionics unit from the start. But it's not unreasonable for SpaceX to have evolutionary updates every 2-3 years.

EELV's were grandfathered long ago.  It is harder on new entrants

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #1191 on: 03/09/2013 01:35 am »
http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?t=NPD&c=8610&s=7D

For those who wonder about certification

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #1192 on: 03/09/2013 01:43 am »
I've never seen a launch contract.

I don't know if what the customer receives is a guaranteed performance spec (everything from mechanical interface, acoustical environment, payload services etc) or are they guarantees a certain specific carrier rocket.

If it's just the environment that's specified, then customers can't really complain about something like the 1.1 upgrade.


The customer gets a performance spec and ICD.

For NASA and DOD, the V1.0 and V1.1 are two different vehicles.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14159
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #1193 on: 03/09/2013 02:19 am »
I've never seen a launch contract.

I don't know if what the customer receives is a guaranteed performance spec (everything from mechanical interface, acoustical environment, payload services etc) or are they guarantees a certain specific carrier rocket.

If it's just the environment that's specified, then customers can't really complain about something like the 1.1 upgrade.


The customer gets a performance spec and ICD.

For NASA and DOD, the V1.0 and V1.1 are two different vehicles.


ICD - Interface Control Document, yes?

So if the ICD and (minimum) performance are the same can the customer legally refuse an upgraded rocket? 

Insurance wise, if the insurance company says "sure, maybe the ICD and performance spec are the same, but I don't trust the new engine design" - then won't SpaceX be responsible for the extra cost?

--

I get the feeling that some customers as you say balked at the change in configuration, but overall they went along with it, partly because of the increase in performance, and partly because realistically, everyone was in the same boat. It's a better rocket at least on paper, it's what SpaceX wants to fly, clearly SpaceX also has the customer's need in mind, so why not.

ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #1194 on: 03/09/2013 02:52 am »
It all depends on the contract.

The customers I am talking about are DOD and NASA. 

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #1195 on: 03/09/2013 02:53 am »
Insurance wise, if the insurance company says "sure, maybe the ICD and performance spec are the same, but I don't trust the new engine design" - then won't SpaceX be responsible for the extra cost?

Insurance doesn't care about ICD or performance--at least to the extent that performance meets minimums.  Whether SpaceX is "responsible for the extra cost" is a matter between them and the customer.  Of note, most (all?) US government launches (NASA, DoD, etc.) are self-insured, which is one reason for the additional cost for those missions (aka "mission assurnance") vs. commercial insurance.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #1196 on: 03/09/2013 02:59 am »
A reusable vehicle is much cheaper to test...
I'm still having trouble seeing how reuse could pay off.  We saw last year that a Merlin fired one too many times, with a test history just slightly longer than other flown engines, blew itself apart.  How many of these recovered engines could actually be reused? 

 - Ed Kyle

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #1197 on: 03/09/2013 03:02 am »
I'm still having trouble seeing how reuse could pay off.  We saw last year that a Merlin fired one too many times, with a test history just slightly longer than other flown engines, blew itself apart.  How many of these recovered engines could actually be reused? 

That's what they're trying to find out.. and all the things they need to change to make the engine more reusable.

Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #1198 on: 03/09/2013 03:07 am »
A reusable vehicle is much cheaper to test...
I'm still having trouble seeing how reuse could pay off.  We saw last year that a Merlin fired one too many times, with a test history just slightly longer than other flown engines, blew itself apart.  How many of these recovered engines could actually be reused? 

 - Ed Kyle
Recovered, for the next flight? Probably won't bother, even if it works.

And it was caused by a defect, not by reuse of a good engine.

I was referring to a land-landing reusable rocket.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #1199 on: 03/09/2013 03:29 am »
A reusable vehicle is much cheaper to test...
I'm still having trouble seeing how reuse could pay off.  We saw last year that a Merlin fired one too many times, with a test history just slightly longer than other flown engines, blew itself apart.  How many of these recovered engines could actually be reused?

Wasn't the engine a problem because of a material flaw? That's what was stated in the pre-flight press conference, anyway. So the # of times that engine had been fired may not have been the most significant factor.

As for how reuse could pay off... Fortunately Henry Ford was not so skeptical towards reuse. ;)

It could be that economical reuse is beyond the state of the art at the moment - but at least they are giving it a shot. They clearly believe in it.

Tags:
 

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