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.
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.
Quote from: meekGee on 03/08/2013 05:32 pmIt'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.
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.
Is the 1.1 more expensive?
-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.
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.
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.
Quote from: meekGee on 03/08/2013 10:47 pmI'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.
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?
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?
Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/08/2013 10:36 pmA 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
Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/08/2013 10:36 pmA 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?