Author Topic: USAF Certifies SpaceX for National Security Space Missions  (Read 29434 times)

Online Chris Bergin

As was expected....presser from the USAF:

Air Force's Space and Missiles System Center Certifies SpaceX for National Security Space Missions

Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs/May 27, 2015

LOS ANGELES AIR FORCE BASE, El Segundo, Calif. -- Lieutenant General Samuel Greaves, Commander of the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC) and Air Force Program Executive Officer for Space, has announced the certification of Space Exploration Technologies Corporation’s (SpaceX) Falcon 9 Launch System for national security space missions.

SpaceX is now eligible for award of qualified national security space launch missions as one of two currently certified launch providers. The first upcoming opportunity for SpaceX to compete to provide launch services is projected to be in June when the Air Force releases a Request for Proposal (RFP) for GPS III launch services.

“This is a very important milestone for the Air Force and the Department of Defense,” said Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James. “SpaceX’s emergence as a viable commercial launch provider provides the opportunity to compete launch services for the first time in almost a decade. Ultimately, leveraging of the commercial space market drives down cost to the American taxpayer and improves our military’s resiliency.”

This milestone is the culmination of a significant two-year effort on the part of the Air Force and SpaceX to execute the certification process and reintroduce competition into the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program. The Air Force invested more than $60 million and 150 people in the certification effort which encompassed 125 certification criteria, including more than 2,800 discreet tasks, 3 certification flight demonstrations, verifying 160 payload interface requirements, 21 major subsystem reviews and 700 audits in order to establish the technical baseline from which the Air Force will make future flight worthiness determinations for launch.

“The SpaceX and SMC teams have worked hard to achieve certification,” said Greaves.  “And we’re also maintaining our spaceflight worthiness process supporting the National Security Space missions. Our intent is to promote the viability of multiple EELV-class launch providers as soon as feasible.”

Elon Musk, SpaceX CEO and Lead Designer, stated, “This is an important step toward bringing competition to National Security Space launch. We thank the Air Force for its confidence in us and look forward to serving it well.”

The certification process provides a path for launch-service providers to demonstrate the capability to design, produce, qualify, and deliver a new launch system and provide the mission assurance support required to deliver national security space satellites to orbit. This gives the Air Force confidence that the national security satellites being delivered to orbit will safely achieve the intended orbits with full mission capability. 

SMC, located at Los Angeles Air Force Base, Calif., is the U.S. Air Force's center for acquiring and developing military space systems. Its portfolio includes GPS, military satellite communications, defense meteorological satellites, space launch and range systems, satellite control networks; space based infrared systems and space situational awareness capabilities.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline jaufgang

  • Member
  • Posts: 63
  • Liked: 79
  • Likes Given: 22
It's about time.   :)

Offline Helodriver

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1076
  • Liked: 5971
  • Likes Given: 700
I will keep watching SLC-4 for signs of a vertical payload integration tower.  A design for a lightweight rotating service structure supposedly exists and its construction was contingent on certification.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13997
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
At long last. Hopefully it will lead to a reduction in the cost to the taxpayer.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
So begins the next adventure :P
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13997
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
Wonder if they can bid for the X-37B flights or is that tied to the Atlas.

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1251
  • Liked: 580
  • Likes Given: 935
Woo hoo. Nice job AFSPC and SpaceX getting it done right. Good when the acquisition commands remember their policies are just paper from the boss and not law. They cut through a lot of the sillier paper to get this done before GPS III.

Offline TrevorMonty

The Air Force should recover their $60m investment from savings on first two flights if not first.

"The Air Force invested more than $60 million and 150 people in the certification effort which encompassed 125 certification criteria, including more than 2,800 discreet tasks, 3 certification flight demonstrations, verifying 160 payload interface requirements, 21 major subsystem reviews and 700 audits in order to establish the technical baseline from which the Air Force will make future flight worthiness determinations for launch."

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
USAF will be flying on SpaceX’s  “all American” rocket... There you go Mr. P....
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
The Air Force should recover their $60m investment from savings on first two flights if not first.

"The Air Force invested more than $60 million and 150 people in the certification effort which encompassed 125 certification criteria, including more than 2,800 discreet tasks, 3 certification flight demonstrations, verifying 160 payload interface requirements, 21 major subsystem reviews and 700 audits in order to establish the technical baseline from which the Air Force will make future flight worthiness determinations for launch."

I had to giggle at the typo... how many tasks total was it? 2800 discreet ones, and how many public? :)
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
The really big deal:
Quote from: Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James
“SpaceX’s emergence as a viable commercial launch provider provides the opportunity to compete launch services for the first time in almost a decade. Ultimately, leveraging of the commercial space market drives down cost to the American taxpayer and improves our military’s resiliency.”

Unlike the past, the provider started by being a viable and consistent commercial provider.

And then moved up to NSS.

Instead of the other way round.

That is why they might drive down cost.

If we end up with two providers that are economic, viable, and consistent - yes we'll "drive down cost to the American taxpayer and improves our military’s resiliency."

Offline Michael S

  • Member
  • Posts: 79
  • Liked: 45
  • Likes Given: 85
I tried several searches to find an explanation as to why the Air Force insists upon 'vertical payload integration.' So far all I have been able to find are...
1) articles discussing the pros and cons of vertical vs. horizontal vehicle assembly. 
2)other people asking the same question as I am, but basically getting #1 as an answer.
 Or 3) PDFs of detailed discussions concerning the byzantine bureaucratic conundrum of the USAF/DoD attempts at "vertical integration to cut administrative costs" in regards to subcontractors.
The irony of the 3rd subject does not escape me
Can anyone clarify, or at least, direct me toward the right filing cabinet?

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
How about the various replies of "that's how their payloads were designed and they're not going to redesign their payloads for SpaceX". Seems like the most reasonable answer to me.

Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
I tried several searches to find an explanation as to why the Air Force insists upon 'vertical payload integration.' So far all I have been able to find are...
1) articles discussing the pros and cons of vertical vs. horizontal vehicle assembly. 
2)other people asking the same question as I am, but basically getting #1 as an answer.
 Or 3) PDFs of detailed discussions concerning the byzantine bureaucratic conundrum of the USAF/DoD attempts at "vertical integration to cut administrative costs" in regards to subcontractors.
The irony of the 3rd subject does not escape me
Can anyone clarify, or at least, direct me toward the right filing cabinet?

The need for vertical payload integration is dictated by real requirements and spacecraft design and hence are beyond the purview of this or any public forum.  It has nothing to do not wanted to change spacecraft design to accept horizontal integration.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27147.0
« Last Edit: 05/27/2015 02:52 am by Jim »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
So what are bets on how long will it take to certify the upgraded F9 version?

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1809
  • Likes Given: 1302
So what are bets on how long will it take to certify the upgraded F9 version?

Time for a poll!  ;D

Offline ulm_atms

  • Rocket Junky
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 926
  • To boldly go where no government has gone before.
  • Liked: 1565
  • Likes Given: 770
Quote
The need for vertical payload integration is dictated by mission requirements and spacecraft design and hence are beyond the purview of this or any public forum

That makes perfect sense but I, and probably Michael above, was wondering if you might be able to give some known examples/issues that required vertical instead of horizontal integration throughout the years.  I have seen many conversations where it was stated that vertical integration was required for the payload being launched.....but I have never seemed to find a 'WHY' it was required type example.  I would find it quite interesting to know some reasons why only vertical integration will work for some payloads.

Now for the certification bet......shorter then the first time  ;D

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
There are some hints on vertical integration drivers in the link I posted.

Offline puhnitor

  • Member
  • Posts: 21
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 3
Quote
The need for vertical payload integration is dictated by mission requirements and spacecraft design and hence are beyond the purview of this or any public forum

That makes perfect sense but I, and probably Michael above, was wondering if you might be able to give some known examples/issues that required vertical instead of horizontal integration throughout the years.

1. Alignment of optics in the vertical plane. The mounting systems aren't designed to withstand much horizontal load.
2. Access to the spacecraft after mating to the launcher in the high bay. See http://www.americaspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/ABS-2.jpg
3. A satellite exerts torque on the mounting point when horizontal proportionate to the satellite's length and mass (torque = r*F*sin(theta)). When vertical, the mount point needs only to support the satellite's weight. It's an order of magnitude greater force (49 kN vs 245 kN for a 5000kg, 5m long satellite).

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
So what are bets on how long will it take to certify the upgraded F9 version?
Six months after delivery of the three launches data packages?

Offline ulm_atms

  • Rocket Junky
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 926
  • To boldly go where no government has gone before.
  • Liked: 1565
  • Likes Given: 770
Thanks Jim!  You snuck in that link while i was posting....  The Juno with and without fuel was a great example and exactly what i was looking for.

puhnitor, i also appreciate your examples.

I just see alot of back and forth on vertical vs horizonal integration but never really any concrete "They have X problem with horizontal so they do it vertical" or visa versa.  It's nice to have knowledge.

As far as the certification goes....i assume this is for v1.1 only and that the "full thrust" version will require multiple flights before it can be certified.  What do you think the testing requirements for the "full thrust" will be?  I would think not as much as the v1.1 but at least 3 flights under it's belt minimum?


Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428

2. Access to the spacecraft after mating to the launcher in the high bay. See http://www.americaspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/ABS-2.jpg

The requirement for spacecraft access is through fairing doors and not 360 as shown in the picture.  Anyways, the spacecraft/LV mate could still be done horizontal and access though the fairing provided after the launch vehicle is raised to vertical.

 But that is not the requirement, it is vertical integration of an encapsulated spacecraft
« Last Edit: 05/27/2015 03:47 am by Jim »

Offline Brovane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • United States
  • Liked: 828
  • Likes Given: 1797
So what are bets on how long will it take to certify the upgraded F9 version?

Isn't there a process in the EELV certification for dealing with launch vehicle upgrades without having the vehicle go through a full certification process again?   It isn't like SpaceX is going to freeze design changes for the Falcon 9.
« Last Edit: 05/27/2015 03:59 am by brovane »
"Look at that! If anybody ever said, "you'll be sitting in a spacecraft naked with a 134-pound backpack on your knees charging it", I'd have said "Aw, get serious". - John Young - Apollo-16

Offline OnWithTheShow

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 349
  • Philadelphia, PA
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 27
They clearly havent required 3 flights plus analysis for minor upgrades to Atlas/Centaur

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • USA
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 970
So what are bets on how long will it take to certify the upgraded F9 version?
Which reminds me of something I've been wondering:

Which version of the F9 will they propose for the GPSIII competition? They don't like to keep legacy items around as seen by the whole Jason 3 experience. And they'll be rolling in the next F9 version this summer for SES. Long before they launch GPSIII. (if they win) Or are the upgrades we've all heard about, not as dramatic within the context of SpaceX as a company and F9 as a base design wrt this certification.
« Last Edit: 05/27/2015 04:26 am by rcoppola »
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline somepitch

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 177
  • Vancouver
  • Liked: 198
  • Likes Given: 421
Does the fact that the certification teams were likely already working with SpaceX during development of the upgraded F9 mean that the requirements would be much less due to "being involved" as with past launchers, Vulcan, etc?

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4846
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 3429
  • Likes Given: 741
So what are bets on how long will it take to certify the upgraded F9 version?
3 to 5 months from when data is handed over from this summers SES flight.

Edit: Which reminds me of something I've been wondering:

Which version of the F9 will they propose for the GPSIII competition? They don't like to keep legacy items around as seen by the whole Jason 3 experience. I find it funny that by the time everyone got around to certifying the F9, SpaceX has already moved onto another upgrade/version.

They can't win a competition with an uncertified version, so they'll have to propose the current version and hope that the new version gets certified soon enough that they're allowed to fly it when the time comes for the GPSIII mission. That shouldn't be a problem since it's a 2017 mission IIRC, plenty of time for the new version to be certified.
« Last Edit: 05/27/2015 04:32 am by Kabloona »

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18201
  • Likes Given: 12162
Except a boatload of money for helping humanity become a multi-planet spieces.

Yeah, because joining the military has never changed anyone.

I look at it this way:
Elon takes money from USAF and stuffs it into technology to go visit some other planets.
ULA that takes USAF money and have it go straight to Boeing and LockMart, those stuffing it into development of yet more technology to kill each other on the battlefield.

I spot just a wee bit of difference there...

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
They clearly havent required 3 flights plus analysis for minor upgrades to Atlas/Centaur

F9 upgrades are not minor

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Isn't there a process in the EELV certification for dealing with launch vehicle upgrades without having the vehicle go through a full certification process again?   It isn't like SpaceX is going to freeze design changes for the Falcon 9.
Actually that has been suggested. The NSS F9, specification and design carefully freeze dried for permanent use, and the factory fresh F9, continuously improved by the feedback from previous launches.

I think it's a lousy idea but given the USAF's addiction to process and standards (at just about any cost to the taxpayer) quite a simple one to implement.

I hope SX will stand their ground and treat the US taxpayer ( where all govt money ultimately comes from) like any other paying customer. No more and no less.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13997
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
USAF Certifies SpaceX for National Security Space Missions
« Reply #30 on: 05/27/2015 12:13 pm »
Except a boatload of money for helping humanity become a multi-planet spieces.

Yeah, because joining the military has never changed anyone.

I look at it this way:
Elon takes money from USAF and stuffs it into technology to go visit some other planets.
ULA that takes USAF money and have it go straight to Boeing and LockMart, those stuffing it into development of yet more technology to kill each other on the battlefield.

I spot just a wee bit of difference there...

That's a grossly simplistic comment in considering  the work of the other companies you've mentioned there. They do plenty of other stuff as well. In case you missed it Boeing does have a substantial civil aviation business and many of the payloads for NASA are built by LM. Just to give two very basic examples.
« Last Edit: 05/27/2015 12:29 pm by Star One »

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • USA
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 970
Isn't there a process in the EELV certification for dealing with launch vehicle upgrades without having the vehicle go through a full certification process again?   It isn't like SpaceX is going to freeze design changes for the Falcon 9.
Actually that has been suggested. The NSS F9, specification and design carefully freeze dried for permanent use, and the factory fresh F9, continuously improved by the feedback from previous launches.

I think it's a lousy idea but given the USAF's addiction to process and standards (at just about any cost to the taxpayer) quite a simple one to implement.

I hope SX will stand their ground and treat the US taxpayer ( where all govt money ultimately comes from) like any other paying customer. No more and no less.
Shotwell was very clear that she only wants 2 different cores in production. F9 Stick/FH Boosters & FH Center Core. I really don't see them freezing anything for anyone except maybe a one-off sent to storage if they get into a situation where a previous contract conflicts with a new version being certified in time.
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • USA
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 970
They clearly havent required 3 flights plus analysis for minor upgrades to Atlas/Centaur

F9 upgrades are not minor
No they're not, I agree. They will need to go through additional  independent engineering, testing and flight data reviews, until this next version is certified as well. I think it's enough of a change for them to want to see at least one actual launch and then a few months review.

How long do you think?
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Online abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3051
  • Liked: 3900
  • Likes Given: 5274
ISTR reading Merlin 1D was already designed for the full thrust version we're going to see, the only new work was qualification, not any design changes.  I can't see that being a "big change" and certainly less of a change than the RS-68A.  The (small) stage stretch seems minor.  The propellant densification is likely the biggest change.  VI is a bigger outstanding open item than all of these taken together.

For those who talk about how SpaceX needs to freeze their LV for USAF, USAFSC head General Hyten specifically noted in congressional testimony earlier this year that all LVs undergo incremental changes and that SpaceX is not special in this regard.

The first flight of an "enhanced" F91.1 is going to be in a handful of months.  It will be years before any USAF payload rides a Falcon 9.  My prediction; none of this is going to be a big deal compared with the initial certification process.  USAF will not require any demo flights.

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1251
  • Liked: 580
  • Likes Given: 935
I think GPS III award will be delayed until after SES launches to give time to certify the upgraded F9.

Offline Tomness

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 660
  • Into the abyss will I run
  • Liked: 289
  • Likes Given: 737
I wouldn't know the process but why not just launch certified F9 v1.1 that are flying now... or AF was involved in this new upgrade to award certification with items pending

Offline davey142

  • Member
  • Posts: 78
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 671
I wouldn't know the process but why not just launch certified F9 v1.1 that are flying now... or AF was involved in this new upgrade to award certification with items pending
Because SpaceX says there only going to make the Falcon 9 v1.1 enhanced cores and the Falcon Heavy central cores.

Offline dante2308

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 529
  • Liked: 191
  • Likes Given: 45
http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/05/27/spacex-cleared-to-launch-u-s-national-security-satellites/

Quote
The Air Force modified its certification framework with SpaceX in April to permit the Falcon 9 rocket to compete for military launches without completing all the milestones outlined in the 2013 agreement. The military said SpaceX would pass the certification review based on the company’s proven flight history, which includes 13 consecutive successful launches of the Falcon 9 v1.1 booster.

This implies that 13 consecutive successful flights of a new rocket or a significantly different rocket would be required to certify under the current agreement. It also explains why they kept saying June. It was dependent on the SpaceX launch manifest.

I should note that expedited Category 3 certification for NASA would require 14 consecutive successful flights http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/NPD_attachments/AttachmentA_7C.pdf.
« Last Edit: 05/28/2015 01:04 am by dante2308 »

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2422
  • California
  • Liked: 2006
  • Likes Given: 5634
Isn't there a process in the EELV certification for dealing with launch vehicle upgrades without having the vehicle go through a full certification process again?   It isn't like SpaceX is going to freeze design changes for the Falcon 9.
Actually that has been suggested. The NSS F9, specification and design carefully freeze dried for permanent use, and the factory fresh F9, continuously improved by the feedback from previous launches.

I think it's a lousy idea but given the USAF's addiction to process and standards (at just about any cost to the taxpayer) quite a simple one to implement.

I hope SX will stand their ground and treat the US taxpayer ( where all govt money ultimately comes from) like any other paying customer. No more and no less.
Shotwell was very clear that she only wants 2 different cores in production. F9 Stick/FH Boosters & FH Center Core. I really don't see them freezing anything for anyone except maybe a one-off sent to storage if they get into a situation where a previous contract conflicts with a new version being certified in time.

She's also been very clear that if the AF wants a previous configuration instead of their most up-to-date one then they will have that option.  See her response to a direct question on this very point during the Q&A at the Atlantic Council from June of last year.  Question begins at time mark 43m53s.



Of course, it's possible that this position has changed but I don't think it has.  Unfortunately, she didn't really say anything about the process for delta-certification, beyond the fact that they've addressed that with the AF, which is what Jim was asking about.
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10205
  • US
  • Liked: 13885
  • Likes Given: 5933
http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/05/27/spacex-cleared-to-launch-u-s-national-security-satellites/

Quote
The Air Force modified its certification framework with SpaceX in April to permit the Falcon 9 rocket to compete for military launches without completing all the milestones outlined in the 2013 agreement. The military said SpaceX would pass the certification review based on the company’s proven flight history, which includes 13 consecutive successful launches of the Falcon 9 v1.1 booster.

This implies that 13 consecutive successful flights of a new rocket or a significantly different rocket would be required to certify under the current agreement. It also explains why they kept saying June. It was dependent on the SpaceX launch manifest.

...

It doesn't imply anything of the sort and is not a requirement.  It was just noting how many successful missions they've had.

Offline dante2308

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 529
  • Liked: 191
  • Likes Given: 45
It was previously known that the number of consecutive successful flights was inversely proportional to the rigor of the certification review of their processes. It may not be 13, but it is implied that the new number is greater than three.

Offline Ludus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1744
  • Liked: 1255
  • Likes Given: 1017

2. Access to the spacecraft after mating to the launcher in the high bay. See http://www.americaspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/ABS-2.jpg

The requirement for spacecraft access is through fairing doors and not 360 as shown in the picture.  Anyways, the spacecraft/LV mate could still be done horizontal and access though the fairing provided after the launch vehicle is raised to vertical.

 But that is not the requirement, it is vertical integration of an encapsulated spacecraft

Could they handle the Falcon horizontally and move it to the pad that way but work out something using the rotating service structure on 39a to do vertical integration of the encapsulated spacecraft? Or is that just the wrong height or configuration to work on a Falcon vertically?
« Last Edit: 05/29/2015 04:03 am by Ludus »

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4846
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 3429
  • Likes Given: 741

2. Access to the spacecraft after mating to the launcher in the high bay. See http://www.americaspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/ABS-2.jpg

The requirement for spacecraft access is through fairing doors and not 360 as shown in the picture.  Anyways, the spacecraft/LV mate could still be done horizontal and access though the fairing provided after the launch vehicle is raised to vertical.

 But that is not the requirement, it is vertical integration of an encapsulated spacecraft

Could they handle the Falcon horizontally and move it to the pad that way but work out something using the rotating service structure on 39a to do vertical integration of the encapsulated spacecraft? Or is that just the wrong height or configuration to work on a Falcon vertically?

RSS will not be used, but will be left in place for the time being.

Quote
It was originally thought that 39A’s shuttle specific Rotating Service Structure (RSS) – which was a key element of payload installation and pad flow processing tasks for Shuttle, but isn’t required for Falcon Heavy – would be removed, before adding more levels to the existing Fixed Service Structure (FSS).

However, SpaceX has now confirmed the RSS will remain for the interim.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/11/pad-39a-spacex-groundwork-falcon-heavy-debut/
« Last Edit: 05/29/2015 04:17 am by Kabloona »

Offline Rummy

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 126
  • CA
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 20
So what are bets on how long will it take to certify the upgraded F9 version?
Six months after delivery of the three launches data packages?

Falcon 9 v1.1 is the baseline. Delta certs will happen, but the basic bar of "can you compete" has been met for Falcon 9.

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5305
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
So long as the delta cert is completed before the use "launch" then it can be used to launch as a replacement for a previously certified configuration. But you can only be awarded a contract for an existing certified configuration. So only a F9v1.1.0 (using a software versioning methodology for minor mods) is currently certified and any increased capabilities of a F9v1.1.1 cannot be used in a bid, but as long as certification of the new configuration is completed before launch then a F9v1.1.1 can be used in place of a F9v1.1.0.

Offline cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3471
  • Liked: 2867
  • Likes Given: 726
So long as the delta cert is completed before the use "launch" then it can be used to launch as a replacement for a previously certified configuration. But you can only be awarded a contract for an existing certified configuration. So only a F9v1.1.0 (using a software versioning methodology for minor mods) is currently certified and any increased capabilities of a F9v1.1.1 cannot be used in a bid, but as long as certification of the new configuration is completed before launch then a F9v1.1.1 can be used in place of a F9v1.1.0.

Which sounds entirely unobjectionable.  The USAF gets assurance that SpaceX has *some* rocket which can fly the mission, and SpaceX gets to use a different rocket if it's ready in time (more or less).  Presumably they can compete for the launch in an expendable configuration, and then use the improved v1.2 to fly a reusable mission (if certified in time).  For example.

Offline nadreck

So long as the delta cert is completed before the use "launch" then it can be used to launch as a replacement for a previously certified configuration. But you can only be awarded a contract for an existing certified configuration. So only a F9v1.1.0 (using a software versioning methodology for minor mods) is currently certified and any increased capabilities of a F9v1.1.1 cannot be used in a bid, but as long as certification of the new configuration is completed before launch then a F9v1.1.1 can be used in place of a F9v1.1.0.

Which sounds entirely unobjectionable.  The USAF gets assurance that SpaceX has *some* rocket which can fly the mission, and SpaceX gets to use a different rocket if it's ready in time (more or less).  Presumably they can compete for the launch in an expendable configuration, and then use the improved v1.2 to fly a reusable mission (if certified in time).  For example.

But that begs the question of what assurances SpaceX needs to provide that the certified LV model can be produced in time for the launch should the target LV not be certified yet.  They will have had to have negotiated a cut off date after which the LV can't be switched.
It is all well and good to quote those things that made it past your confirmation bias that other people wrote, but this is a discussion board damnit! Let us know what you think! And why!

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5305
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
So long as the delta cert is completed before the use "launch" then it can be used to launch as a replacement for a previously certified configuration. But you can only be awarded a contract for an existing certified configuration. So only a F9v1.1.0 (using a software versioning methodology for minor mods) is currently certified and any increased capabilities of a F9v1.1.1 cannot be used in a bid, but as long as certification of the new configuration is completed before launch then a F9v1.1.1 can be used in place of a F9v1.1.0.

Which sounds entirely unobjectionable.  The USAF gets assurance that SpaceX has *some* rocket which can fly the mission, and SpaceX gets to use a different rocket if it's ready in time (more or less).  Presumably they can compete for the launch in an expendable configuration, and then use the improved v1.2 to fly a reusable mission (if certified in time).  For example.

But that begs the question of what assurances SpaceX needs to provide that the certified LV model can be produced in time for the launch should the target LV not be certified yet.  They will have had to have negotiated a cut off date after which the LV can't be switched.
Considering that the launch is 2-3 years from contract award there is plenty of time to get the new configuration certified. Especially if it exists at the time of award as in this case. At SpaceX launch rate of ~12 or more per year thats 24-36 flights before the AF one. It will be certified by then or spaceX will be out of business.

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • USA
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 970
So long as the delta cert is completed before the use "launch" then it can be used to launch as a replacement for a previously certified configuration. But you can only be awarded a contract for an existing certified configuration. So only a F9v1.1.0 (using a software versioning methodology for minor mods) is currently certified and any increased capabilities of a F9v1.1.1 cannot be used in a bid, but as long as certification of the new configuration is completed before launch then a F9v1.1.1 can be used in place of a F9v1.1.0.

Which sounds entirely unobjectionable.  The USAF gets assurance that SpaceX has *some* rocket which can fly the mission, and SpaceX gets to use a different rocket if it's ready in time (more or less).  Presumably they can compete for the launch in an expendable configuration, and then use the improved v1.2 to fly a reusable mission (if certified in time).  For example.

But that begs the question of what assurances SpaceX needs to provide that the certified LV model can be produced in time for the launch should the target LV not be certified yet.  They will have had to have negotiated a cut off date after which the LV can't be switched.
Considering that the launch is 2-3 years from contract award there is plenty of time to get the new configuration certified. Especially if it exists at the time of award as in this case. At SpaceX launch rate of ~12 or more per year thats 24-36 flights before the AF one. It will be certified by then or spaceX will be out of business.
Besides, I'll bet $5 that by the time they would need to launch this, they'll already be on Version 1.3.
(Edit: To be clear, I mean another version past this upcoming 1.2 ready to go for SES this summer)
« Last Edit: 05/29/2015 11:35 pm by rcoppola »
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Falcon 9 v1.1 is the baseline. Delta certs will happen, but the basic bar of "can you compete" has been met for Falcon 9.

Exactly (more-or-less).  SpaceX has been certified to compete (i.e., bid on missions).  That says the DoD has (more-or-less) reasonable confidence that SpaceX can address any outstanding issues needed to satisfy missions for which h an award is granted.  Whether or not an award is granted, and whether or not SpaceX can address such outstanding issues is TBD.  At the risk of stating the obvious, the proof will come when SpaceX is awarded and fulfills such a mission.

Offline sublimemarsupial

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 386
  • Liked: 261
  • Likes Given: 3
Or if you want to be a cynic, the Air Force delayed certification of F9 v1.1 until they were sure that SpaceX would no longer be producing v1.1's. It is now safe to certify v1.1, as there is zero risk that the USAF will ever have to award SpaceX a contract while still getting political points for "introducing competition"

Offline mme

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1510
  • Santa Barbara, CA, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy, Virgo Supercluster
  • Liked: 2034
  • Likes Given: 5381
Or if you want to be a cynic, ...
No thanks, I'll pass.
Space is not Highlander.  There can, and will, be more than one.

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2422
  • California
  • Liked: 2006
  • Likes Given: 5634
Or if you want to be a cynic, the Air Force delayed certification of F9 v1.1 until they were sure that SpaceX would no longer be producing v1.1's. It is now safe to certify v1.1, as there is zero risk that the USAF will ever have to award SpaceX a contract while still getting political points for "introducing competition"

Again with this nonsense?  SpaceX, in the form of their President and COO, has repeatedly and explicitly stated that the AF will be able to fly on an "earlier version" if they so desire.  It doesn't matter if their commercial business has moved on to a slightly different version of the F9, they'll still produce "base-model" F9s for the AF if that's what the AF requires.
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline Jet Black

I will keep watching SLC-4 for signs of a vertical payload integration tower.  A design for a lightweight rotating service structure supposedly exists and its construction was contingent on certification.

Will this be a difficult task, requiring new techniques for spaceX hat they will have to demonstrate work, or will it pretty much be just building the new structure and getting on with it?
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled. -- Richard Feynman

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5305
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Or if you want to be a cynic, the Air Force delayed certification of F9 v1.1 until they were sure that SpaceX would no longer be producing v1.1's. It is now safe to certify v1.1, as there is zero risk that the USAF will ever have to award SpaceX a contract while still getting political points for "introducing competition"

Again with this nonsense?  SpaceX, in the form of their President and COO, has repeatedly and explicitly stated that the AF will be able to fly on an "earlier version" if they so desire.  It doesn't matter if their commercial business has moved on to a slightly different version of the F9, they'll still produce "base-model" F9s for the AF if that's what the AF requires.
Ok, what makes a F9v1.1.1 different from a F9v1.1.0:
1) use of densified prop, but that is a GSE change and is not a flight hardware change just a change of constants in the engine controllers
2) M1Ds with the restrictions on prop flow removed and again changes to the engine controller software constants
3) a stretch to the US tank (this is probably the biggest change concern because of changes required to the flight dynamics and aero models)

In order to use a v1.1.0 vehicle only requires making the US tank its current length and installing the prop flow restrictions on the MiDs with their current software settings in the controllers. The densification system GSE would be deactivated during prop load and rest of count. So making a v1.1.0 vehicle in a year or two from now may not be that difficult. The v1.1.0 vehicle has been flying for 2 years now. So another upgrade a v1.1.2 would not be expected until NET 2017.

NOTE: A fix is not an upgrade and does not require a full cert mod process. It would be like for software a v1.1.0.1 designation (the last numbers designate the fix version which is uped for each fix applied). The fix version number would be now probably close to or mare than 10. I know of several:
1) M1DVAC fix after MDA flight.
2) Increased size of hydraulic tanks for grid fins.
3) Software updates for terminal landing changes (here there are probably several numbering as many as there have been landing attempts) ~6.
So the v1.1.0 actual version is probably something like v1.1.0.8.

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5305
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
I will keep watching SLC-4 for signs of a vertical payload integration tower.  A design for a lightweight rotating service structure supposedly exists and its construction was contingent on certification.

Will this be a difficult task, requiring new techniques for spaceX hat they will have to demonstrate work, or will it pretty much be just building the new structure and getting on with it?
A delta cert review will have to be done once the GSE is installed and the flight hardware ground handling procedures are finalized and ready for use.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
What does the CRS-7 failure say about the USAF certification process?  If a design or process flaw is uncovered as the cause, why didn't the certification review catch the flaw? 

 - Ed Kyle

Offline cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3471
  • Liked: 2867
  • Likes Given: 726
What does the CRS-7 failure say about the USAF certification process?  If a design or process flaw is uncovered as the cause, why didn't the certification review catch the flaw? 

 - Ed Kyle
The failure says, "Flying is a better way to find flaws than review, because humans are fallible and nature cruel.  But failures during flying are expensive, so we do the best we can with reviews."

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Yes, it's almost as if the certification isn't the be-all and end-all of launch service provider review...

More seriously, I don't know why you would expect reviews to catch *everything*. They are done by humans after all. To quote someone: we are never as smart as we think we are.

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4846
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 3429
  • Likes Given: 741
What does the CRS-7 failure say about the USAF certification process?  If a design or process flaw is uncovered as the cause...

That humans are inherently fallible even if they're smart and have engineering degrees? Look at the Taurus fairing failure. Orbital had squads of NASA engineers looking over their shoulder and apparently they all came to the wrong conclusion because after the "fix" was implemented, the fairing failed again.

That failure may turn out the best analogue to CRS-7, very little actionable data, and as a result no clear root cause, but instead a "laundry list" of potential design issues that Orbital "fixed" hoping that one of them was the root cause.

Hopefully SpaceX has more luck than Orbital.
« Last Edit: 07/09/2015 01:54 pm by Kabloona »

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
What does the CRS-7 failure say about the USAF certification process?  If a design or process flaw is uncovered as the cause, why didn't the certification review catch the flaw? 

 - Ed Kyle

Better question might be with regard to the "outstanding issues".   Were they fully addressed, or okayed with reservations?  Counting on a close watch to weed out the answers?
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline mme

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1510
  • Santa Barbara, CA, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy, Virgo Supercluster
  • Liked: 2034
  • Likes Given: 5381
What does the CRS-7 failure say about the USAF certification process?  If a design or process flaw is uncovered as the cause, why didn't the certification review catch the flaw? 

 - Ed Kyle
Given SpaceX has all the telemetry and still doesn't know the root cause there is no way for us to make any assessment of the AF review.
Space is not Highlander.  There can, and will, be more than one.

Offline pippin

  • Regular
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2575
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 45


I look at it this way:
Elon takes money from USAF and stuffs it into technology to go visit some other planets.
ULA that takes USAF money and have it go straight to Boeing and LockMart, those stuffing it into development of yet more technology to kill each other on the battlefield.

I spot just a wee bit of difference there...

Sure. The latter being even more stuff the USAF probably wants to buy so who serves USAF's goals better?

Offline JamesH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 525
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 284
  • Likes Given: 7
Yes, it's almost as if the certification isn't the be-all and end-all of launch service provider review...

More seriously, I don't know why you would expect reviews to catch *everything*. They are done by humans after all. To quote someone: we are never as smart as we think we are.

If reviews caught everything, nothing would ever fail....things fail, therefore reviews do not catch everything.

Doesn't mean reviews are a bad thing, just means they are not and never will be perfect.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Yes, it's almost as if the certification isn't the be-all and end-all of launch service provider review...

More seriously, I don't know why you would expect reviews to catch *everything*. They are done by humans after all. To quote someone: we are never as smart as we think we are.

I suspect that these reviews give you good conscience and are expensive but they don't make rockets much safer.

Offline JamesH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 525
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 284
  • Likes Given: 7
Yes, it's almost as if the certification isn't the be-all and end-all of launch service provider review...

More seriously, I don't know why you would expect reviews to catch *everything*. They are done by humans after all. To quote someone: we are never as smart as we think we are.

I suspect that these reviews give you good conscience and are expensive but they don't make rockets much safer.

At the risk of going all Jim on you, I think they do make them safer.

And now going all unJim, whether hugely extensive and costly reviews are cheaper than simply trying again with some changes expected to fix any problems is another matter.


Offline kevinof

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1594
  • Somewhere on the boat
  • Liked: 1869
  • Likes Given: 1262
30 odd years ago we were one of the first companies to conform to ISO9000 - Someone from some standards group in Europe came to visit and me being young and inexperienced asked him what did ISO9000 actually ensure. He summed it up as - ISO 9000 doesn't ensure you'll have the best product in the World.  You can still produce crap, but you'll produce it consistently.

I suspect that's what a lot of the Air Force certification is about. Your standards across the board, how you manage defects, s/w testing etc. its about your processes and procedures as much as it is about the performance and cost of the vehicle.


Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5305
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
The reviews also can catch math errors an use of bad assumptions. But unknown obscure and new failure modes are not caught by any re view of any kind. They are only found in testing and usage.

Offline D_Dom

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 655
  • Liked: 481
  • Likes Given: 152
30 odd years ago we were...
young and inexperienced

Ah yes, I remember being young and inexperienced 30 years ago. Those were good old days.
I hope to remember these days 30 years from now, THESE are the good old days.
Imagine what todays college students and interns will be experiencing as they remember these days through the lens of decades.
Rose colored glasses, 20-20 visions of hindsight, etc can't begin to compare with subjecting your best and brightest ideas today to the  scrutiny of your co-workers, customers, insurance company, non-advocate third party, etc.

 You must solicit outside analysis of your work, an objective review by a qualified team is extremely valuable, near priceless.

By preparing process description documentation for such a review you are thinking in terms of a different perspective. No-one is 100% right, 100% of the time, cease to cherish opinion, subject your best and brightest to exhaustive analysis. Together we are smarter than any of us individually.
« Last Edit: 07/10/2015 10:17 pm by D_Dom »
Space is not merely a matter of life or death, it is considerably more important than that!

Offline mvpel

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1125
  • New Hampshire
  • Liked: 1303
  • Likes Given: 1685
Of course, for reviews to find things they have to be done correctly before the incident, rather than after...

March 2010: MDA Halts Target Buys From Coleman Aerospace
Quote
MDA Executive Director David Altwegg pointed to the Coleman target during the February rollout of the Fiscal 2011 budget request and complained about quality control problems in industry. The target was found to have a “big-time quality problem,” Altwegg says. “Along about 20,000 feet [altitude], the booster motors light off and the target assumes the trajectory toward the firing unit. We all sat there and watched the target fall into the water.” O’Reilly’s decision was made after an MDA quality control team turned up major problems at Coleman’s facility, according to the source. The company “didn’t pass the 101 test” for quality control, the source told Aviation Week. O’Reilly fumed about poor performance from contractors March 22 during a speech at the 8th Annual Missile Defense Conference in Washington. Though he declined to identify the company, he says he was forced to cut off funding in at least one case for a lack of attention to detail by a manufacturer (Aerospace DAILY, March 23).

I remember that particular splash, and certainly didn't envy Coleman's circumstances. But if they didn't even pass "Quality 101" after the fact, they probably didn't before the fact, and then the question becomes who in the MDA was supposed to be responsible for finding out before the fact?

It would seem that, with the demonstrated, and arguably excessive, rigor of SpaceX's certification review, that the military has learned that lesson.

However, sometimes problems are so subtle, elusive, and rare that they can lurk in systems for years before they're found. For instance, HP-UX patches PHKL_41910 and PHKL_42072, which I ran to ground with the HP WTEC, were released over 10 years after the advent of HP-UX 11.11. Another unenviable situation was caused by a signal-timing problem in an Ethernet card that occurred for the first time in over six years of 24x7 operation of the system - HP fixed it by updating the driver to recognize the erroneous state and retry the signal.

That's why I wasn't really surprised that there wasn't any talk of revoking certification. It certainly sounds like from Elon's comments that this is going to be be one of those subtle, elusive, and rare problems, and what matters more than the existence of a problem is to demonstrate the ability and drive to get to the bottom of it and guarantee that it can never happen again.
« Last Edit: 07/10/2015 10:46 pm by mvpel »
"Ugly programs are like ugly suspension bridges: they're much more liable to collapse than pretty ones, because the way humans (especially engineer-humans) perceive beauty is intimately related to our ability to process and understand complexity. A language that makes it hard to write elegant code makes it hard to write good code." - Eric S. Raymond

Online MP99



What does the CRS-7 failure say about the USAF certification process?  If a design or process flaw is uncovered as the cause, why didn't the certification review catch the flaw? 

 - Ed Kyle

Better question might be with regard to the "outstanding issues".   Were they fully addressed, or okayed with reservations?  Counting on a close watch to weed out the answers?

I wonder how much any concerns raised but then agreed as "no work required" will be looked at again as part of the failure investigation?

Also, I wonder if this flight was carrying any changes which were put in place as a result of the certification process?

Cheers, Martin

Offline watermod

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 519
  • Liked: 177
  • Likes Given: 153
30 odd years ago we were one of the first companies to conform to ISO9000 - Someone from some standards group in Europe came to visit and me being young and inexperienced asked him what did ISO9000 actually ensure. He summed it up as - ISO 9000 doesn't ensure you'll have the best product in the World.  You can still produce crap, but you'll produce it consistently.

I suspect that's what a lot of the Air Force certification is about. Your standards across the board, how you manage defects, s/w testing etc. its about your processes and procedures as much as it is about the performance and cost of the vehicle.

The ISO review bit is really only about repeatable process.   The equivalent for the product functionality is to look at through the lens like those of the  TRIZ  methodologies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIZ

Tags:
 

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