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."
“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.”
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 meCan anyone clarify, or at least, direct me toward the right filing cabinet?
So what are bets on how long will it take to certify the upgraded F9 version?
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
QuoteThe need for vertical payload integration is dictated by mission requirements and spacecraft design and hence are beyond the purview of this or any public forumThat 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.
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
Quote from: Jim on 05/27/2015 02:45 amSo 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.
Quote from: woods170 on 05/27/2015 07:34 amExcept a boatload of money for helping humanity become a multi-planet spieces.Yeah, because joining the military has never changed anyone.
Except a boatload of money for helping humanity become a multi-planet spieces.
They clearly havent required 3 flights plus analysis for minor upgrades to Atlas/Centaur
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.
Quote from: QuantumG on 05/27/2015 07:42 amQuote from: woods170 on 05/27/2015 07:34 amExcept 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...
Quote from: brovane on 05/27/2015 03:55 amIsn'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.
Quote from: OnWithTheShow on 05/27/2015 04:02 amThey clearly havent required 3 flights plus analysis for minor upgrades to Atlas/Centaur F9 upgrades are not minor
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
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.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 05/27/2015 11:56 amQuote from: brovane on 05/27/2015 03:55 amIsn'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.
http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/05/27/spacex-cleared-to-launch-u-s-national-security-satellites/QuoteThe 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....
Quote from: puhnitor on 05/27/2015 03:27 am2. 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.jpgThe 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
Quote from: Jim on 05/27/2015 03:46 amQuote from: puhnitor on 05/27/2015 03:27 am2. 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.jpgThe 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 spacecraftCould 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?
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.
Quote from: Jim on 05/27/2015 02:45 amSo 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?
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.
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 05/29/2015 05:12 pmSo 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.
Quote from: cscott on 05/29/2015 07:29 pmQuote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 05/29/2015 05:12 pmSo 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.
Quote from: nadreck on 05/29/2015 07:33 pmQuote from: cscott on 05/29/2015 07:29 pmQuote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 05/29/2015 05:12 pmSo 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.
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.
Or if you want to be a cynic, ...
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"
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.
Quote from: sublimemarsupial on 05/30/2015 02:38 amOr 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.
Quote from: Helodriver on 05/26/2015 10:51 pmI 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?
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
What does the CRS-7 failure say about the USAF certification process? If a design or process flaw is uncovered as the cause...
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...
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.
Quote from: ugordan on 07/09/2015 01:47 pmYes, 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.
30 odd years ago we were...young and inexperienced
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).
Quote from: edkyle99 on 07/09/2015 01:40 pmWhat 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 KyleBetter 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?
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.